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

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

I expect the road where the op's delayed for several miles will be named soon. Or she could film these errant cyclists and post the footage here? The point about the windows is it was thought to be covered by the MOT. It isn't.

...name the road you get delayed on for several miles behind cyclists?

• could be the start of a whole new thread?
  
  

I'm not claiming to have delayed anyone for several miles, but part of yesterday's outing included Onibury - Ludlow Racecourse - Bromfield - Priors Halton - Ludlow. 5 miles of unclassified road that bypasses the A49, with one stretch of around 200 yds where it is wide enough for a car to pass anything, safely or otherwise, without leaving the tarmac. The one car that caught up with me passed when I moved off road into a very muddy gateway. No bushes in the middle of the road yet, but a fair amount of grass - this proper rural, where mud cowshit ice and agricultural vehicles are the main hazards. I'm sure other rural cyclists can identify find similar parts of their regular routes that are similar...

On the subject of limited visibility: the front offside door pillar of my Land Rover generates a blind spot big enough for a car to hide in, never mind the low profile of a cyclist. The number of 4WDs (and presumably vans / pickups?) driven by people who don't move their heads is possibly a greater concern than how tinted a window is?

(starts new arguement, goes back to hiding in the hills)

Great pic.

I think it's a terrible pic for many reasons, not the least of which is that it does lead directly to your question. The text suggests that you leave as much room as you would a car - well if that were a car you were overtaking, how much room would you be leaving? Probably inches. If the cyclist were on the right of the lane, then there is no possible way that you could overtake 'safely' (if we mean by that to leave several feet of room), but you could 'safely' overtake by leaving the same inches you would a car.

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?

well I can't see what the cyclist can see, or feel, but I would suggest one or more from a list that could include
approaching a:- junction on the left

                        parked car
                        slower cyclist
                        pothole
                        pedestrian about to step off the kerb
                        child
                        dog not on a lead
                        swan
                        bus
                        dustcart
                        turning right
                        roadworks
                       roundabout
                       pick up truck with blacked out window

or is affected by low sun, cross winds, tiredness, aspergers, a sneezing fit

and so on

As for the driving test and making progress.

I agree with everything you said about making progress etc, speed should be related to the conditions. But unfortunately, just recently I was reminded of the 'you must make progress' thing with our daughters test, and how I had experienced the same thing. Unfortunately instructors (and I'm talking about instructors from both big name organisations and smaller independents), are telling their pupils to travel at the speed limit, and to take gaps into traffic that IMHO are not sufficient.

Daughter had two instructors - fired the first one when it became apparent that the pressure to 'make progress' was wrecking her confidence and during the times she was driving with me I could see her driving getting worse and worse. The repeated line was "You are not capable of making sufficient progress. You are going to fail your test". First one also told her that she should overtake vehicles on a straight road with blind rises, because she should know what if any vehicles were in the dip, having seen them descend into the dip (the particular road is known locally as the 'switchback'). How the hell one is to figure out what vehicles may have entered the road from driveways in the dip I still don't know.

Second one, was far more reasonable about the making progress thing, had her confidence restored in one session, but still needed progress to be made in excess of what I personally consider safe.

My test, 15 years ago, was somewhat unusual, as it only lasted 15 minutes. During the course of my test, there was a roundabout at the top of a blind rise, that I and the examiner felt I had approached too quickly, which he mentioned to me at the end, so I got an opportunity to pass on how I felt about this making progress and driving at the speed limit stuff, particularly on unfamiliar roads and that I had found that during the course of my tuition for the test that there were various things required of me during the test that I would quite simply not continue to do. He agreed that it 'could' be a problem and went on his way.

1st one sounds like a twat, if your daughter isn't ready to make progress at a rate that will be considered correct for the test, then she's probably not ready for the test. Sometimes people are rushed towards it as the be all and end all, obviously the aim is lifelong safe driving but it can get expensive if you're paying out £20-25 an hour. Hopefully the legislation regarding minimum time spent learning is brought in, more like the Skandinavian countries.
I'd probably work on confidence with her and maybe see if I can get her to enjoy driving a bit quicker round some country roads, it can be fun when the pressure is off

[QUOTE=Mirius;3286742 If the cyclist were on the right of the lane, then there is no possible way that you could overtake 'safely'[/QUOTE]

This is exactly the point. If the cyclist in the pic is in the right hand half of the lane, the cyclist cannot be over taken safely. If the cyclist is in the left hand half of the lane, the cyclist can over taken safely.

If a cyclist is in the right hand side of the lane, for no discernable reason for an extended period of time, the cyclist is effectively blocking opportunities for vehicles to safely overtake.

I think he's saying if the cyclist is in the right of the lane it's probably for a reason that you can't see. It could also be that they've been watching too many war on the road style programmes and is being a dick, should still wait behind them though, as you've said you would.

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.

It also appears to be blue sky so must not be in Britain.

That was my 1st thought too, although the signage convinced me it is, but has been photoshopped.

1st one sounds like a twat,

IMHO he certainly was :)

if your daughter isn't ready to make progress at a rate that will be considered correct for the test, then she's probably not ready for the test.

She passed the test with the being continually subjected to 'you're not going/ doing things fast enough, restored the self confidence within the period of a 2 hour lesson :).

The second guy was not anywhere like the first guy on the whole making progress thing, but, there still was the bit of driving at the speed limit shows you have confidence.

IMHO, most 60mph roads here abouts can't be safely negotiated at much more than 45mph on a good day, but both instructors wanted them driven at 60 for the test.

Incidentally, at the time of doing her test, she had been driving for just short of 2 years, with the exception of a 6 month period that she had to wait after us moving back to the UK to apply for a UK provisional. The timing of the move was such that it wouldn't have been worth her doing the test in the other country and converting the licence here because the paperwork would not have come through before moving date. UK test is a lot easier too, so why not take advantage ;)

On the subject of limited visibility: the front offside door pillar of my Land Rover generates a blind spot big enough for a car to hide in, never mind the low profile of a cyclist. The number of 4WDs (and presumably vans / pickups?) driven by people who don't move their heads is possibly a greater concern than how tinted a window is?

Nothing makes my blood boil more than 'blind spots'. There is just no fucking reason for them these days. It should be mandatory that all vehicles have sufficient windows, mirrors, sensors or cameras to be able to see around them.
Hitting someone because they were in your blind spot should be charged with driving without due care and attention.

^ but when we live in a country where you can murder someone who was on a bicycle and get no punishment if you just say the sun was in your eyes so you couldn't see them, that's not going to happen.

There are blind spots on all cars, it's just they are easy to check by moving your head a little, it's the not moving your head that is the problem and relying too much on mirrors. It's a bit different for HGV which have massive full on areas that cannot be seen through any amount of neck stretching, these should be covered by sensors and whatnot. Also people should stay out of both kinds of blind spots anyway, no matter what vehicle you're in.

My Land Rover has I presume huge blind spots, (I don't drive anything else, on the rare occasion when I do drive) but it doesn't prevent me from seeing other things on the road. It is another excuse for the motorist to use to absolve themselves of blame.

On the subject of blind spots in the road I was recently involved in an incident on a minor rural road, just around a bend. I had to spend a few minutes in the road dealing with the victim of a collision with a van, which was parked a few yards further up the road. Until I could get someone else to go around the corner and slow oncoming traffic I was in considerable danger as every single driver came around the corner and was unable to stop in the distance which they could see to be clear. There were several near misses, screeches of panic braking, and even hooters sounded after the car passed me, such that I was about to move the victim, against all my instinct, as the risk of further damage was less than the risk of being struck by a car.
I am utterly sick of drivers who aim for the speed limit instead of thinking about what might be an appropriate speed or behaviour

People ain't as easy to kill in cars as they used to be, driving doesn't have such a personal level of danger, which is good but people compensate by driving badly. In the above situation I think I'd of moved my car back around the corner with hazards on, assuming there was time, or used the warning triangle that everyone has in all their cars.

Park your car in the road? Tell them to fuck off while you deal with victim?

EDIT: What snotty said

People ain't as easy to kill in cars as they used to be...

?

In the above situation I think I'd of moved my car back around the corner with hazards on, assuming there was time, or used the warning triangle that everyone has in all their cars.

I was on foot.

?

Cars are much safer for passengers than they used to be.

Fashion a warning triangle from sticks and bioluminescent insects.

I imagine you did all you could then, well done too, can't of been easy dealing with an accident whatever traffic is up to up to.

People ain't as easy to kill in cars as they used to be

I've spent too long in the sticks. Now that hunting with dogs has been legislated against, I had visions of ... never mind

This is exactly the point. If the cyclist in the pic is in the right hand half of the lane, the cyclist cannot be over taken safely. If the cyclist is in the left hand half of the lane, the cyclist can over taken safely.

If a cyclist is in the right hand side of the lane, for no discernable reason for an extended period of time, the cyclist is effectively blocking opportunities for vehicles to safely overtake.

Actually my point was merely that the photo and guidance makes no sense once you move beyond face value, it had nothing to do with why a cyclist might be on the right hand side of the road or whether they even need a reason to do so.

My personal opinion as a cyclist and a car driver who lives in the country is that cyclists can take whatever position they feel appropriate in a lane and don't need a reason. As for overtaking a rider who has taken a position in the right hand of the lane, then so long as it's clear that the cyclist is not about to enter the other lane themselves, then simply by being in the other lane and not overtaking faster than necessary you are deemed to be safe.

Now if we want to talk about road users who are hard to overtake safely then we should be talking about horse riders...

I reckon overtaking cyclists fast is fine, the only things you want to overtake slowly is horses, I think cyclists are aware what a car is and (within reason obviously) getting past them quickly (within a speed safe for the road/situation) means less time spent alongside, which is the dangerous bit. The same way you stick your foot down if you are overtaking a car. I get annoyed when people overtake me at about 1mph faster than I'm going because if something unforeseen happens on the other side of the road, their first reaction will be to avoid it and take me out ib the process.