# Do we really think most motorist are good and courteous?



## MrHappyCyclist (27 Jul 2011)

I've often seen it said by cyclists, particularly fellow camera wearing ones, that most drivers are good and courteous and it is just a minority that are bad. In fact, I've often said it myself. However, on reflection, I'm not so sure about that. Is it just a politically correct thing to say, or do people really believe it?

I am coming to think the number of good, courteous drivers is actually fewer than the number of very bad, discourteous and/or dangerous ones, whilst the rest are mediocre at best. It seems to be very rare for me to encounter a driver who passes according to the guidance given in HC rules 163, 212 and 213 when overtaking, for example; sufficiently rare that I even post a video when it happens!.

I suspect that the majority of drivers believe that cyclists should be riding in the gutter all of the time, and get annoyed when we are "deliberately blocking them", even though it is only a minority that actually express their annoyance overtly.

I think this is important because it implies that there is a need to shift the world-view of most of the motoring public rather than just to deal with a few errant motorists. If that is the case, then saying over and over that most motorists are good and courteous probably doesn't help.

However, this is just the opinion I am forming, and I'm interested in what other people really think.


----------



## ianrauk (27 Jul 2011)

On my daily commute through SE London, the good and courteous drivers out number the bad ones by hundreds, if not more. I can count on one hand the amount of bad driver incidents I have had on my commute in the past month.


----------



## BSRU (27 Jul 2011)

You can only judge a courteous driver when you've caused them to slow down and loose a few precious seconds, how they react is a good indication.
Generally it is rare that a driver takes umbridge at not being able to drive at or above the prescribed speed limit for motorised vehicles.

It is understandable when you consider all the physical effort required by a driver to slow down and the speed up again .


----------



## tyred (27 Jul 2011)

There are some right ignorant tossers out there but the majority are considerate in my experience. There is also a separate group of drivers who mean no harm but are just incompetent.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jul 2011)

I do believe that most drivers are courteous and sensible.


----------



## mickle (27 Jul 2011)

I think it depends very much on where you are in the country. But from where I'm standing I have to agree with MrHappyCyclist.

I believe that the _majority_ of drivers are selfish, incompetent, dangerous and/or habitual law breakers. Drive at the speed limit on some of the roads around here to quickly find yourself leading a line of impatient tailgaters. Ride a bicycle on the country lanes to witness a contstant stream of way-too-close over takes. Red light jumping seems endemic, as does pavement parking. Wait on a traffic island forever to cross as a pedestrian - even if they have only six feet beyond their bumper to get to. And even if you're pushing a pram.

Cnuts the lot of them.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Jul 2011)

It depends on your definition of courteous 95% of drivers I have no problems with maybe even more. occasionally some drivers are just bloody rude more are just accidentally careless but its rare enough for a driver to do something nice, that it pulls me up short and makes me think "what a nice person". So as I say it depends on your definition if you mean by courteous doing what's expected in a civilised society then I would say about 95%. If you mean by courteous doing that little bit extra to think of others. Then that is rarer than inconsiderate and bad drivers.


----------



## stroanite (27 Jul 2011)

I think it depends on which kind of drivers. Most of the locals here (Badenoch) are fine. Some of the tradesmen (white van' if you will) are piss-poor at patience, and a few of the youngsters are bad at speed control (probably the immortality thing). The really bad drivers are the tourists in hire cars/mobile homes, some of whom have no clue where the vehicle finishes, and less clue about single-track roads.


----------



## pshore (27 Jul 2011)

I would phrase it more like most people are not out to intentionally harm you. 

I see it as shades of grey rather than a black and white issue. 
If we take overtaking on a rural road as an example:

There are a minority of drivers that cross the white line entirely to overtake. I suspect they are cyclists due to the great care they take.
A lot of drivers can be coaxed into overtaking in the opposite lane with a bit of Cycle-Crafting. They are taking care around others.
Most drivers pass with enough room but a bit more would be safer I fell off. These are the sheep, copying the overtaking style of the majority. They think they are safe around others but I would disagree.
Some pass too close at too high a speed. They are not thinking about safety of others but are still not out to intentionally harm us. I am guessing these people never walk or cycle anywhere and have no idea how anti-social and dangerous they are.
Some go out of their way to teach you a lesson even on a empty road. They are rare enough - I seem to get them about once every 1000km of cycling.
By far, the largest group are the sheep.


----------



## chillyuk (27 Jul 2011)

I find most drivers round here pretty good which amazed me when I first moved to Essex. Cross the border into Hertfordshire though and it's take life into own hands territory.


----------



## Davidc (27 Jul 2011)

Most drivers are courteous, a minority are good, a majority have just adequate skills and ability.

There are a small minority who are dangerous, and a small minority who are rude and obnoxious. Those don't always go together but often do.

I find that some days I come across loads of dangerous/ rude/ obnoxious drivers, some days neary all are good, courteous and friendly. Usually it's the usual mix.


> there is a need to shift the world-view of most of the motoring public



No, not the world view, just the UK one. In most countries in Europe I've been to I've found that drivers are almost universally cycle friendly and supportive. On the few occasions I've been to the US it seems almost like the UK, and I don't have any experience of the rest.


----------



## jack the lad (27 Jul 2011)

Motorists are people who drive cars. Cyclists are people who ride bicycles. Pedestrians are people who walk around. Swimmers are people who move along in water.

What they all have in common is that they are people. There will be pretty much the same proportion of rude, ignorant and selfish ones in each category and some people will be rude ignorant and selfish whatever mode of travel they are using at any one time.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (27 Jul 2011)

Some really good replies here. I agree with rowan_46 that I need to define more clearly what I mean.

I like pshore's classification, which helps with that definition, and have indicated what I meant and how common I feel they are in bold italics after each one.


pshore said:


> There are a minority of drivers that cross the white line entirely to overtake. I suspect they are cyclists due to the great care they take. *("good and courteous" - extremely rare)*
> A lot of drivers can be coaxed into overtaking in the opposite lane with a bit of Cycle-Crafting. They are taking care around others. *("good and courteous" - rare)*
> Most drivers pass with enough room but a bit more would be safer I fell off. These are the sheep, copying the overtaking style of the majority. They think they are safe around others but I would disagree. *("poor/mediocre" - majority)*
> Some pass too close at too high a speed. They are not thinking about safety of others but are still not out to intentionally harm us. I am guessing these people never walk or cycle anywhere and have no idea how anti-social and dangerous they are. *("discourteous/dangerous" - rare)*
> Some go out of their way to teach you a lesson even on a empty road. They are rare enough - I seem to get them about once every 1000km of cycling. *("discourteous/dangerous" - very rare)*





Davidc said:


> No, not the world view, just the UK one.


By "world-view", I mean their view of the world; I agree that I meant "... a need to shift the world-view of most of the _*UK*_ motoring public ..." and didn't make that clear.

I also agree with jack_the_lad that there are good and bad among all road users, but I am specifically referring to (UK) motorists and the way the majority of them see and/or treat cyclists in general.

In particular, I suspect that the vast majority of UK motorists do not share our view that cycles are road vehicles having the same right to be on the road as any other vehicles, that the middle of the lane is the correct position for us to be in, and that our moving to the side to let them pass is a courtesy, not an obligation. (Assuming we do share that view.)


----------



## jack the lad (29 Jul 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> In particular, I suspect that the vast majority of UK motorists do not share our view that cycles are road vehicles having the same right to be on the road as any other vehicles, that the middle of the lane is the correct position for us to be in, and that our *moving to the side to let them pass is a courtesy, not an obligation*. (Assuming we do share that view.)




Do we not have an obligation to be courteous. The correct position to be in is one that allows me to cycle safely and doesn't unduly inconvenience other road users, only occasionally does this require me to be in the middle of the lane. As a competent cyclist I can usually cycle quite close to the edge of the road quite safely and allow other road users room to pass. It is ignorant and dangerous to hog the middle of the lane come what may.


----------



## mickle (29 Jul 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Do we not have an obligation to be courteous. The correct position to be in is one that allows me to cycle safely and doesn't unduly inconvenience other road users, only occasionally does this require me to be in the middle of the lane. As a competent cyclist I can usually cycle quite close to the edge of the road quite safely and allow other road users room to pass. It is ignorant and dangerous to hog the middle of the lane come what may.



Do you understand the concept of 'primary position'? Just asking.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Jul 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Do we not have an obligation to be courteous. The correct position to be in is one that allows me to cycle safely and doesn't unduly inconvenience other road users, only occasionally does this require me to be in the middle of the lane. As a competent cyclist I can usually cycle quite close to the edge of the road quite safely and allow other road users room to pass. It is ignorant and dangerous to hog the middle of the lane come what may.


Well, to be considered courteous cyclists, we ought to behave in a courteous manner, which includes not blocking faster vehicles unnecessarily. I don't think that equates to an obligation to cycle at the edge of the road, though.

The important distinction to make here is that it is for the cyclist, not the motorist, to decide when it is or isn't safe to be passed, and any courteous following motorist should simply accept that decision. Apart from anything else, the cyclist probably is aware of issues that the driver is not aware of, including: knowledge of good cyclecraft, knowledge of the road surface as it affect bicycles, awareness of typical dangers to cyclists, greater awareness of the road ahead due to better visibility, and better access to audio information.

We do, of course, have an obligation to obey HC rule 169 and "not hold up a long queue of traffic". For example, I was cycling in the North York Moors a couple of weeks ago, and I did feel I had to stop at the side to let trucks pass when going up the 1-in-4 hills a couple of times. I was happy to do this because the trucks themselves were patiently crawling up the hills behind me.

The flip side is that pillocks like this one should chill, and realize that there would be nowhere for them to go even if the cyclist did move to the side. (In this particular case, there was a very good reason for not letting the van come alongside if the driver just took the trouble to look more than 4 metres in front of his bonnet.)

I, myself, have had non-cycling critics and trolls on my YouTube channel trying to make out that I was a dangerous cyclists who deliberately blocks traffic, etc, etc, which prompted me to post these two videos of my typical outward and return journeys so that I can challenge them to tell me exactly where they think this is the case next time they try to criticize.

As far as cycling close to the edge of the road is concerned, it depends on just how close you mean. I am probably sufficiently competent to cycle for 100 yards along a 12 inch wide ridge, 200 feet above the ground, but it doesn't mean I should do it. Cycling in the gutter is dangerous for a whole load of reasons.

I think there will be very many occasions when it really is not safe to let people pass, but when the majority of motorists think it is safe. This is probably the crux of my argument here.

I try to adhere to a carefully thought out policy, which I have written out here. I have to admit that I am currently revising my thinking on some of the nice comments about motorists in the pre-amble, though.


----------



## Dan B (29 Jul 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> The important distinction to make here is that it is for the cyclist, not the motorist, to decide when it is or isn't safe to be passed, and any courteous following motorist should simply accept that decision.


This is the relevant bit, yes. The courteous motorist does me the courtesy of assuming I am a courteous cyclist rather than assuming when I am doing something which inconveniences them that it is merely because I am selfish.

And vice versa, of course.


----------



## jack the lad (1 Aug 2011)

mickle said:


> Do you understand the concept of 'primary position'? Just asking.



As I said - there are times when it is necessary to cycle in the middle of the lane, that doesn't mean it should be the invariable position. It is reasonable to compromise on how much of the road each of the different users can lay claim to. Many cyclists don't seem to understand this and think they have some absolute right to take over the road without regard to how much it inconveniences other road users. They are no better than car drivers who do the same.

If as a cyclist I need to swerve occasionally to avoid an obstacle at the edge of the road it must be my responsibility to check it is clear first and stop/slow if it isn't, not to expect cars to form an orderly queue behind me just in case I might. If I can't ride without wobbling all over the place I shouldn't be on a bike on the road, again I should not claim a right to hold up car drivers to allow for my incompetence.



> it is for the cyclist, not the motorist, to decide when it is or isn't safe to be passed



I'm not sure that you can claim that in such absolute terms. It certainly isnt the right of a cyclist to make it more dangerous for someone to pass in order to try to stop them doing so. 

As a cyclist I can filter safely (in my opinion) through stationary traffic at around 15 mph allowing only inches to spare. If a car then passes me at 30 mph (i.e. the same 15mph speed differential) I think it is quite reasonable for them to only give me a metre or so of clearance (even the most incompetent motorist can judge the width of their car to that sort of accuracy) and not have to follow me until they can cross to the other side of a white line. Of course I prefer if they give me more room, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to more. As speeds rise the margins of safety should, obviously,also rise and the vast majority of motorists do follow this. Cycling in 'primary' on fast roads merely reduces your margin of safety, and puts you even closer to ignorant drivers who are prepared to take risks with your life.


----------



## Richard Mann (1 Aug 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Cycling in 'primary' on fast roads merely reduces your margin of safety, and puts you even closer to ignorant drivers who are prepared to take risks with your life.



The dangers of cycling in secondary on urban 30mph main roads are much exaggerated. In my experience, the best place is about 3.5m from the centre line, so they overtake you, but generally at a sensible speed. On a (typical) 30ft road that means about 1m from the edge of the road.

It's probably different on a 2 lanes each way 40ft road, but I don't cycle on those


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (1 Aug 2011)

jack the lad said:


> As I said - there are times when it is necessary to cycle in the middle of the lane, that doesn't mean it should be the invariable position.


Who said it should be invariable? There are lots of places where it is safe to move over to secondary position to allow faster vehicles to get past, and at those places we should do so.



jack the lad said:


> It is reasonable to compromise on how much of the road each of the different users can lay claim to. Many cyclists don't seem to understand this and think they have some absolute right to take over the road without regard to how much it inconveniences other road users.


See the quotation in my signature line.



jack the lad said:


> If as a cyclist I need to swerve occasionally to avoid an obstacle at the edge of the road it must be my responsibility to check it is clear first and stop/slow if it isn't, not to expect cars to form an orderly queue behind me just in case I might.
> 
> If I can't ride without wobbling all over the place I shouldn't be on a bike on the road, again I should not claim a right to hold up car drivers to allow for my incompetence.


It is a matter of self-preservation to do a shoulder check before changing road position, and also to let a following car pass if you think there would be any danger to yourself in not doing so, even (or especially) if the driver is being unreasonable. In any case, the cyclist should have checked, signalled and moved out to a strong position well in advance of the hazard. However, a truly courteous driver would have anticipated that the cyclist will need to move out and adjusted speed accordingly, especially if they have seen the cyclist look back and signal.

So, you are implying that if a cyclist is wobbling, it is OK for a driver to pass them very close and risk knocking them off their bike? I don't think so. I agree that the cyclist would be well-advised to practice and/or get some training, but that's a different matter; a courteous motorist ought to take account of the possible dangers of passing this particular cyclist.



jack the lad said:


> I'm not sure that you can claim that in such absolute terms. It certainly isnt the right of a cyclist to make it more dangerous for someone to pass in order to try to stop them doing so.
> 
> As a cyclist I can filter safely (in my opinion) through stationary traffic at around 15 mph allowing only inches to spare. If a car then passes me at 30 mph (i.e. the same 15mph speed differential) I think it is quite reasonable for them to only give me a metre or so of clearance (even the most incompetent motorist can judge the width of their car to that sort of accuracy) and not have to follow me until they can cross to the other side of a white line.


I'm not sure what you mean by the first para there.

Regarding the second, in that specific circumstance, if they left a clear metre of space between us, then I would accept that, even though I wouldn't consider it courteous motoring. I am sure a lot of motorists think they can judge the width of their vehicle far more accurately than they really can, but I don't have any evidence to support that (any more than you have evidence that they can judge it accurately).



jack the lad said:


> Of course I prefer if they give me more room, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to more.
> 
> Cycling in 'primary' on fast roads merely reduces your margin of safety, and puts you even closer to ignorant drivers who are prepared to take risks with your life.


Who mentioned entitlement? We are talking about the number of motorists we consider to be discourteous, and I consider any motorist who passes me within a metre at 30mph to be discourteous.

The last part is a sweeping generalization. It really depends on the road, the traffic, and a whole load of other factors.


----------



## jack the lad (1 Aug 2011)

Errr...

I think it looks like we are actually agreeing with each other!


----------



## Origamist (1 Aug 2011)

The Guardian bike blog on Primary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane


----------



## guitarpete247 (1 Aug 2011)

You often find that there is sweet spot in the tarmac approx 1m from the kerb where cars nearside tyres run. That is where I prefer to be. Taking up primary (a little wider) coming up to pinch points or when passing parked vehicles. 

I find most drivers appriciate the danger they can put you under from a close overtake. It's just the very rare idiot who thinks they can judge the width of their car/van to the nearest mm and can get that close. 

Living in the sticks, however, we don't have many of them as we have a lot of horses and drivers give way to them all the time. Only in towns have I really come up against aggressive/selfish drivers and even there they are very few and far between. As most have commented. An aggressive selfish driver will be an aggressive selfish person no matter what. They'll even be aggressive selfish bus passengers.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (1 Aug 2011)

jack the lad said:


> I think it looks like we are actually agreeing with each other!


----------



## PaulB (2 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I've often seen it said by cyclists, particularly fellow camera wearing ones, that most drivers are good and courteous and it is just a minority that are bad. In fact, I've often said it myself. However, on reflection, I'm not so sure about that. Is it just a politically correct thing to say, or do people really believe it?



I believe it. I don't know if it's the people who live around where I live but I find the overwhelming majority of car drivers to be courteous and respectful of me as a cyclist (can't speak for anyone else). I always go out of my way to be courteous back as it's very important to foster good relations with other road users. If and when a car gives me a wide berth or waits behind me until it's safe to overtake, I always wave my thanks. 

Of course there are morons behind the wheel but then again, there are morons behind the handlebars. The majority in each group, in my opinion, are decent, courteous and respectful.


----------



## davefb (2 Aug 2011)

tbh

having cycled and (by a very large majority) driven the route you take to work ( and most of the insane driving is from)

I'd make this statement,, 'most drivers are apalling to all other road users'... they're not singling out cyclists in the main, especially in commuter time...

if that was the only way of judging motorist ability, learner drivers would just give up and never get behind the wheel again....... 

its too narrow for two lanes really down blackburn road.. and people seem to think it's a race track and its too narrow for that messing about they've done in farnworth or two lanes where the traffic lights are .. I assume the narrowing is to try to slow traffic and help the peds?

i just feel it provokes poor aggressive driving style in the people coming down it ( trying to get into the right lane, avoid being behind right turning traffic or the taxi who suddenly stops with hazards on) , not saying this as an excuse, but i dont like driving down it, let alone cycling..


so yeah, in the main i think most drivers ARE courteous..... but not nesc most drivers down that route!


----------



## slowmotion (3 Aug 2011)

Are most motorists courteous? I think that depends on where you ride. They must be in west London. I'm still alive after venturing out onto the tarmac daily for the last couple of years, and I've never had a *seriously* horrible moment. Hundreds of thousands of people on four wheels have come across me without any problems at all. Thanks to all of them.


[ as for that self-gratification artist in the Boltons last week.......    ]


----------



## Davidc (4 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> In particular, I suspect that the vast majority of UK motorists do not share our view that cycles are road vehicles having the same right to be on the road as any other vehicles, that the middle of the lane is the correct position for us to be in, and that our moving to the side to let them pass is a courtesy, not an obligation. (Assuming we do share that view.)



I'm doing my bit to re-educate them! I don't take the lane unless I need to for my own safety and comfort, and get the impression that at pinch points taking away their choice suits many drivers who just drop further back until I move over again. Some exceptions of course, including those $h1t$ who get up close behind and sound their horns.

It's very rare IME to get real grief from motorists for taking the lane when it's done sensibly. Talking to non-cycling drivers about cyclist behaviour they seem much more bothered by RLJs, lack of lighting, and cyclists who don't make it clear what they're doing.


----------



## gaz (5 Aug 2011)

Do i think that most motorists are good?
Yes.
I travel through some very busy parts of london on my way to and from work. I estimate that throughout a weeks worth of commuting I must pass and get passed by several thousand vehicles and I have an issues with only a handful of them. Even then my issues may be minor ones.


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Aug 2011)

2 years ago,I'd have said “A few superb drivers, lots of averagely competent sheep, and a few atrocious.” Classic bell curve 

But I was off the bike for about 18months – and just got back on this spring. It's been “interesting”coming back after that break, and I'm sure the “curve” has shifted for the worse in that time, at least in Leeds. The overtakes are closer; the squeezes and barging past more frequent. In just 400 miles, I had at least as many hairy incidents as I'd had in maybe 10 years (2000 miles a year?).

And there's a new element ... at least to me.

guy passes REAL close (and slow), window down, and berates me for being on the road;​“delightful” pair insist I keep to the cycle lane – ie the double yellow lines (huh? Yup, that's what “they took care to explain to me”);​“lady” who tucks her front bumper in, just a couple of inches behind my heel – she considered I should be riding in the left hand gutter, and told me so ... in words of one syllable;​guy drives straight at me at a pinch point, arm out the window, one finger raised in “salute”.​
That's a level of conscious and overt “I-own-the-road” intimidation that's new to me – way, way beyond the casual thoughtlessness, bad decision-making, incompetent risk-taking, or abuse of speed I've always known to look out for.

Hey - but that's only four drivers; and there's maybe another half dozen that scared me witless ....... out of the thousands I meet on my commute?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Aug 2011)

Th thing I find interesting about these replies is the relationship between the different perceptions and the locations. It's a small sample, and completely unscientific, but I get the impression that the more positive responses come from places where (a) there are a lot more bicycles on the road, and (b) there has been/is some intervention to attempt to improve the situation.

The most obvious place is London in this respect. In Gaz's videos, I see tens or maybe hundreds of other cyclists, quite a few "Boris bikes", and loads of blue paint on the roads. I am aware of TfL, Roadsafe, LCC, and Cycle Superhighways. On my commute, I am seeing 5 or 6 other cyclists in 12.5 miles, little or no public provision of anything, and a number of totally inadequate, faded dashed white lines and ASLs. I am not aware of any TfGreaterManchester, we have no Roadsafe; there is a GMCC but it's not well known (but I admit I haven't done anything about it myself).

So, it seems that there is hope for us, if we can follow the example of London. Now, who is the Mayor of Manchester? Can't remember. Nor the mayor of Salford, nor Trafford, nor Stockport, nor Oldham, ... can't even remember the name of Bolton's Mayor, and I live here! Hm.


----------



## al78 (8 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> So, it seems that there is hope for us, if we can follow the example of London. Now, who is the Mayor of Manchester? Can't remember. Nor the* mayor of Salford*, nor Trafford, nor Stockport, nor Oldham, ... can't even remember the name of Bolton's Mayor, and I live here! Hm.



That will be my father from next May.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> That will be my father from next May.


Sounds like an opportunity!


----------



## pshore (8 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> That will be my father from next May.



The inaugral speech: ... and let me warmly introduce, Mayor 78 ....


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Aug 2011)

Drivers themselves don't think they're good and courteous.




Found by chance - " A poll of 3,000 motorists by Thrifty Car & Van Rental reveals a staggering eight out of ten (85%) drivers admit to gambling amber lights in an attempt to race through the traffic.

Meanwhile, nearly four out of ten (38%) say they rarely stop if the lights are on amber. Sixteen per cent (16%) even confessed that amber is like a green light to them.

Worryingly more than one in ten (13%) motorists has had an accident or near miss as a result of belting through an amber signal. Half (50%) have been shouted at by their passenger and more than a quarter (26%) have been sworn or beeped at by other drivers. "

No surprises there, then.


----------



## gaz (11 Aug 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Drivers themselves don't think they're good and courteous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what % of them lied in all three of those?


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Aug 2011)

Drivers? Lying? {shock}

Surely not ... they wouldn't really do such a dastardly thing, would they?


----------



## summerdays (11 Aug 2011)

pshore said:


> I would phrase it more like most people are not out to intentionally harm you.
> 
> I see it as shades of grey rather than a black and white issue.
> If we take overtaking on a rural road as an example:
> ...



We were on holiday in South Hams in Devon, narrow windy roads with lots of places where two cars couldn't pass each other. When we were behind a cyclist we waited until there was a sensible place to pass and then passing them with lots of room. I looked back (as a passenger) and watched the following cars (usually had a couple whilst waiting for a suitable passing place) overtake the cyclist and they also seemed to give the cyclist plenty of room. I was watching after remembering a remark that someone had made on here about how if the first car overtook and gave plenty of space that the others tended to follow (sheep). 

I think being a cyclist does make you more aware of the problems that a cyclist can face.




MrHappyCyclist said:


> Th thing I find interesting about these replies is the relationship between the different perceptions and the locations. It's a small sample, and completely unscientific, but I get the impression that the more positive responses come from places where (a) there are a lot more bicycles on the road, and (b) there has been/is some intervention to attempt to improve the situation.



I think that is very true - just because they are used to seeing bikes on the road, possibly more likely to know someone who cycles. My experiences locally would be that a reasonable number are nice and courteous with good passes and letting you out of side roads etc. There are a reasonable number of middling sheep, and at the bottom are the inconsiderate and down right rude ones ... often on their mobile phone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Aug 2011)

To me, and I acknowledge it is a highly personal and idiosyncratic view, most drivers, including myself, are neither good nor courteous, most of the time because they are driving automatically, semi-consciously.

To be a good driver, by my lights, means you drive actively, alertly and respond appropriately to then changing environment around you. You consciously avoid and manage risks rather than plough on through (I exaggerate). You drive to a system and have probably taken extra training beyond merely passing the test which is a meagre minimum. I do not consider myself to be a good driver, merely an adequate one, and the bar is set pretty low.

To me a courteous driver is one who actively considers the needs of other road users especially those more vulnerable than themselves not someone who simply manages to avoid conflicting with another road user by default.

So by those criteria I do not consider most drivers to be either good or courteous. They are good enough and generally not discourteous though.


----------



## mickle (12 Aug 2011)

I'm a super courteous driver around cyclists and peds and a total nob when it comes to other motor vehicles. My very prominent 'My other car is a bicycle' communicates my allegiance.


----------



## Bad Company (17 Aug 2011)

There are still far more good drivers than bad ones. Also most on this forum also drive cars.

I did have a bit of row with a van driver a few weeks ago. He was annoyed that Mrs BC and I were riding 2 abreast. I wouldn't mind but we had moved into single file when we heard him coming.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (17 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> There are still far more good drivers than bad ones. Also most on this forum also drive cars.


As we've already discussed, I think it depends on your definitions. Taking passing distance, for example, I think a good driver is one who gives a cyclist "as much space as you would give a car" when overtaking (i.e. at least about 8 feet from the kerb if it is a clear road), as recommended in the Highway Code, and would wait a good distance behind until that were possible. I think a bad driver is someone who passes me with less than 1 metre of space between my elbow and their door mirror. The former are much rarer than the latter in my experience. All the rest are just mediocre.


----------

