# Motorbike incident



## cjb (4 Sep 2011)

Cycling along a quite straight backroad today, not another vehicle in sight, when seemingly out of nowhere a high powered motorbike overtook me with inches to spare. To say the sudden noise made me jump would be a massive understatement and it was while before I recovered my composure. I would like to think he didn't do it deliberately, but I'm not too sure and it isn't the first time this has happened.


----------



## Glow worm (4 Sep 2011)

cjb said:


> Cycling along a quite straight backroad today, not another vehicle in sight, when seemingly out of nowhere a high powered motorbike overtook me with inches to spare. To say the sudden noise made me jump would be a massive understatement and it was while before I recovered my composure. I would like to think he didn't do it deliberately, but I'm not too sure and it isn't the first time this has happened.



A lot of the motorbikers around here are absolutely mental. Console yourself that the odds are that Darwin will deal with them sooner or later. I've had similar happen to me on many occasions. One way of dealing with them is to move a little to the right before they pass, so just as they do, you have plenty of space to retreat into when they pass ridiculously close. Of course if you just happen to release a snot rocket as they pass, just put it down to poor timing as well


----------



## fossyant (4 Sep 2011)

Hmm, major A roads at weekends - sometimes these bikes you can't hear until right upon you they are going that fast.


----------



## cjb (4 Sep 2011)

Glow worm said:


> A lot of the motorbikers around here are absolutely mental. Console yourself that the odds are that Darwin will deal with them sooner or later. I've had similar happen to me on many occasions. One way of dealing with them is to move a little to the right before they pass, so just as they do, you have plenty of space to retreat into when they pass ridiculously close. Of course if you just happen to release a snot rocket as they pass, just put it down to poor timing as well



The thing is I didn't hear him until he was next to me because of the speed he was travelling. It's a bit like low level jet fighters - by the time you know they're there it's already too late !!


----------



## Twigman (5 Sep 2011)

Glow worm said:


> Darwin will deal with them sooner or later.


 bloody typical comment from non-motorcyclist

Why is it assumed all motorcyclists have a death wish?

I am probably one of those motorcyclists you've thought as 'absolutely mental' - 30 years of it behind me and I'm still here, all in one piece - I'll stop there before I tempt fate.


----------



## cjb (5 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> bloody typical comment from non-motorcyclist
> 
> Why is it assumed all motorcyclists have a death wish?
> 
> I am probably one of those motorcyclists you've thought as 'absolutely mental' - 30 years of it behind me and I'm still here, all in one piece - I'll stop there before I tempt fate.



As a motorcyclist, do you know any of your fraternity who think it's fun to deliberately scare the s**t out cyclists by passing close to them at high speed with 120+ decibel exhausts?


----------



## abo (5 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I am probably one of those motorcyclists you've thought as 'absolutely mental'



Why, do you ride like a bellend?


----------



## byegad (5 Sep 2011)

There's a local Ducati rider who is rather like your rider. He must be travelling at over well 100mph on one of the lanes we both use. There's every chance he'll kill himself and sadly take someone with him. Tosser.


----------



## the snail (5 Sep 2011)

Don't be too hard on motorcyclists - you might need an organ transplant one day


----------



## Sheepy1209 (6 Sep 2011)

Why is it OK for cyclists to generalise about motorcyclists when we all complain at drivers generalising about cyclists?

(Yes, I ride a motorbike and just like when I'm cycling it's primarily a mode of transport. If I passed you on an A-road you'd hardly notice me.)


----------



## rustychisel (6 Sep 2011)

Sheepy1209 said:


> Why is it OK for cyclists to generalise about motorcyclists when we all complain at drivers generalising about cyclists?
> 
> (Yes, I ride a motorbike and just like when I'm cycling it's primarily a mode of transport. If I passed you on an A-road you'd hardly notice me.)




Obviously it's not, and you make a fair point. 

There exists, however, a certain subset of motorcycle riders who are feckin' plonkers and think the world revolves around them, so that excessive speed and loud exhausts are their god-given right. Like boy racers, they always like to see what effect they have, so that the bloke who went past me a couple of years ago at close range with his front wheel in the air copped a nice big finger gesture. He saw it, then wanted to u-turn and make a fight of it until I pointed out I already had his rego plate on the phone camera and I'd be sending it straight to the police.

Knuckledraggers. It's really tempting to hope they take themselves out, but I refuse to lower myself to their level of engagement.


----------



## Oldbloke (6 Sep 2011)

This is known as "stealth bombing" by a few bikers who get some enjoyment from roaring at high speeed past other road users, particularly dozy car drivers, in an attempt to scare them *hitless.

Not clever, but neither is RLJing, walking in the road with a phone clamped to your ear oblivious to others, driving along shaving/drinking coffee, the list goes on.


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Sheepy1209 said:


> Why is it OK for cyclists to generalise about motorcyclists when we all complain at drivers generalising about cyclists?



Would you or Twigman like to point out where in this thread anyone has made any generalisations about motorcyclists?


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I am probably one of those motorcyclists you've thought as 'absolutely mental' - 30 years of it behind me and I'm still here, all in one piece - I'll stop there before I tempt fate.



You are saying you are the type of motorcyclist who would cut up a cyclist at 3-4 times their speed for a laugh?

You sound delightful.


----------



## byegad (6 Sep 2011)

I rode a motorcycle for nearly twenty years, and travelling at highly illegal speeds on a country lane is a stupid thing to do. This is not a generalisation about motorcyclists, just a comment about one rider.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

cjb said:


> As a motorcyclist, do you know any of your fraternity who think it's fun to deliberately scare the s**t out cyclists by passing close to them at high speed with 120+ decibel exhausts?



I have never met anyone who would do such a thing deliberately. Perhaps you have a scewed perception of what is going on here?


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

abo said:


> Why, do you ride like a bellend?



In my opinion I don't 
In your's? Possibly


----------



## Glow worm (6 Sep 2011)

the snail said:


> Don't be too hard on motorcyclists - you might need an organ transplant one day


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

rustychisel said:


> ......, so that excessive speed and loud exhausts are their god-given right. Like boy racers, *they always like to see what effect they have, *


I admit I ride fast.
yes, my bike has a loud exhaust.

but

wtf does *they always like to see what effect they have, * mean?

On a motorcycle there's no time to worry about what's gone past, you are always focussed on the next bend, the next side road, the next hazard, the next overtake.........


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> You are saying you are the type of motorcyclist who would cut up a cyclist at 3-4 times their speed for a laugh?
> 
> You sound delightful.



Define cut up.
I would happily overtake a cyclist at 5-6 times their speed.

What of it?


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Define cut up.



What happened to the OP.

I'd have thought that was pretty obvious what I was talking about.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

Oldbloke said:


> This is known as "stealth bombing" by a few bikers who get some enjoyment from roaring at high speeed past other road users, particularly dozy car drivers, in an attempt to scare them *hitless.



Really?
In 30 years of riding sportsbikes I've never ever heard the term.
Would you divulge your source? Or have you just made that upi?


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> What happened to the OP.


inches to spare?

Is this a man's or a woman's definition of an inch?


----------



## Melonfish (6 Sep 2011)

One sunny sunday morning out cycling i could hear two motorbikes in the distance, loud things as they were winding their way round the hills you could hear the engine noise bouncing around. Imagine my suprise when at the next turn where i thought two motorbikes would be instead were two cyclists...

naturally the motorbikes passed me at the next turn and doing something close to mach 3.0 to boot!


----------



## Oldbloke (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Really?
> In 30 years of riding sportsbikes I've never ever heard the term.
> Would you divulge your source? Or have you just made that upi?




This was regularly referred to and discussed in bike magazines in the '90s & 00s "Bike" was one source.

I've no idea if it still is as I'm no longer riding sports bikes,and no, I don't make up nonsense just for the fun of it.

Don't bother with any more pathetic remarks like that, thanks.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

Oldbloke said:


> This was regularly referred to and discussed in bike magazines in the '90s & 00s "Bike" was one source.


Really? I subscribed to that mag for around 12 years (it is one of the more grown up and sensible bike mags) through the 90s and beyond. I never ever read that term. 
I also read some of the less 'responsible' bike mags of the period 'Performance Bike' , 'fast Bike' etc that perhaps appealed to the more lairy biker but never once read of the practice of 'stealth bombing'.


Oldbloke said:


> Don't bother with any more pathetic remarks like that, thanks.


I'll make whatever remarks I see fit.
I still believe you are making it up.


----------



## BSRU (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Really? I subscribed to that mag for around 12 years (it is one of the more grown up and sensible bike mags) through the 90s and beyond. I never ever read that term.
> I also read some of the less 'responsible' bike mags of the period 'Performance Bike' , 'fast Bike' etc that perhaps appealed to the more lairy biker but never once read of the practice of 'stealth bombing'.



In my days on motorised two wheels before changing to human powered two wheels, I never heard/read the term either or ever had another biker mention any such practice.


----------



## Glow worm (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Define cut up.
> I would happily overtake a cyclist at 5-6 times their speed.
> 
> What of it?




So I'm doing 20mph- you'd happily pass me at 100mph? If so, then sir, you are an arse.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

Glow worm said:


> So I'm doing 20mph- you'd happily pass me at 100mph? If so, then sir, you are an arse.



no but if they were doing 10mph I'd happily pass them at 60mph on a NSL road


----------



## cd365 (6 Sep 2011)

I'm a motorcyclist and I have also never heard the term stealth bombing.

My boss does motorcycle instructing and he was only explaining yesterday how they train motorcylists that when you overtake a cyclist you should always move to the other side of the road, i.e. cross the whiteline, if it is not safe to do so then you shouldn't overtake.

So the motorcyclist that the OP was referring to was just a numpty and not indicitave of all motorcyclists.


----------



## cjb (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I have never met anyone who would do such a thing deliberately.




Thank you for answering my question.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

I find it difficult to believe that many motorcyclists would risk a major high speed accident just to frighten a cyclist, would you gamble a possibly ten grand motorbike, increased insurance premium, license, personal injury etc just for such pathetic 'fun'? Modern motorcycles are very quiet and the speed disparity is often sufficient to make you jump as they pass. To expect a motorbike to follow you at 10mph until the other lane is clear to overtake is utterly ridiculous. If you can't cycle in a fairly straight line ie anticipating drain covers, potholes etc and have to avoid them by swerving rather then gently adjusting your line so giving other road users ample opportunity to give you room then perhaps you shouldn't be on the road at all.

There are *rseholes on the road in all shapes and forms. You only have to walk 100 yards through any town and you will seem many *rseholes on bicycles and they don't have the decency to be on the road, 'cos they are cycling on the pavement with utter disregard for pedestrians.


I type this as a cyclist/ motorcyclist and driver (and never had an accident in thirty years so I'm a self righteous arrogant b*stard who is definitely right about this topic!).


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> I find it difficult to believe that many motorcyclists would risk a major high speed accident just to frighten a cyclist, would you gamble a possibly ten grand motorbike, increased insurance premium, license, personal injury etc just for such pathetic 'fun'?



Why not? People do it in cars all the time.


----------



## adds21 (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Why not? People do it in cars all the time.



Do they? IMO, almost all the bad driving I see is just that, bad driving. It's not got anything to do with trying to "scare" me, as a cyclist (or for pathetic 'fun').


----------



## Mad at urage (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> I find it difficult to believe that many motorcyclists would risk a major high speed accident just to frighten a cyclist, would you gamble a possibly ten grand motorbike, increased insurance premium, license, personal injury etc just for such pathetic 'fun'? Modern motorcycles are very quiet and the speed disparity is often sufficient to make you jump as they pass. *To expect a motorbike to follow you at 10mph until the other lane is clear to overtake is utterly ridiculous. If you can't cycle in a fairly straight line ie anticipating drain covers, potholes etc and have to avoid them by swerving rather then gently adjusting your line so giving other road users ample opportunity to give you room then perhaps you shouldn't be on the road at all.*
> 
> There are *rseholes on the road in all shapes and forms. You only have to walk 100 yards through any town and you will seem many *rseholes on bicycles and they don't have the decency to be on the road, 'cos they are cycling on the pavement with utter disregard for pedestrians.
> 
> ...


So you believe that expecting a (motor)cyclist to comply with the HC is ridiculous? Do you understand what the HC means by "vulnerable road users"? 



adds21 said:


> Do they? IMO, almost all the bad driving I see is just that, bad driving. It's not got anything to do with trying to "scare" me, as a cyclist (or for pathetic 'fun').


So the ones that slap cyclists, lean out and shout as they pass, spit at and/or throw things at cyclists as they pass are "just" bad driving? Certainly most close passes are simply that, but I (and others on this forum) have experienced all of these behaviours. I suspect there is more than "just" bad driving going on here and (as there are nasty people and nice people using all forms of road transport) I suspect that some motorcyclists fall into this category, when they pass.

Passing at six times the cyclist's speed and in the same lane, often is "just" bad driving, I agree. I've seen people knocked off by the slipstream though and "just" bad driving does not excuse the behaviour.


----------



## adds21 (6 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> So the ones that slap cyclists, lean out and shout as they pass, spit at and/or throw things at cyclists as they pass are "just" bad driving? Certainly most close passes are simply that, but I (and others on this forum) have experienced all of these behaviours. I suspect there is more than "just" bad driving going on here and (as there are nasty people and nice people using all forms of road transport) I suspect that some motorcyclists fall into this category, when they pass.



No, that's more that just bad driving, which is why i said "almost all". The point is, it's very easy to get paranoid when on a bicycle, and think that most bad passes are done for "pathetic fun", when in fact they're not, they're simply because the drive is incompetent. 

Not that a little paranoia is necessary a bad thing when cycling.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage, What do you ride, drive?


----------



## Mad at urage (6 Sep 2011)

Started on a pedal cycle: In London that is (IMO) all that is needed to get anywhere within about an hour.

Got on a m'cycle late teens, rode dispatch for a while, continued on m'cycle for several years longer. Eventually got rid of those as cycle-commuting was nearly as quick and gave more benefit (fitness); got a car licence as it was useful in employment. Having owned a couple of 1950s and 1960 sports cars and a couple of 4WDs (still have one), I currently drive a company Prius most of the time that I'm not cycling.

Why?


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Why not? People do it in cars all the time.



But, for a motorcyclist to risk collision with a cyclist it is likely that both will come off very badly. In a car there is a sense of isolation from other road users which makes a close pass to a cyclist seem rather inconsequential ie as long as you give the a little room ie a couple of feet that seems enough to many drivers. If a lane is ten feet wide, there is still enough room for a motorcycle to pass albeit close to or on the white line, while giving the cyclist several feet of space - how much elbow room do you need?

I also suggest that any of the posters on this forum who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake do not drive cars or ride motorcycles, so are posting from a standpoint of ignorance (provocative I know but how about an admission by everyone here what their experience is?)


----------



## cjb (6 Sep 2011)

As the OP, I have never heard the term "stealth bombing", but that would seem to be a fair description of what I have experienced on more than one occasion on quiet, yet long and fairly straight, country roads.


----------



## Mad at urage (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> But, for a motorcyclist to risk collision with a cyclist it is likely that both will come off very badly. In a car there is a sense of isolation from other road users which makes a close pass to a cyclist seem rather inconsequential ie as long as you give the a little room ie a couple of feet that seems enough to many drivers. If a lane is ten feet wide, there is still enough room for a motorcycle to pass albeit close to or on the white line, while giving the cyclist several feet of space - how much elbow room do you need?
> 
> *I also suggest that any of the posters on this forum who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake do not drive cars or ride motorcycles, so are posting from a standpoint of ignorance (provocative I know but how about an admission by everyone here what their experience is?)*



I would suggest that you are wrong.


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> But, for a motorcyclist to risk collision with a cyclist it is likely that both will come off very badly. In a car there is a sense of isolation from other road users which makes a close pass to a cyclist seem rather inconsequential ie as long as you give the a little room ie a couple of feet that seems enough to many drivers. If a lane is ten feet wide, there is still enough room for a motorcycle to pass albeit close to or on the white line, while giving the cyclist several feet of space - how much elbow room do you need?
> 
> *I also suggest that any of the posters on this forum who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake do not drive cars or ride motorcycles, so are posting from a standpoint of ignorance (provocative I know but how about an admission by everyone here what their experience is?)*



Not only do cyclists think that, but the law implicitly states that is exactly what drivers should do.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Sep 2011)

It can be difficult to judge the speed of a motorbike as a cyclist because the noise makes them seem faster, however, the vast majority of motorcyclists that I see when I am driving are breaking the speed limit, and often by a considerable margin. It's now become something of a joke between myself and Mrs TF when we see a motorbike obeying the speed limit and riding sensibly. At the weekend we were competing in a hill climb on our bikes up Snake Pass and were passed over the course of the morning by what seemed like over a hundred motorbikes coming out of Glossop nearly all of them travelling at high speeds. Not a comfortable experience for the cyclists.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> It can be difficult to judge the speed of a motorbike as a cyclist because the noise makes them seem faster, however, the vast majority of motorcyclists that I see when I am driving are breaking the speed limit, and often by a considerable margin. It's now become something of a joke between myself and Mrs TF when we see a motorbike obeying the speed limit and riding sensibly. At the weekend we were competing in a hill climb on our bikes up Snake Pass and were passed over the course of the morning by what seemed like over a hundred motorbikes coming out of Glossop nearly all of them travelling at high speeds. Not a comfortable experience for the cyclists.



But they only have two wheels so are permitted to travel twice the limit, I believe........


----------



## Bobtoo (6 Sep 2011)

With block booking and intensive courses it's possible to get a full motorcycle licence (or car licence for that matter) with only a few hours of tuition/experience, and quite a lot of people do. 

Whatever the vehicle you are piloting, if you are leaving other road users reeling in your wake you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I would suggest that you are wrong.



Sorry, I am definitely right.


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> It can be difficult to judge the speed of a motorbike as a cyclist because the noise makes them seem faster, however, the vast majority of motorcyclists that I see when I am driving are breaking the speed limit, and often by a considerable margin. It's now become something of a joke between myself and Mrs TF when we see a motorbike obeying the speed limit and riding sensibly. At the weekend we were competing in a hill climb on our bikes up Snake Pass and were passed over the course of the morning by what seemed like over a hundred motorbikes coming out of Glossop nearly all of them travelling at high speeds. Not a comfortable experience for the cyclists.



Let's not get into generalizations people. I'm sure 'a lot' do it, much like 'a lot' of cyclists jump red lights, ride on the pavement etc, but 'a lot' doesn't necessarily mean 'most' let alone 'all'.

People behaving themselves are rarely noticed.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

Quote from HC:
'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)'.
The photo in the HC shows the overtaking car almost completely in the other lane giving probably about 6ft of room for the cyclist (who could be a foot over towards the gutter. If this is the space required to overtake in a car then on that particular road, if it was a another car being overtaken the overtaker would need to be on the opposite pavement (like many bloody cyclists!!). Overtaking another car can easily be accomplished with a gap of four to five feet. The HC says '*move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in*'. Nowhere does it give a specific distance
When setting out on a 300 mile journey in a car, and you get a mile down the road and you are stuck behind a cyclist doing 10mph, do all you drivers follow it for miles waiting until you can overtake on the other side of the road? I put it to the defendants Ma'Lord that the vast majority would wait until they could go past leaving a three or four foot gap and then pass quite safely.
Another point is this, if it is only safe for ALL vehicles on the road to pass a cyclist on the wrong side of the road, why do all the macho hypocrites with helmet cams on this forum put videos of themselves hurtling past other (vulnerable) cyclists with only a couple of feet clearance - surely this must be illegal!


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> Quote from HC: 'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)'. The photo in the HC shows the overtaking car almost completely in the other lane giving probably about 6ft of room for the cyclist ...




With you so far.



> (who could be a foot over towards the gutter.




Aaand I'm out.

I'm not sure why you seem to think we are all supposed to be good little peons who doff our caps and move out of the way of the superior and more important car.

If I'm on a quiet back road and it appears I'm holding people up going 10mph up a hill, then when I find a safe place to pull in I'll let people overtake. If there isn't a safe place, then I won't, and if someone tries to bully their way past me putting my safety at risk I'll have no sympathy.




> Another point is this, if it is only safe for ALL vehicles on the road to pass a cyclist on the wrong side of the road, why do all the *macho hypocrites* with helmet cams on this forum put videos of themselves hurtling past other (vulnerable) cyclists with only a couple of feet clearance - surely this must be illegal!




Now you're just being offensive. Care to give examples, and cite the relevant sections of the highway code being broken?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> When setting out on a 300 mile journey in a car, and you get a mile down the road and you are stuck behind a cyclist doing 10mph, do all you drivers follow it for miles waiting until you can overtake on the other side of the road? I put it to the defendants Ma'Lord that the vast majority would wait until they could go past leaving a three or four foot gap and then pass quite safely.



Eh? Either there is no oncoming vehicle - in which case there should be no problem moving out fully into the other lane - or there is an oncoming vehicle, in which case an overtake would be deeply stupid, not to say dangerous. 

Think this through.


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Now you're just being offensive. Care to give examples, and cite the relevant sections of the highway code being broken?



Could someone define a 'safe-overtake' please. Is it the same distance for bicycles, motorcycles, cars, lorries etc? One person's fragile sensibilities may be permanently damaged by a motorcycle passing ten feet away at 40mph while another person may be completely unfazed. I do not advocating unsafe overtaking, I am merely questioning whether or not you have to leave a ginormous gap that you could get a bus (or two) in between a vehicle and a cyclist. I ride a motorbike, around town I probably allow five feet or so between me and any cyclists when I pass. Show me the HC regulations I've broken. Are you seriously telling me I'm virtually guilty of attempted murder, do I constantly leave sobbing, nervously-wrecked cyclists in my wake.


Re my point about macho cyclists, it is a VERY valid point. Generally you cannot hear another bicycle, at least motorbikes, cars, lorries et al have engines and can almost always be heard (even electric cars create tyre noise) so giving you some notice of their approach. A fast travelling cyclist on your back wheel just as you swerve around a drain cover is just asking for a collision, so why shouldn't the overtaking cyclist also have to allow the same gap between them and the overtakee?


----------



## Clive Atton (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1531329"]
Guess what happened to me on the way home tonight?
[/quote]

You stopped off for fish and chips?

Goodnight.


----------



## growingvegetables (6 Sep 2011)

> I am merely questioning whether or not you have to leave a ginormous gap that you could get a bus (or two) in between a vehicle and a cyclist.



Ummmm - did you look at the HC picture? A "bus (or two)"? May I suggest Specsavers? 

A little bird tells me you might not be the considerate and courteous driver I'd pull in for and allow to overtake? The kind of driver who "covers my arse"? The driver I'd be embarrassed not to give way to?

I get the feeling that you may be the kind of impatient driver, in front of whom I might feel it necessary to be a *stroppy, obnoxious, self-righteous git*  ------ and *enjoy* holding you up for every bit as long as I safely could.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> Do they? IMO, almost all the bad driving I see is just that, bad driving. It's not got anything to do with trying to "scare" me, as a cyclist (or for pathetic 'fun').



I only started cycling in April and I've had a passenger throw a can of Strongbow at me, and a car coming in the opposite direction on an empty country road cross into my lane to drive at me. Bad driving, I think not. Some people just like to intimidate more vulnerable road users. And that goes for cyclists who 'buzz' peds as well.


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> I also suggest that any of the posters on this forum who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake do not drive cars or ride motorcycles, so are posting from a standpoint of ignorance (provocative I know but how about an admission by everyone here what their experience is?)





Jezston said:


> Not only do cyclists think that, but the law implicitly states that is exactly what drivers should do.


 The law says nothing, explicitly or implicitly, about the amount of room and the law certainly doesn't implies that overtaking vehicle should move completely out of the lane.

The HC says that you should allow "_at least as much space as you would a car_". When a car overtakes another car, there is usually not that much room between them. Depending on the road, having one car in each lane, whether travelling the same or opposite directions, there can be under 1m between cars. That's all the HC says.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> The law says nothing, explicitly or implicitly, about the amount of room and the law certainly doesn't implies that overtaking vehicle should move completely out of the lane.
> 
> The HC says that you should allow "_at least as much space as you would a car_". When a car overtakes another car, there is usually not that much room between them. Depending on the road, having one car in each lane, whether travelling the same or opposite directions, there can be under 1m between cars. That's all the HC says.



I think the wording is unhelpfully ambiguous. The image provided with the online version of the Highway Code certainly suggests that overtaking vehicles should move into the other lane. But I suppose, if that was the intention, a more specific wording would be 'position yourself on the road as if you were overtaking a car.'

If the wording is actually meant to suggest you can, or should, overtake a cyclist leaving the same amount of room between you and his and her handlebars as you would a car wing mirror, then frankly a serious rethink is required. That's much too dangerous, certainly when you consider the greater speed differentials, and the increased vulnerability.


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2011)

Certainly ambiguous and I certainly leave more room when overtaking a cyclist in a powered vehicle than is available when overtaking another car. Although I think that the bike-on-bike interactions mentioned above do also merit some consideration.

What the law (and the HC) certainly does not do, contrary to Jezston's assertion, is say that... "*a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake".*


----------



## abo (6 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> The HC says '*move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in*'. Nowhere does it give a specific distance



Perhaps, but the HC also says in rule 163 'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car'


----------



## Bobtoo (6 Sep 2011)

Rule 163 is only a suggestion.


----------



## Jezston (7 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Certainly ambiguous and I certainly leave more room when overtaking a cyclist in a powered vehicle than is available when overtaking another car. Although I think that the bike-on-bike interactions mentioned above do also merit some consideration.
> 
> What the law (and the HC) certainly does not do, contrary to Jezston's assertion, is say that... "*a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake".*



It's a fair point and I'm not really saying that, I think I was overreacting a bit to that guy's ego.

I think a safe passing distance is always going to be something that's going to be hard to define in law. What makes me feel comfortable varies depending on the size of the vehicle and the speed difference, but I think a rough guide being enough space for them to have to swerve to avoid a hidden pothole and fall over.

There's been plenty of times when someone's overtaken me with just a couple of feet to spare but I've felt fine because they were only going 5mph faster than me and I was only doing 15 or so anyway. But what if I'd had to suddenly avoid something? I suppose the same applies in any kind of vehicle.

I do stick by the idea a vehicle SHOULD wait until it's totally clear and safe to overtake, even if that means hanging back and slowing down for a while. I don't understand why people should be pissed off for having to go slow for a little while, unless they are an emergency services vehicle.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Sep 2011)

The HC is in fact reasonably clear. For the hard of reading (and Clive the :troll: ) there's even a pretty picture of how much space "at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" means.

Rules in the HC are not simply suggestions. Whilst they do not have the force of law and "failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, _The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."_



Clive Atton said:


> I also suggest that any of the posters on this forum who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake do not drive cars or ride motorcycles, so are posting from a standpoint of ignorance (provocative I know but how about an admission by everyone here what their experience is?)





Mad@urage said:


> I would suggest that you are wrong.





Clive Atton said:


> Sorry, I am definitely right.


No Clive, you are simply stating a non-fact, which means that you are wrong. Most definitely and comprehensively wrong. There are posters here " who think a vehicle should follow them ad infinitum until there is a completely clear oncoming lane available to enable an overtake" and who do drive cars or ride motorcycle. I am one of them, an advanced motorist, driver and sometime motorcyclist. Others have posted the rules of the road and I repeat they are not "suggestions. When you inevitably (if you do drive as your posts imply) knock someone off, I hope you are caught because driving in the manner you suggest is both dangerous and illegal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

In my experience Motorcyclists are very courteous towards me when I am on my bicycle.


----------



## cjb (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1531329"]
Guess what happened to me on the way home tonight?
[/quote]

And there I was thinking I was in a minority of one here!


----------



## element (7 Sep 2011)

You can argue about Highway code and official rules and right and wrong all day. It does not hang the fact that in reality the 'what is' will kill you while you are debating the 'what should be'.
Motorbikes can be stupidly stupidly fast and that creates a certain mentality that at times and can lead to red mist riding where every thing else in the road seems like its stationary. When you are wrapped up properly in your leathers and helmet it can make people feel invulnerable. That's why I stopped wearing the leathers and started riding in shorts and T-shirt. It certainly slows you down. The trouble if is you are on a cycle to some one traveling on a sports bike at real pace they have no free brain energy to think about the cyclist, you are just an obstacle to be got past, it is inconsiderate motorcycling but not deliberately hostile. Most Motorbike riders in the cold light of day will sympathize with the vulnerability that cyclists have on the road. 
I would suggest that as a cyclist you be aware that a fast moving sports bike has to plan from much further back what lines he can take to get around the next bend and keep your cycle close to the gutter when you hear one coming , there is plenty of room for a motorcycle and a cycle to pass on the same side of the road and 99 percent of bikers see no problem with that. I am not going to say its right but it definitely 'IS'.


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

In reply to Mad@urages last post, let me suggest a situation:

I am riding my motorbike during the rush hour in the left hand lane on a dual carriageway at 60mph with cars behind me (normally too close for comfort). There is a constant stream of cars in the fast lane travelling at a similar or faster speed with minimal gaps between them (not correct practise but that's reality for you). If I come up to a cyclist I have three options: I pass the cyclist by moving as far to the right in the left hand lane as is safe and pass with a five to eight feet gap, I squeeze into a small gap between fast moving cars, driven by lemmings in order to give your required ten foot gap or I brake heavily down to the cyclists speed and follow him until the rush hour is over and I can pull into the fast lane.

What would you do?


----------



## BSRU (7 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> In reply to Mad@urages last post, let me suggest a situation:
> 
> I am riding my motorbike during the rush hour in the left hand lane on a dual carriageway at 60mph with cars behind me (normally too close for comfort). There is a constant stream of cars in the fast lane travelling at a similar or faster speed with minimal gaps between them (not correct practise but that's reality for you). If I come up to a cyclist I have three options: I pass the cyclist by moving as far to the right in the left hand lane as is safe and pass with a five to eight feet gap, I squeeze into a small gap between fast moving cars, driven by lemmings in order to give your required ten foot gap or I brake heavily down to the cyclists speed and follow him until the rush hour is over and I can pull into the fast lane.
> 
> What would you do?



Option 1, should have slow down so that the passing speed is not too excessive, this gives the cyclist the potential opportunity to have a look behind and see the bike coming also some cyclists can be very unpredictable, more speed equals less time to react.


----------



## Glow worm (7 Sep 2011)

element said:


> keep your cycle close to the gutter when you hear one coming ,



I'm not riding in the gutter for anyone. I don't think you'll get much sympathy with suggestions like that on here, but I suspect you are probaly on a wind up. You have to be right?! 

TBH if some motorbiker cocks up his judgement at speed then frankly that's his problem. I'll keep my 3 feet distance from the verge thanks!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I would suggest that as a cyclist you be aware that a fast moving sports bike has to plan from much further back what lines he can take to get around the next bend and _*keep your cycle close to the gutter when you hear one coming*_ , there is plenty of room for a motorcycle and a cycle to pass on the same side of the road and 99 percent of bikers see no problem with that. I am not going to say its right but it definitely 'IS'.



Tosh. Utter tosh.


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> Option 1, should have slow down so that the passing speed is not too excessive, this gives the cyclist the potential opportunity to have a look behind and see the bike coming also some cyclists can be very unpredictable, more speed equals less time to react.



That's reasonable, but I would only roll off the throttle rather than brake sharply due to the following traffic so I would probably only slow 10 mph or so. Any 'unpredictable ' cyclist should probably not be on such a road if they have any sense of self-preservation, but that's not to say something may cause even a 'predictable cyclist to swerve (stray dog etc). I believe driving/riding/cycling is more of an art than a hard and fast adherence to suggestions in the HC, you cannot legislate for every eventuality and safe operation of any vehicle requires intelligence and consideration to other road users, tempered with what is practical on crowded roads. Yes, a ten foot gap between you and every cyclist is a wonderful idea but realistically it cannot be achieved much of the time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> That's reasonable, but I would only roll off the throttle rather than brake sharply due to the following traffic so I would probably only slow 10 mph or so. Any 'unpredictable ' cyclist should probably not be on such a road if they have any sense of self-preservation, but that's not to say something may cause even a 'predictable cyclist to swerve (stray dog etc). I believe driving/riding/cycling is more of an art than a hard and fast adherence to suggestions in the HC, you cannot legislate for every eventuality and safe operation of any vehicle requires intelligence and consideration to other road users, tempered with what is practical on crowded roads. Yes, a ten foot gap between you and every cyclist is a wonderful idea but realistically it cannot be achieved much of the time.



Would you give a HGV more or less passing room than a bicycle?


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> In reply to Mad@urages last post, let me suggest a situation:
> 
> I am riding my motorbike during the rush hour in the left hand lane on a dual carriageway at 60mph with cars behind me (normally too close for comfort). There is a constant stream of cars in the fast lane travelling at a similar or faster speed with minimal gaps between them (not correct practise but that's reality for you). If I come up to a cyclist I have three options: I pass the cyclist by moving as far to the right in the left hand lane as is safe and pass with a five to eight feet gap, I squeeze into a small gap between fast moving cars, driven by lemmings in order to give your required ten foot gap or I brake heavily down to the cyclists speed and follow him until the rush hour is over and I can pull into the fast lane.
> 
> What would you do?


Plan in advance, be aware that I was approaching a cyclist, be aware that I would either need to change lanes or slow down, if changing lanes is not going to be possible before arriving within a couple of seconds behind the cyclist, slow down until it is. Really that is a simple question and you _should_ have learned that answer with basic motorcycle training.

Edit to add: If you find you need to "brake heavily" then you are simply not looking far enough ahead and are not planning sufficiently in advance for your speed. Try (slowing down for a while whilst you practice) commentary driving.


----------



## Ivan Ardon (7 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> That's reasonable, but I would only roll off the throttle rather than brake sharply due to the following traffic so I would probably only slow 10 mph or so. <SNIP>




You're not helping the cyclist here at all, even if you do manage to pass with a five to eight feet gap.

You've already said that you're being followed by cars (too closely). Unless you do something to raise their awareness that there's a slower moving object in front of you, eventually one's going to follow you through the gap and collide with the cyclist. Yes they should see the cyclist, but you may be obstructing their view until it's too late. You aren't responsible for the poor actions and judgement of the following drivers, but you could help to give the cyclist a chance of being seen and acknowledged.

So instead of just rolling off the throttle, I'd be applying the brakes - not necessarily to slow down much, but to put the brake lights on, and popping the R/H indicator on. The following drivers should then get the idea that something's going on that may require some caution on their part.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Ivan Ardon said:


> You're not helping the cyclist here at all, even if you do manage to pass with a five to eight feet gap.
> 
> You've already said that you're being followed by cars (too closely). Unless you do something to raise their awareness that there's a slower moving object in front of you, eventually one's going to follow you through the gap and collide with the cyclist. Yes they should see the cyclist, but you may be obstructing their view until it's too late. You aren't responsible for the poor actions and judgement of the following drivers, but you could help to give the cyclist a chance of being seen and acknowledged.
> 
> So instead of just rolling off the throttle, I'd be applying the brakes - not necessarily to slow down much, but to put the brake lights on, and popping the R/H indicator on. The following drivers should then get the idea that something's going on that may require some caution on their part.



I'm pretty sure I was taught to use my indicators to show I was overtaking something.


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Plan in advance, be aware that I was approaching a cyclist, be aware that I would either need to change lanes or slow down, if changing lanes is not going to be possible before arriving within a couple of seconds behind the cyclist, slow down until it is. Really that is a simple question and you _should_ have learned that answer with basic motorcycle training.



Perhaps there is a stream of vans/lorries in front of you or curve in the road making it difficult to see the cyclist. Maybe an arse in a 1.2 litre Nova up yer chuff creating a distraction, bloke in right hand lane thinking that as you are only on a motorcycle he can pull into your lane (and you!). All stuff to be considered.

You cannot seriously suggest every vehicle slows to the cyclists speed and follows them until the outside lane is clear! In the war zone of modern commuting if a cyclist thinks it is fine to wobble about in traffic then it is time for them to consider their personal responsibility to other road users. If it isn't a dual carriageway but you can pass with a decent gap (five or more feet I would suggest) then I suggest that is safe, providing you slow a little, keep an eye on the cyclist and watch for a swerve and prepare to react. This then doesn't hold up or piss off following traffic. In urban situations I slow for kids on pavements (on bikes or walking), also idiot adults on mobile phones that believe they can walk into a road without looking just 'cos they are obviously so important and it's everybody else's responsibility to avoid them. It doesn't matter how careful you are though, there will always be an element of risk and if you tried to remove ALL risk then you would have to ban all human travel.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> Perhaps there is a stream of vans/lorries in front of you or curve in the road making it difficult to see the cyclist. Maybe an arse in a 1.2 litre Nova up yer chuff creating a distraction, bloke in right hand lane thinking that as you are only on a motorcycle he can pull into your lane (and you!). All stuff to be considered.
> 
> You cannot seriously suggest every vehicle slows to the cyclists speed and follows them until the outside lane is clear! In the war zone of modern commuting if a cyclist thinks it is fine to wobble about in traffic then it is time for them to consider their personal responsibility to other road users. If it isn't a dual carriageway but you can pass with a decent gap (five or more feet I would suggest) then I suggest that is safe, providing you slow a little, keep an eye on the cyclist and watch for a swerve and prepare to react. This then doesn't hold up or piss off following traffic. In urban situations I slow for kids on pavements (on bikes or walking), also idiot adults on mobile phones that believe they can walk into a road without looking just 'cos they are obviously so important and it's everybody else's responsibility to avoid them. It doesn't matter how careful you are though, there will always be an element of risk and if you tried to remove ALL risk then you would have to ban all human travel.


If there is an obstruction ahead of you, be it a stream of vehicles (which will in any case need to move out to overtake the cyclist - big clue there, which you should be able to spot) or a curve in the road, then you should be driving / riding at a speed at which you can_ *stop* in the distance you can see to be clear._ This means you do not come round the curve and find yourself unable to slow (indeed stop) simply because there is a cyclist in your path.

If there is a vehicle tailgating you, then you should be looking to increase the available stopping distance (i.e. ride/drive slower) rather than closing in on an unknown situation ahead: Riding faster because you are tailgated is what causes multiple pileups.

The bicycle is a vehicle and progressing at its own vehicular speed. If there is no overtaking lane then the cyclist should be looking for sensible place to let any queue that is forming go past. 'Sensible' in this context includes the cyclist's right to make progress at cycling pace however, and this does not mean diving out of the way of every Clive Toad.

Where there is an overtaking lane, that is the place where overtaking vehicles should be when carrying out that manoevre. It matters not a jot whether they are overtaking a cyclist, a tractor or a granny in a Suzuki Roll-over. In my experience 90+% of drivers manage this quite conveniently; Sure they sometimes have to wait for a gap, but that's just the way it is in crowded road conditions caused by the number of cars (usually with one occupant). I suspect that you are one of those who finds this impossible. I strongly suggest that you look into (as in take) some advanced driving lessons. This is a good site to start with http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/

Commuting is not a war zone BTW, it is (or should be) about reasonable people cooperating to allow everyone a safe and predictable journey with their chosen form of transport. Heavy metal dragged by engines increases the risk exponentially and it is incumbent on the drivers of these vehicles to drive safely around _all_ more vulnerable road users, including the ones who actually belong on the road with the motorists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> If there is an obstruction ahead of you, be it a stream of vehicles (which will in any case need to move out to overtake the cyclist - big clue there, which you should be able to spot) or a curve in the road, then you should be driving / riding at a speed at which you can_ *stop* in the distance you can see to be clear._ This means you do not come round the curve and find yourself unable to slow (indeed stop) simply because there is a cyclist in your path.
> 
> If there is a vehicle tailgating you, then you should be looking to increase the available stopping distance (i.e. ride/drive slower) rather than closing in on an unknown situation ahead: Riding faster because you are tailgated is what causes multiple pileups.
> 
> ...


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

Oh dear, I must be a terrible driver/rider, I've only managed a couple of hundred thousand miles without hitting anything/anyone or causing an accident.........


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Sep 2011)

Lucky you. I hope (for the sake of those you put at risk) you continue to be lucky. I wonder how many cyclists you have knocked off balance as you passed, how many have hit the kerb - perhaps even then fallen under the following car.


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Lucky you. I hope (for the sake of those you put at risk) you continue to be lucky. I wonder how many cyclists you have knocked off balance as you passed, how many have hit the kerb - perhaps even then fallen under the following car.



Blimey, what's it like being so perfect?


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Sep 2011)

Close passes can cause cyclists to wobble, fact. Wobbles by cyclists riding close to the kerb can cause them to hit the kerb, fact. Hitting the kerb can cause cyclists to involuntarily dismount, fact.

I've seen cyclists who ride close to the kerb, knocked into the kerb by an overtaking car's slipstream and fall over, it happens. This is one of the excellent reasons for the road positions recommended by Cyclecraft and why I adopted a strong road position long before I ever heard of Cyclecraft; so that I had space to wobble into when knocked sideways by the slipstream of an overtaking vehicle.


----------



## Clive Atton (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1531361"]
What? Don't be daft.
[/quote]

Thanks for the support but I think we are wasting our time. I suspect mad@urage is an 'Elf n Safety Officer or similar. As he feels free to presume I am a bit of a psychopathic maniac with zero road skills, I thinks it's my right to presume, that him being from Wales, he is also a sheep sh*gger!


----------



## Norm (7 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I'm pretty sure I was taught to use my indicators to show I was overtaking something.


I was taught to indicate in advance of changing lanes but not when moving within the same lane. 

I was specifically taught in my motorbike training not to indicate when moving within my lane as anyone adhering to Roadcraft would have one side or the other constantly flashing on some roads.


----------



## Norm (7 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I've seen cyclists who ride close to the kerb, knocked into the kerb by an overtaking car's slipstream and fall over...


You've seen cyclists knocked off that way? 

Just to clear up any possible self-incrimination here, was that in your rear view mirrors?


----------



## element (7 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Tosh. Utter tosh.



You can make any statement you like but having driven cars, ridden motorbikes, mopeds and even bicycles on some of the most dangerous roads in the world an not had a crash (apart from when I was drunk) I am pretty confident in my ability to judge when to 'own' the road and when to get the fudge out of the way. If you hear a sports bike roaring up behind you at high revs and there is a car coming the other way you can stay in the middle of the road of you want but I would make room for the motorbike to get past.


----------



## User16625 (7 Sep 2011)

cd365 said:


> I'm a motorcyclist and I have also never heard the term stealth bombing.
> 
> My boss does motorcycle instructing and he was only explaining yesterday how they train motorcylists that when you overtake a cyclist you should always move to the other side of the road, i.e. cross the whiteline, if it is not safe to do so then you shouldn't overtake.




Thats overdoing it a bit unless your already doing 90+mph on an open stretch of lonely road. When Im cycling I appreciate it if drivers give me at least 1.5 to 2 feet of space (about what cars typically do). Its not necessary to move over into the next lane unless your driving seriously fast or theres surface water and your being considerate to the cyclist. I ride a motorcycle and I will typically move out near to the centre of the road but staying in my lane. 

Having said that if I was a car driver I would deliberatly accelerate as fast as I could and run the poor sod down.


----------



## Mad at urage (8 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> Thanks for the support but I think we are wasting our time. I suspect mad@urage is an 'Elf n Safety Officer or similar. As he feels free to presume I am a bit of a psychopathic maniac with zero road skills, I thinks it's my right to presume, that him being from Wales, he is also a sheep sh*gger!


:troll:


Norm said:


> You've seen cyclists knocked off that way?
> 
> Just to clear up any possible self-incrimination here, was that in your rear view mirrors?


No, in front of me, whilst driving and whilst cycling. It's always the gutter-huggers that get that type of overtake and it was why I originally started riding 3 - 4 ft from the LH edge of the road (that is, before I was trained to ride a motorcycle further out, by RAC/ACU).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> I was taught to indicate in advance of changing lanes but not when moving within the same lane.
> 
> I was specifically taught in my motorbike training not to indicate when moving within my lane as anyone adhering to Roadcraft would have one side or the other constantly flashing on some roads.



Car drivers are given different advice then. If passing a slow moving or stationary vehicle I was taught to indicate in advance of the manoeuvre to give warning to those behind of possible danger ahead and also to show my intentions.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

element said:


> You can make any statement you like but having driven cars, ridden motorbikes, mopeds and even bicycles on some of the most dangerous roads in the world an not had a crash (apart from when I was drunk) I am pretty confident in my ability to judge when to 'own' the road and when to get the fudge out of the way. If you hear a sports bike roaring up behind you at high revs and there is a car coming the other way you can stay in the middle of the road of you want but I would make room for the motorbike to get past.



I'll ride in the gutter for no one fella. I wouldn't hold primary either. Most of the time I will ride in secondary (about a meter from the curb) If some a-hole wants to work on the premise that might is right and I am taking up too much space that is up to him/her. Karma has a great sense of humour though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> Thanks for the support but I think we are wasting our time. I suspect mad@urage is an 'Elf n Safety Officer or similar. As he feels free to presume I am a bit of a psychopathic maniac with zero road skills, I thinks it's my right to presume, that him being from Wales, he is also a sheep sh*gger!



:troll:


----------



## Norm (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Car drivers are given different advice then. If passing a slow moving or stationary vehicle I was taught to indicate in advance of the manoeuvre to give warning to those behind of possible danger ahead and also to show my intentions.


If you can move within the lane in a car without changing lanes, I would say, in general, don't indicate. 

There may be times when you ere signalling an obstruction to a car which is tailgating, for instance, but a signal (arm or flashing bulb) is to indicate that you are changing speed or direction, and moving within the lane to overtake a parked car or a cyclist is not usually either of those


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> If you can move within the lane in a car without changing lanes, I would say, in general, don't indicate.
> 
> There may be times when you ere signalling an obstruction to a car which is tailgating, for instance, but a signal (arm or flashing bulb) is to indicate that you are changing speed or direction, and moving within the lane to overtake a parked car or a cyclist is not usually either of those



I would have failed my test had I not indicated to say I was passing a parked car. Nothing was tailgating me.


----------



## adds21 (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would have failed my test had I not indicated to say I was passing a parked car. Nothing was tailgating me.



Doesn't it depend on the situation? There are times where I would indicate when passing a parked car, and others when I wouldn't. It's not black or white IMO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> Doesn't it depend on the situation? There are times where I would indicate when passing a parked car, and others when I wouldn't. It's not black or white IMO.



If there are cars behind me I indicate. If not there is no reason to unless I will need to cross the white line and there is on coming traffic in which case I will indicate.


----------



## cd365 (8 Sep 2011)

The Sperminator said:


> Thats overdoing it a bit unless your already doing 90+mph on an open stretch of lonely road. When Im cycling I appreciate it if drivers give me at least 1.5 to 2 feet of space (about what cars typically do). Its not necessary to move over into the next lane unless your driving seriously fast or theres surface water and your being considerate to the cyclist. I ride a motorcycle and I will typically move out near to the centre of the road but staying in my lane.



1.5 to 2 feet of space!! Wow that is almost on top of you.
I nearly always move to the other side of the road when overtaking a cyclist, it is how I want to be overtaken when I'm cycling. Treat others as you want to be treated yourself.

I have had motorcyclists overtake me on the other side of the road and due to their exhause noise and the fact I didn't hear them coming it has startled me. They were, in my opinion, perfectly good overtakes, just noisy and unexpected ones. I have never been "stalth bombed" and can not believe any motorcylist would, if you hit a cyclist you come off, you get badly hurt, so flying past close just to scare a cyclist and putting their own life at risk does not make sense to me. It is more likely a bad motorcyclist who has got his road postioning badly wrong.


----------



## Norm (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would have failed my test had I not indicated to say I was passing a parked car. Nothing was tailgating me.


Did you cross a line to make the overtake?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Did you cross a line to make the overtake?



Yes on one occasion, no on another.


----------



## Norm (8 Sep 2011)

So, you were not being entirely contradictory for the sake of it. 

Just mostly.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> So, you were not being entirely contradictory for the sake of it.
> 
> Just mostly.



Look at it this way Norm. I would rather be behind someone and wonder why he/she is indicating than just come up against a slow moving / stationary vehicle without warning. 

Nothing I have said is contradictory as I indicate when passing something if I need to cross the white line or not.


----------



## Ericck (8 Sep 2011)

Ooh what a heated debate.

I ride both a pushbike and a motorbike and drive a car
if I really have to.

Lets face it there are jerks in control of all forms of transport on our
roads and pavements, including mobility scooters these days.


----------



## apollo179 (8 Sep 2011)

I personally on high speed roads stick as close to the gutter as i can - its not worth endangering your safety for some idea of cyclists rights to road position. Ime its high speed roads that this scary passing happens and the nearer the kerb i can be the better.
Save ideas of asserting your road position for lower speed urban areas.


----------



## steve52 (8 Sep 2011)

hi powerd bikes and darwin? the question i have should i come across one of these nutters laying in the road is it ok just to sit and watch , rather than try to help? if i did help wouldent i be interfering with natural selection?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I personally on high speed roads stick as close to the gutter as i can - its not worth endangering your safety for some idea of cyclists rights to road position. Ime its high speed roads that this scary passing happens and the nearer the kerb i can be the better.
> Save ideas of asserting your road position for lower speed urban areas.



Well no disrespect but until recently you thought it was legal to run red lights so excuse me if I (ans possibly others) do not take anything you say a valid. 

When you are by the curb and a car cuts you up where do is your escape zone?


----------



## apollo179 (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well no disrespect but until recently you thought it was legal to run red lights so excuse me if I (ans possibly others) do not take anything you say a valid.
> 
> When you are by the curb and a car cuts you up where do is your escape zone?



No disrespect taken. I realise (ans possibly others) that you are a mischeivous little :troll:.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No disrespect taken. I realise (ans possibly others) that you are a mischeivous little :troll:.



Unlike you I will not go running to mods crying. Oh and it is mischievous FYI.


----------



## cjb (8 Sep 2011)

As the OP, I didn't realise the can of worms I was opening here !!!!


----------



## apollo179 (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Unlike you I will not go running to mods crying. Oh and it is mischievous FYI.


When did i go running to the mods crying ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> When did i go running to the mods crying ?



Apparently whenever people upset you.


----------



## apollo179 (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apparently whenever people upset you.



The only time the moderator has intervened between us was when you resorted to foul and abusive language.
I can assure you that i did not complain to anybody , definitely not the moderator.
You acknowledged that you have an anger management problem and apologised. 
I accepted your apology.
Cant we put it behind us and move on?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The only time the moderator has intervened between us was when you resorted to foul and abusive language.
> I can assure you that i did not complain to anybody , definitely not the moderator.
> You acknowledged that you have an anger management problem and apologised.
> I accepted your apology.
> Cant we put it behind us and move on?



Indeed. I just think that suggesting to people that riding in the gutter on fast roads is a good idea will not go down that well, especially as you have demonstrated a very poor knowledge of both road crafty and law.


----------



## apollo179 (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Indeed. I just think that suggesting to people that riding in the gutter on fast roads is a good idea will not go down that well, especially as you have demonstrated a very poor knowledge of both road crafty and law.



Well lets see what people think :
Is cycling as close to the gutter as possible the best option on high speed roads.
Or
Is asserting your right to cycle in secondary position the best option On high speed roads.
I may be wrong but personally i stay as far away from danger as i can within reasons.


----------



## Bobtoo (8 Sep 2011)

The incident described by the OP is one of the main reasons why you _shouldn't_ ride in the gutter. If you don't behave like part of the traffic you won't be treated like it. 

It's not just about defending position though, the gutter is full of hazards- drain covers, broken glass, protruding kerbs, gravel, roadkill, litter being some examples.


----------



## WychwoodTrev (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would have failed my test had I not indicated to say I was passing a parked car. Nothing was tailgating me.



I did fail a car test for indicating to pass parked cars told I was waisting my time and might confuse cars that could be coming from the opporsite direction WTF


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would have failed my test had I not indicated to say I was passing a parked car. Nothing was tailgating me.



I suggest you do an advanced driving course. This sort of thing doesn't help and is not needed.

It will benefit your cycling too.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> I did fail a car test for indicating to pass parked cars told I was *waisting *my time and might confuse cars that could be coming from the opporsite direction WTF



Not seen that one before-classic


----------



## benb (8 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Well lets see what people think :
> Is cycling as close to the gutter as possible the best option on high speed roads.
> Or
> Is asserting your right to cycle in secondary position the best option On high speed roads.
> I may be wrong but personally i stay as far away from danger as i can within reasons.



We don't cycle in secondary, or primary come to that, merely to assert our rights. We cycle there because it's the safest road position.
Cycling further out will reduce the number of close passes you get.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> We don't cycle in secondary, or primary come to that, merely to assert our rights. We cycle there because it's the safest road position.
> Cycling further out will reduce the number of close passes you get.



Does everyone though?

It does sometimes appear, from the outside looking in, that the tail wags the dog so to speak.


----------



## benb (8 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> Does everyone though?
> 
> It does sometimes appear, from the outside looking in, that the tail wags the dog so to speak.



Sorry, I don't really understand your question.


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> *I personally on high speed roads stick as close to the gutter as i can *- its not worth endangering your safety for some idea of cyclists rights to road position.* Ime its high speed roads that this scary passing happens* and the nearer the kerb i can be the better.
> Save ideas of asserting your road position for lower speed urban areas.


The two highlighted points are probably related and are reinforcing each other.

You ride in the gutter on high speed roads,_ therefore_ the drivers do not need to move out, nor to think before they speed past you.

Riding out from the gutter is not designed to assert your road position, it instead puts you in a place where drivers are looking, it forces them to make a decision and deviate from line. If they still maintain a high speed, it gives you somewhere to escape to without hitting the kerb / verge.


----------



## Bobtoo (9 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Riding out from the gutter is not designed to assert your road position, it instead puts you in a place where drivers are looking, it forces them to make a decision and deviate from line.



That's the same thing isn't it? It's certainly what I meant. It's saying "I'm here, I'm part of the traffic and you have to deal with me as such".


----------



## 400bhp (9 Sep 2011)

Benb, what I was intimating at is perhaps an overemphasis on following some intended doctorine (cyclecraft-primary or whatever you wish to call it), at the detriment of riding to suit the surroundings.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> Benb, what I was intimating at is perhaps an overemphasis on following some intended doctorine (cyclecraft-primary or whatever you wish to call it), at the detriment of riding to suit the surroundings.



Certain situations require primary. Most require secondary.
I can't think of any that require a gutter riding position, except a bail out from a wider position.

If that's doctrine, then so is looking both ways before crossing the road.


----------



## oldroadman (9 Sep 2011)

*I'm not a pedestrian,a cyclist or a motorist,I'm just a human being.
*Found on another forum. Perhaps all the stereotypers posting should consider this point of view.


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Sep 2011)

Bobtoo said:


> That's the same thing isn't it? It's certainly what I meant. It's saying "I'm here, I'm part of the traffic and you have to deal with me as such".


Yes Bobtoo, I was agreeing with you


----------



## wiggydiggy (9 Sep 2011)

What happens if you overtake a cyclist too close and then the cyclist RLJs, 2 wrongs make a right yes?


----------



## cd365 (9 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> What happens if you overtake a cyclist too close and then the cyclist RLJs, 2 wrongs make a right yes?



Then the cyclist is in the wrong because the car driver didn't do anything wrong


----------



## Clive Atton (9 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> The two highlighted points are probably related and are reinforcing each other.
> 
> You ride in the gutter on high speed roads,_ therefore_ the drivers do not need to move out, nor to think before they speed past you.
> 
> Riding out from the gutter is not designed to assert your road position, it instead puts you in a place where drivers are looking, it forces them to make a decision and deviate from line. If they still maintain a high speed, it gives you somewhere to escape to without hitting the kerb / verge.



Mmmmm, you ride on a high speed road so approaching cars MUST move out to pass you. I hope they aren't lighting a fag, answering the mobile or selecting a CD to listen to. Obviously that would be tremendous compensation to know they will be fined for careless driving after ploughing through you at 70mph. I would suggest keeping as far to the left as is possible without having to swerve around drain covers, litter etc is considerably safer. You rather presume 'drivers are looking', I'd rather presume they aren't and cycle 'out of harm's way' (to use an hideous Americanism) as possible.

This suggestion comes to you courtesy of a driver/rider, who according Mad@urage has left a trail of human destruction behind him wherever he travels.............


----------



## gavroche (11 Sep 2011)

If we lived in a perfect world we would have nothing go moan about and it would be so boring ! We will never change human nature, so one must accept the good and the bad. Enjoy each day as it comes. 
That's it for my philosophy lesson for today. Back to reality now and watch the rugby world cup


----------



## gavroche (11 Sep 2011)

If we lived in a perfect world we would have nothing to moan about and it would be so boring ! We will never change human nature, so one must accept the good and the bad. Enjoy each day as it comes. 
That's it for my philosophy lesson for today. Back to reality now and watch the rugby world cup


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Sep 2011)

Clive Atton said:


> Mmmmm, you ride on a high speed road so approaching cars MUST move out to pass you. I hope they aren't lighting a fag, answering the mobile or selecting a CD to listen to. Obviously that would be tremendous compensation to know they will be fined for careless driving after ploughing through you at 70mph. I would suggest keeping as far to the left as is possible without having to swerve around drain covers, litter etc is considerably safer. You rather presume 'drivers are looking', I'd rather presume they aren't and cycle 'out of harm's way' (to use an hideous Americanism) as possible.
> 
> This suggestion comes to you courtesy of a driver/rider, who according Mad@urage has left a trail of human destruction behind him wherever he travels.............



Happy to stick to secondary, ie 1 meter from curb, gutter, et al.


----------



## PedAntics (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In my experience Motorcyclists are very courteous towards me when I am on my bicycle.



I agree, except for the nutter who shot past me last night "popping" a wheelie at break kneck speed. No issues with bikers but like all modes of transport you get inconsiderate / dangerous @-holes!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

PedAntics said:


> I agree, except for the nutter who shot past me last night "popping" a wheelie at break kneck speed. No issues with bikers but like all modes of transport you get inconsiderate / dangerous @-holes!



Oh there will always be exceptions to every rule.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (14 Sep 2011)

I saw the 'pedal bus' passing through Southwark the other week. This is an odd contraption for several people where you sit facing other riders opposite, all pedalling and moving forwards. Looked like great fun to try.

Anyway, as it was stuck at some lights, a motorcyclist came up behind it, revving his engine loudly as there was no room to pass. When the lights changed, he roared past at high speed and pulled a wheelie before shooting off down the road. He obviously didn't like getting stuck behind the pedibike and made his opinion known by pulling the wheelie. I just thought he was being an impatient dick as there was no need for it. 

Why do some bikers ride machines that are so loud?. Surely they must contravene noise laws?. After seeing this penis-on-a-motorbike, I was reminded of an episode of _South Park _where the kids have there peace and quiet spoilt by a motorbike gang who ride around town but are disappointed that no-one pays attention to them and their excessively loud bikes (it's the one where Cartman tries to have bikers defined in law as 'gay').


----------

