# In defence of motorists



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

Whilst driving last night, I was coming down a road cars parked on both sides, a couple of cars ahead of me and some cars coming towards me, hence a bit of squeezing through. I then noticed the cars ahead of me (about 50m) overtake a cyclist. 

The road in front of me was now clear, i.e. no oncoming traffic, so coming up to the cyclist I gave him plenty of room as I prepared to overtake, about 200m down the road a car turns into the road and starts to head towards me. 

I then realised the cyclist was going a lot faster than I had anticipated; the road was a slight downhill gradient so he was probably doing 22-25mph. I was probably only going 5mph faster than him. Hence me putting a bit of a squirt on to make sure I can pull in in-front of him at a safe distance.

Did think if I was the cyclist I wouldn't have been too happy but in my defence when I started the overtake the road ahead was clear!


----------



## gaz (17 Mar 2011)

Was the speed _limit _30mph?


----------



## 4F (17 Mar 2011)

Sorry but that is not in defence of motorists, it just sounds like poor driving as you should have guaged the speed of the cyclist before attempting the overtake.


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

The speed of the road was 30mph.

The road was clear ahead, the cyclist was not doing the speed limit, I was perfectly entitled to overtake. The problem arised when a car entered the road from a side road. Now unless I can predict the future there was no way for me to see that was about to happen!

Maybe I should have built up a lot of speed and flew past him? Would that have been a better overtake?


----------



## gaz (17 Mar 2011)

It is the speed limit and not a target. You don't have to overtake.
As cyclists we are perfectly entitled to cycle on shared use cycle paths, doesn't mean we have to.

Obviously you choose to overtake another vehicle whilst on a busy road (you mentioned parked cars on either side) which means reduced visibility of cars trying to pull out. 
Was it the right time to overtake the cyclist? Clearly not as you had an issue when a vehicle pulled out of a side road. 
You state it was about 200m away when it pulled out. That is further than you think. 30mph is slightly less than 12meters by second, which means that it will be slightly more than 8 seconds for two cars that are both traveling at 30mph towards each other to crash over 200meters. 8 seconds is plenty of time to pass a cyclist doing between 22-25mph. hell usain bolt could even do it!

I'm clearly just picking at what you said but if you are going to try and say that it's always the motorists fault (the overtakee) then you will get some people disagreeing with you. Obviously there will be circumstances that can arise that won't make it the overtakee's fault, but i wouldn't say this was one.


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I was perfectly entitled to overtake


nuff said


----------



## Jim_Noir (17 Mar 2011)

Would you have overtaken a car that was doing 25 on that road?


----------



## Hydra (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> The speed of the road was 30mph.
> 
> The road was clear ahead, the cyclist was not doing the speed limit, I was perfectly entitled to overtake. The problem arised when a car entered the road from a side road. Now unless I can predict the future there was no way for me to see that was about to happen!
> 
> Maybe I should have built up a lot of speed and flew past him? Would that have been a better overtake?



Seems to me that it would have been better not to overtake. If you had to exert more energy and build up more speed to do so, it seems unnecessary to me


----------



## Bman (17 Mar 2011)

I witnessed a similar situation while in a friends car. 

He went to overtake a cyclist, giving him plenty of space. In order to do this he was half in the oncoming lane (with no oncoming traffic)

About half way into the overtake, a car appeared at a side road on the right, and started to pull out (turning left). My friend was forced to take evasive action by moving back towards the cyclst to avoid a collision. Turning it into quite a close pass.

The cyclist, shouted at us (I assume he was unaware of the car pulling out and why my friend had to avoid it).

I thought his overtake was well planned and safe. The oncoming car should not have pulled out (even when turning left) without ensuring it was clear


----------



## BSRU (17 Mar 2011)

In the same situation I would not have speeded up I would have slowed down and gone back behind the cyclist then waited for a better opportunity assuming one arises.
You stated the cyclist was doing 22 to 25mph and you were passing 5mph faster than the cyclist, so you were travelling at 27 to 30 mph already before your spurt which implies you had to break the speed limit to complete your overtake.

If you gave the cyclist plenty of room then he probably wouldn't have really noticed, unless you then got in his way later.
I like motorised vehicles to safely overtake me with a big as gap as possible and with a small as possible speed differential.


----------



## Crackle (17 Mar 2011)

The onus is on the car pulling out to check it's clear and that includes overtaking vehicles, that's why you look both ways. In your situation CD365 I may have braked or I may have braked and moved in but not accelarated: Probably. After all you never really know as it depends, you learn from each situation.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Mar 2011)

BSRU said:


> In the same situation I would not have speeded up I would have slowed down and gone back behind the cyclist then waited for a better opportunity assuming one arises.


Sounds much like the safer option to me as well.

Speeding up risks something else happenning with less time to react to it. Slowing, and slotting back in gives far more margin for error.


reiver said:


> Faster cyclists do seem to get into more conflicts with motorists


Not my experience at all - slower cyclists get the p*ss taken with greater regularity, in my experience.

I have way fewer problems with impatient dolts if I'm maintaining 20mph than when I'm grovelling into a headwind at 15/16mph. I do think the type of bad driving one experiences is geographical though - I've no doubt that Manchester has different problems to other places.


----------



## jugglingphil (17 Mar 2011)

Drivers of all vehicles should look both ways before pulling out, but frequently do not.
All drivers have to evaluate possible dangers all the time, in this case, parked cars, cyclist, junctions,etc.

In the end what you thought was a perfectly safe manoeuvre didn't quite work out as planned. Not really sure why your posting on an internet forum.


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

The road is wide enough for two cars to be parked opposite and for two cars to safely pass each other.

On my overtake I had given the cyclist at least 6 feet of room much more than the other 2 cars I had just watched overtake.

I don't understand some of the points some people are making. When I started my overtake it was safe to do so, i.e. no oncoming traffic, I was giving plenty of room to the cyclist, had checked the road ahead for pedestrians and any cars wanting to move into my space, ie.e parked cars and side roads. I felt that my manoeuvre was not dangeous in any way.

What changed was a car pulling out further down the road as I was overtaking. I then felt I needed to speed up (to the speed limit because I had slowed down whilst preparing my overtake) to ensure that I did not cut into the cyclists space. If the car had not pulled out down the road I would have just pootled past the cyclist having made what I would have felt was a safe and justified overtake.


----------



## 4F (17 Mar 2011)

Whilst not trying to be confrontational I would suggest that if you were approaching a side road then the overtake was not safe to do so.

If I had been that cyclist I would not have been pleased.


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

If I'd given the cyclist the usual amount of space afforded by car drivers around here, 3 feet if you lucky, then there would have been no issue!! The cyclist was not in primary, was riding in the card door zone so I was trying to be as safe to him as I possibly could.

The road is half a mile long with a few minor side roads off it.

4F, that was my point, if I was the cyclist I wouldn't have been pleased, even though he didn't have to slow down and I had given plenty of space when I pulled in. 

As a fellow cyclist I had tried to do a safe overtake like I do with every cyclist but sometimes things change even though I had tried to anticipate things. It is not always the car drivers fault!


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> As a fellow cyclist I had tried to do a safe overtake like I do with every cyclist but sometimes things change even though I had tried to anticipate things. It is not always the car drivers fault!



I still don't understand why you didn't slow down and drop in behind again.

You're speeding up in what's evidently an unpredictable environment.


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

I think the car behind me would have not been too impressed if I had put my brakes on and tried to pull in between him and the cyclist. the safest option was to complete my overtake.


----------



## Ravenbait (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I think the car behind me would have not been too impressed if I had put my brakes on and tried to pull in between him and the cyclist. the safest option was to complete my overtake.




He shouldn't have been so close, then. And so what if he wasn't impressed? I don't think you should value another driver's opinion over safety.

I think the lesson to take away from this is that you should probably not post "_n defence of motorists" on a cycling forum unless the cyclist involved in the incident was doing something bloomin' daft.

Sam_


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

The cyclist would have been more concerned than the car driver if I had made a sudden braking and trying to squeeze in behind him move.

So all drivers are at fault unless the cyclist does something daft? Strange concept and directly leads to some of the "them and us" confrontations.

The whole point of this thread was to show that as a cyclist and a car driver things are not always straight forward and that people should look at both sides of the coin.


----------



## 4F (17 Mar 2011)

sorry cd365 but imho I think you got caught up in "must overtake cyclist" mode

As alluded to by someone else earlier if this had been a car in front doing 22- 25 mph would you still have attempted the overtake ?


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

There was no "must overtake cyclist" mode, I was already overtaking the cyclist when conditions changed and felt the safest thing to do was complete the overtake. There was no reaction to my overtake from the cyclist so he couldn'thave felt in any danger.

The road is not suitable to overtake a car, but it was with a cyclist not riding in primary. If he was in primary I would not have even attempted it because this would have told me he was not comfortable with any overtake or that he was going to make a turn somewhere ahead.


----------



## Moodyman (17 Mar 2011)

I'm in praise of motorists. I think the overwhelming majority are very good around me.

Re the OP, I think he's trying to point out that you only have a split second to make a judgement and it's easy to get it slightly wrong. None of us is beyond making mistakes. 

Heck...I make some ill-judged decisions as a cyclist. Made one yesterday - got caught out filtering on the outside but lights changed and no gap emerged for me to slide back into my lane. Had to rely on a lovely motorist to let me back in.


----------



## colinr (17 Mar 2011)

> The whole point of this thread was to show that as a cyclist and a car driver things are not always straight forward and that people should look at both sides of the coin.


 One side of the coin weighs about a tonne though, tends to amplify mistakes.


----------



## sunnyjim (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> There was no "must overtake cyclist" mode, I was already overtaking the cyclist when conditions changed and felt the safest thing to do was complete the overtake. There was no reaction to my overtake from the cyclist so he couldn'thave felt in any danger.
> 
> The road is not suitable to overtake a car, *but it was with a cyclist not riding in primary. If he was in primary I would not have even attempted it* because this would have told me he was not comfortable with any overtake or that he was going to make a turn somewhere ahead.




I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> The cyclist would have been more concerned than the car driver if I had made a sudden braking and trying to squeeze in behind him move.



The oncoming vehicle was 200m ahead in your original description - I still think I'd slow & pull in rather than speed up - note - not suddenly brake.

By speeding up I'm closing distance with the oncoming vehicle quicker, and giving myself less reaction time for anything else unexpected (a vehicle pulling out from the row of parked cars, kid running out from between them &c).

you didn't mention a car behind initially - I think the only addition I'd make is moving in some to prevent them trying to undertake between me and the cyclist.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 Mar 2011)

Conditions changed after you started the overtake... so just deal with them. Seem to me that the safest option would be to brake and drop back in behind the cyclist - you've already admitted they were going faster than you anticipated. Sorry to be a bit of a damp towel but it just seems like poor driving (not reading the conditions correctly - i.e. the cyclist's speed down the gradient) followed by making it more dangerous by speeding towards a car who has entered the road to get in front of said cyclist who you've admitted was going faster than 'anticipated'..


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I think the car behind me would have not been too impressed if I had put my brakes on and tried to pull in between him and the cyclist. the safest option was to complete my overtake.


Nope, bugger how the driver behind feels about it... the overtake is becoming unsafe with the addition of another car in the mix heading towards you, and a cyclist whos speed you have misjudged... if you need to brake then brake you must.


----------



## BSRU (17 Mar 2011)

If you gave a cyclist, who was travelling at 22-25 mph, loads of room and you managed to overtake them within the speed limit then I do not understand the point of the original post.


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2011)

Taking the cyclist equation out of it; when I was younger I once stupidly overtook a truck on semi rural/ urban road, only for a car to pull out from a side road in to my path. I wouldn't use that as a defence though, it was my bad driving  I should have waited patiently for a better spot to pass. Fortunately the road was wide and I wasn't going fast.


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> There was no "must overtake cyclist" mode, I was already overtaking the cyclist when conditions changed and felt the safest thing to do was complete the overtake. There was no reaction to my overtake from the cyclist so he couldn'thave felt in any danger.
> 
> *The road is not suitable to overtake a car, but it was with a cyclist not riding in primary.* If he was in primary I would not have even attempted it because this would have told me he was not comfortable with any overtake or that he was going to make a turn somewhere ahead.



Regarding the statement I have highlighted. 


Highway Code: said:


> 163
> 
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
> 
> ...


(My bolded text). You would have given a car more room on the road than you would a cyclist, by your own admission there was not room to overtake a car, somehow you thought there was room to overtake a cyclist "not riding in primary" (no mention of primary or secondary in Rule 163 is there?).




Further from the Highway Code: said:


> 162
> 
> Before overtaking you should make sure
> 
> ...


There was no 'suitable' gap to move back into before you potentially (and in fact did) come into conflict with another road user emerging from a junction that you were approaching.

cd365, please consider getting some additional driver training. Your anticipation of potential situations is lacking and I would heartily recommend the IAM driver training to improve your perception of road hazards and understanding of the HC.

This isn't condemnation, but you made a (potentially critical) mistake in your driving. Understanding that is the first step towards improving.


----------



## cyberknight (17 Mar 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Nope, bugger how the driver behind feels about it... the overtake is becoming unsafe with the addition of another car in the mix heading towards you, and a cyclist whos speed you have misjudged... if you need to brake then brake you must.



+1 the driver behind you has as much responsibility to not run into the back of you as you have to ensure your overtake was safe .

And if you were approaching a junction rule 167 of the highway code... as already mentioned applies.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> The speed of the road was 30mph.
> 
> The road was clear ahead, the cyclist was not doing the speed limit, I was perfectly entitled to overtake. The problem arised when a car entered the road from a side road. Now unless I can predict the future there was no way for me to see that was about to happen!
> *
> Maybe I should have built up a lot of speed and flew past him? Would that have been a better overtake?*



No

That's called "must get in front of cyclist"

You shouldn't be overtaking on the approach to a junction so you weren't perfectly entitled to overtake, you thought "it's just a bike - I can get past, my speed is more important than others' safety"

Fair enough, you are kind of admitting you made a mistake...NO-ONE is a perfect driver, but the better drivers learn from mistakes and adjust their driving accordingly


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

So basically no car driver should ever overtake on an inner city road? Side roads appear quite frequently, so should a motorist sit behind a cyclist doing 5mph because there is a side road coming up?

There was a suitable gap to overtake, the side road was 200 yards down the road, I gave the cyclist more than plenty of room in my overtake. Which part of this did you miss? I was back on my side of road long before hitting the side road. I have met every requirement of the highway code you have highlighted above.

The average width of a car is about 6 feet, i have stated that I gave the cyclist at least 6 feet.

If I had been doing the 30mph limit there would have been no issue but I had slowed down to read the road ahead before the overtake.


----------



## cyberknight (17 Mar 2011)

I think the issue is although the road may have been clear at the time the conditions changed and instead of stopping your overtake you decided to continue and turn a good situation into a bad one, at the end of the day the other motorist had right of way and the cyclist also had right of way .

Best case scenario would have been to slow down and overtake when the road conditions allowed you to do so safely, regardless of what speed the cyclist was doing.


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> So basically no car driver should ever overtake on an inner city road? Side roads appear quite frequently, so should a motorist sit behind a cyclist doing 5mph because there is a side road coming up?


That's clearly a stupid argument because the cyclist in your example was not doing 5mph



I suggest you get over your "I was entitled to overtake" mindset and start thinking more in terms of whether it was _prudent_ to overtake. If you had correctly estimated the cyclist's speed before you started the maneouvre, you would not have got into trouble


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

So slowing down and trying to get in behind the cyclist and in front of another car was the safe thing to do? I completely disagree, I felt at the time and still do was that the safest thing to do was complete my overtake. I was along side the cyclist when the other car appeared 200 yards down the road. I increased my speed (I did not go above 30mph) and safely pulled in well in front of the cyclist.

I can see how some car drivers get irate with cyclists on internet forums which some would then take that "f*ck them" attitude out on the road.


----------



## gaz (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> There was a suitable gap to overtake, the side road was 200 yards down the road, I gave the cyclist more than plenty of room in my overtake. Which part of this did you miss? I was back on my side of road long before hitting the side road. I have met every requirement of the highway code you have highlighted above.



200 yards now? not 200 meters? Still that is a lot of space for an overtake. If that was the amount of distance you had, then there was plenty of time / space for you to finish your manoeuvre.


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I can see how some car drivers get irate with cyclists on internet forums


Luckily most car drivers are not in the habit of starting threads on internet cycling forums where they describe how they put themselves and cyclists in danger through ill-judged overtaking manoeuvres and expect praise for it, or we'd all be in the shoot

Look, you made a mistake by not judging the speed of the vehicle you were overtaking. We all make mistakes, that's excusable, but the response is to learn from them, not to defend them on the internet. Man up, admit it, move on.


----------



## mickle (17 Mar 2011)

I had a run in with the driver of a people mover recently who went for an overtake and pulled back in to clear a traffic island before he had fully passed me. 

He hadn't anticipated my speed because he hadn't taken account of the fact we were on a hill. 

When I confronted him he accused me of 'speeding up'. 

The fact that I was able to catch up with him and have a lengthy 'conversation' at him tells you that the overtake was not a valid manouvre. He'd have got there just as fast behind me.


----------



## beastie (17 Mar 2011)

What point are you trying to make cd ?If you passed with 6 feet clearance and there was no issue because you speeded up to complete the maneuver due to another vehicle appearing unexpectedly, then why post?


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> *So slowing down and trying to get in behind the cyclist and in front of another car was the safe thing to do? *I completely disagree, I felt at the time and still do was that the safest thing to do was complete my overtake. I was along side the cyclist when the other car appeared 200 yards down the road. I increased my speed (I did not go above 30mph) and safely pulled in well in front of the cyclist.
> 
> *I can see how some car drivers get irate with cyclists on internet forums which some would then take that "f*ck them" attitude out on the road.*



Yes it is the safe thing to do. If you can't safely complete the manoevre without accelerating towards another car with a combined speed of 60mph and a cyclist to your left, aborting the overtake is the safe thing to do.

Re. the latter, I'm not criticising the manoevre you describe because of what I've learned as a cyclist, but from the point of view of a car driver. You are ignoring the HC in an attempt to justify passing a more vulnerable road user in a way that was dangerous enough to worry you (and no doubt the overtaken vehicle).


----------



## MacB (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> So slowing down and trying to get in behind the cyclist and in front of another car was the safe thing to do? I completely disagree, I felt at the time and still do was that the safest thing to do was complete my overtake. I was along side the cyclist when the other car appeared 200 yards down the road. I increased my speed (I did not go above 30mph) and safely pulled in well in front of the cyclist.
> 
> I can see how some car drivers get irate with cyclists on internet forums which some would then take that "f*ck them" attitude out on the road.



Hmmm, some of the slap downs are a bit harsh/pompous but I'm not sure about the final decision you made, I'd have either:-

1. pedal to the metal and zoom past
2. slowed and slotted in behind cyclist

The problem with option 1 is it would encourage the same behaviour from the following car, possibly unsighted re the car that had pulled out, and result in a really close pass, or collision, for the cyclist. But it's still a judgement call and you'd be far from alone in feeling an unreasonable responsibility to the car behind. The problem for cyclists is that these manouevers are really dangerous, faced with a change in circumstances most drivers will veer towards the cyclist rather than risk hitting another vehicle. Braking and pulling back in seems to be well down the list of automatic responses. Even if you're only talikng a bashed wing mirror on one hand compared to a mangled cyclist on the other.

I have personal experience of this as a lorry did it to me one morning, I was still quite new to cycling and not as far out as I should have been. But he turned what would have been a pretty close pass into a collision as oncoming traffic forced him to make a choice, which didn't include slowing down apparently. I was extraordinarily lucky as I bounced along the side of the lorry and remained upright. Ripped jacket, bruised shoulder, arm, elbow and a severe case of the shakes.

Since taking up cycling it's definitely changed my driving habits and I give max room and max forward planning to any decision around them. A few times this has resulted in highly impatient drivers behind who then overtake the same cyclist far too close as if underlining how they feel about my driving. As a result I'm not too sure on how much I actually help a cyclist by these actions. Technically I'm doing the right thing but it doesn't make me feel any better about it.


----------



## cd365 (17 Mar 2011)

Meters/yards just showing my age now 
There was plenty of time to finish my manoeuvre and I did finish it safely. At no time was I anywhere near the cyclist or the car which had pulled out.

I tend to do about 600 miles a month on a cycle so started this thread as a cyclist and as a car driver. 

My point was that as a cyclist I get irate with some bad overtakes, but sometimes no matter how much the car driver tries to overtake safely things can happen out of their control and personally I should be a little more aware of their point of view.

A couple of years ago before I had got heavily into cycling I might have been like the other 2 car drivers I witnessed overtaking at speed with not much gap, but my perception of what a cyclist needs has changed.

My mistake was not realising what speed the cyclist was doing, if I had realised he was going faster than I had anticipated, I would have went past at the speed limit but I had tried to go past at a more leisurely speed.


----------



## 2Loose (17 Mar 2011)

The safest move would have been not to complete the overtake once you correctly judged the cyclists speed. As it was you sped up, clenched and *hoped* that you would be able to get back in lane before meeting the oncoming car. Braking would have ensured that you did, as it was, you lucked out and made the overtake without any impact.

I do experience this phenomenon quite often myself, cars go for the overtake and then realise I am doing 20+ so accelerate and cross their fingers, hoping to get in before they crash, rather than wait and assess the situation properly. In this situation I invariably do their job and brake giving them more room and potentially saving my own life. I shouldn't have to do their road assessment for them. 

Not all cyclists pootle at 10mph. Learn from it and assess the road ahead properly before making a move. 

Whoever mentioned Advanced driver training - it was a good suggestion, I did some advanced motorcycle training and it completely changed the way I rode for the better ( and often faster to be fair




)


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Mar 2011)

MacB said:


> Hmmm, some of the slap downs are a bit harsh/pompous


I agree with most of your post, but not (unsurprisingly perhaps) this bit. I don't think it is harsh or pompous to expect someone trained in driving a couple of tons of metal on the road to (a) know and (b) comply with the rules of the road. To post a mistaken overtake is one thing, to try to justify it with some "entitled to overtake" was another.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (17 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> The road is wide enough for two cars to be parked opposite and for two cars to safely pass each other.
> 
> On my overtake I had given the cyclist at least 6 feet of room much more than the other 2 cars I had just watched overtake.
> 
> ...



That's the clincher. As a driver, you should reaally be well aware of the presence of any junctions ahead of your vehicle, and you should be prepared for something to come out of one. It's not in the highway code that you shouldn't overtake near a junction for nothing, you know ... 
The only person doing anything wrong here is you, I'm afraid. I'd have hung back and waited for a stretch of road with no junctions, especially at 25mph.


----------



## Philk (17 Mar 2011)

This is just the case where you should have applied risk management
1) Identify
2) Assess
3) Plan
4) Implement

as part of this necessary activity, you should have pulled over, created a risk management policy, created a process guide and management strategies. then embed them into your culture, by this time you will have mitigated the risk and ensured that if the same scenario event is identified in the future it will be managed......

OK ill get my coat


----------



## asterix (17 Mar 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> He shouldn't have been so close, then. And so what if he wasn't impressed? I don't think you should value another driver's opinion over safety.
> 
> *I think the lesson to take away from this is that you should probably not post "n defence of motorists" on a cycling forum unless the cyclist involved in the incident was doing something bloomin' daft.
> 
> *Sam




Although it is an interesting revelation of how some drivers regard the situation when they encounter a cyclist. 

Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre and does not save a great deal of time in most situations and yet drivers still think they _have_ to do it! Why?

RT's explanation as to the OP's error is a good one and I do hope the OP takes it on board.

Lee101:


> FFS the amount of crap that people have posted in response to what is imo a relatively safe overtake. Because as you said you can't tell the future.



If the overtake is only 'relatively' safe then don't do it! Otherwise the only relative's involved may be those of the deceased.


----------



## davefb (17 Mar 2011)

I'm assuming the cyclist slowed down, assuming the saw the problem as well? After all , if this was a car you overtook, then they should slow down to help the car overtaking out.

Thats why it can be dangerous to slow down ( as some people have said), the person being overtook is already slowing down and you do and they do.. You end up stuck next to them... 


Rule 168.
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed,* slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. *
*
*
This isn't a cycling thing , this is a driving thing and drivers being overtaken often keep accelerating to try to make it difficult for those overtaking.
*
*


----------



## 2Loose (17 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1340247"]
...
Posting the event from a motorists point of view deserves respect imo. After cd did not have to. People say I have hindsight but f*** me this is nothing compared to what some people have posted on this thread. Suggesting that the OP does some advanced driving? What ****ing planet are some people on and how dare people judge the OP based on one overtake which they have been perfectly open about. 

I suggest seriously people put themselves at the wheel and ask could they have done better before cut n pasting hugh swaffs of the HC and suggesting they take some sort of advanced training. What a bunch of condescending *****.
[/quote]



I'd suggest everyone who rides\drives and cares takes advanced training. I thought I was a perfect driver before I did it and I have no doubt it makes a big difference. I still make mistakes, but get myself in far less 'clenched' situations.

Kudos for cd365 for posting this, however I am firmly in the 'there are no mistakes, only lessons' camp as opposed to it was outside my control (and I have made more than my fair share). 

Next time a similiar situation arises I have no doubt he\she will attempt to properly assess the speed of the other road user before committing.


----------



## Rollon (17 Mar 2011)

davefb said:


> I'm assuming the cyclist slowed down, assuming the saw the problem as well? After all , if this was a car you overtook, then they should slow down to help the car overtaking out.
> 
> Thats why it can be dangerous to slow down ( as some people have said), the person being overtook is already slowing down and you do and they do.. You end up stuck next to them...
> 
> ...



Exactly.
I was driving last week in my van and being tailgated by a young female driver in a little car. Another car was a couple of hundred yards ahead but traveling towards us. Checking my door mirror I saw that the car behind had swung out into the other side of the road to overtake me. The little car didn't have the acceleration to safely make the move and I expected it to tuck back in behind me to save ahead on collision with the fast approaching car. But no she kept on coming and clearly was not going to give way. Not wanting to witness carnage I braked hard and allowed her to, just in time to nip in, in front of me. I doubt she realised the favour I had just given her, and probably thought she had managed the manovre without any help. That's inexperience for you.
However my point is that every road user has a duty to be aware of what is going on around them. In the case in question the cyclist should have realised the danger and slowed down to allow the overtaking car to complete its manovre. Cyclists being the more vulnerable must be prepared to give way if neccesary even when its other who should be doing so. Its better to survive to argue because you can't argue if you dont.
Dave.


----------



## 2Loose (17 Mar 2011)

Rollon said:


> Exactly.
> I was driving last week in my van and being tailgated by a young female driver in a little car. Another car was a couple of hundred yards ahead but traveling towards us. Checking my door mirror I saw that the car behind had swung out into the other side of the road to overtake me. The little car didn't have the acceleration to safely make the move and I expected it to tuck back in behind me to save ahead on collision with the fast approaching car. But no she kept on coming and clearly was not going to give way. Not wanting to witness carnage I braked hard and allowed her to, just in time to nip in, in front of me. I doubt she realised the favour I had just given her, and probably thought she had managed the manovre without any help. That's inexperience for you.
> However my point is that every road user has a duty to be aware of what is going on around them. In the case in question the cyclist should have realised the danger and slowed down to allow the overtaking car to complete its manovre. *Cyclists being the more vulnerable must be prepared to give way if neccesary even when its other who should be doing so. Its better to survive to argue because you can't argue if you dont.
> Dave.*



Although I agree (mostly) with the point, it really does sound like a licence for every driver to forcibly push cyclists off the road. You can't expect everyone to see the same things as a van\car driver while the cyclist is generally in the left hand half of the road, therefore people shouldn't assume that the person they are overtaking will compensate for their mistakes. * Fair enough if they do, but it shouldn't be expected.*

Saying that the cyclist *must *'make allowances for every cretin who tries a dodgy overtake' is victim blaming without doubt.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Mar 2011)

I don't buy the "because they are more vulnerable they should give way" line

Yes, in some situations, "right of way" should go out of the window when a situation develops whereby someone may be involved in a collision, but I get sick and tired of people trotting out (not on here btw) the line that "it's common sense" that cars are always going to win so you should just keep out of their way

"Common Sense" is generally the biggest load of twaddle going and is little more than a euphemism for "populist, ill-informed assumption"

Presumably every child should volunteer their dinner money to the school bully on the same grounds of the bully being bigger and them being more likely to come off badly.


----------



## deggers (17 Mar 2011)

a


----------



## JonnyBlade (17 Mar 2011)

What I can not fathom is in a 30 zone why 25 mph is not enough for some? More often than not it's a prestige thing, that and the fact that motorists hate to wait behind bikes no matter what the speed. After all we might slow them down! I'm a regular car driver and most of us are sadly lacking where cyclists are concerned. IMO of course


----------



## subaqua (17 Mar 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> What I can not fathom is in a 30 zone why 25 mph is not enough for some? More often than not it's a prestige thing, that and the fact that motorists hate to wait behind bikes no matter what the speed. After all we might slow them down! I'm a regular car driver and most of us are sadly lacking where cyclists are concerned. IMO of course




its the must get past attitude prevalent in a large percentage - not ALL drivers. perception of speed is the issue , most car drivers expect cyclists to be pootling along at 15mph tops , the nodders speed , when in reality we can be tanking along quite merrily at 22 plus . thats what causes problems , slipping into closed mind syndrome rather than observing the road ahead correctly. 

roadcraft is a great book , not got round to cyclecraft yet


i have always waited patiently behind cyclists when driving until its safe to pass with as much room as possible. it delays me ooh 10 20 seconds in general.

the horns and abuse you get from divers behind is unbeleivable sometimes ( actually its not) .


----------



## JonnyBlade (18 Mar 2011)

subaqua said:


> its the must get past attitude prevalent in a large percentage - not ALL drivers. perception of speed is the issue , most car drivers expect cyclists to be pootling along at 15mph tops , the nodders speed , when in reality we can be tanking along quite merrily at 22 plus . thats what causes problems , slipping into closed mind syndrome rather than observing the road ahead correctly.
> 
> roadcraft is a great book , not got round to cyclecraft yet
> 
> ...



It can actually sometimes be frustrating when they don't pass!!!! There's always someone further down the queue willing to blame the cyclist. Especially the builders lorry on Privett Road in Gosport


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

I have found this thread fascinating. Some of the comments have been highly amusing.
Reading the Highway Code for what some people seem to assume is for the first time, the only error I made was "move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake". Seeing a car appear 200 yards down the road made me follow that instruction. 

The rest of that instruction reads "Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in". This I did.

At what distance does the advice "approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road" come into play? At 200 yards away with NO traffic in front of me I judged this to be perfectly safe. The same as I judged that pulling in behind the cyclist was not the safer option for the cyclist.

I pulled in well in front of the cyclist and well before the car got near. The cyclist was not in any danger and did not slow down. If I had put the cyclist in any danger I'm sure he would have taken action like slowing down, but he did not.

Some of the reactions on here would give the "they're only a cyclist" brigade all the justification they need for the "it doesn't matter how I overtake they wouldn't be happy, they just expect them to sit behind the even though that would hold up traffic" comments.

All motorists need to share the road, peds, cyclists, motorbikes, cars, lorries, buses etc. and every road user should try and see the road how another user would see it. This is my point, this is my reason for this thread. I had tried to do the safest overtake I could do, all of the road conditions made it acceptable for a safe overtake, and it was safe, at no point was anyone in danger. The only thing I did wrong was misjudge the speed of the cyclist which did surprise me being a cyclist myself hence me realising that non-cycling motorists will find it a lot harder to judge a cyclists speed. As a cyclist that is something I know I will have to come to terms with. Matbe others should to!


----------



## rich p (18 Mar 2011)

So let me get this straight. You went out in your car, overtook someone, no-one was inconvenienced or put in danger.

Great story, thanks for posting


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

Glad you enjoyed it


----------



## threebikesmcginty (18 Mar 2011)

rich p said:


> So let me get this straight. You went out in your car, overtook someone, no-one was inconvenienced or put in danger.
> 
> Great story, thanks for posting



Cycling to work this morning, I dropped my water bottle and ran over it, I also had to stop to make a minor adjustment to my saddle - that interesting enough for you, rich?


----------



## BSRU (18 Mar 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Cycling to work this morning, I dropped my water bottle and ran over it, I also had to stop to make a minor adjustment to my saddle - that interesting enough for you, rich?



Did you record it all on video for uploading to YouTube?


----------



## asterix (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> Glad you enjoyed it




The main thing is that you have learned a lesson.


----------



## mickle (18 Mar 2011)

"At what distance does the advice "approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road" come into play? At 200 yards away with NO traffic in front of me I judged this to be perfectly safe."


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

That I have, that it is not always easy for a motorist to judge a cyclists speed so I will try to take that into account the next time I want to gesticulate to a passing motorist.


----------



## fyfeg (18 Mar 2011)

cd365, I have some sympathy with you here BUT your overtake was not safe at the start BECAUSE you are not supposed to overtake near a junction.The highway code is very clear about this and your scenario is probably the reason why. You miss judged the cyclists speed and you assumed an upcoming junction would remain clear. I'm sorry but I can only give your driving a 6 out of 10 . Don't do it again and we'll say no more about it!!


----------



## tyred (18 Mar 2011)

Is it just me or should the driver joining the main road have looked in both directions _before_ pulling out? I always do and it worries me how many people don't.


----------



## mickle (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> That I have, that it is not always easy for a motorist to judge a cyclists speed so I will try to take that into account the next time I want to gesticulate to a passing motorist.



Isn't it stating the bleedin' obvious that a competent driver should have the ability to accurately judge how fast another road user is travelling? If you don't have this ability you need to learn it or stay off the road.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

I thought I was more of a 7 lol
How far away from a junction should one be before judging if it is too close?
I live in a city and junctions/side roads are very frequent so does this mean that no car should ever overtake a cyclist in a city environment?

Last night as I was driving home from work, as I approached a side road, the third one in less than a hundred yards, I spotted two cyclists pootling past the side road, as they were alongside the side road 3 cars overtook them, plenty of space and caused no concern to the cyclists, should the first car driver have practically stopped his car, let them go past the side road and then overtook them once they were past it?

Luckily as I overtook them they had gone past the side road. 
Though I did wind my window down shouting "use the cycle path", "you don't pay road tax" and pass them within 6 inches of my wing mirror at 90mph whilst beeping my horn


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I spotted two cyclists pootling past the side road,



Glad you managed to judge their speed accurately this time


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> Isn't it stating the bleedin' obvious that a competent driver should have the ability to accurately judge how fast another road user is travelling? If you don't have this ability you need to learn it or stay off the road.



Plus every drivers spatial awareness should be to an incredibly high standard? Accurately judging how fast every other road user is going is very difficult and impossible for any person to say that they always get it right. I have already said in that instance I misjudged the cyclists speed, who hasn't misjudged anothers speed?

Basically what you are saying is that anyone who has ever misjudged the speed of another road user should stay off the road? Awesome, no one will ever use the roads, will save the country billions in repair bills.


----------



## asterix (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> That I have, that it is not always easy for a motorist to judge a cyclists speed so I will try to take that into account the next time I want to gesticulate to a passing motorist.




From this and your other posts I wonder if you are quite new to driving. In France recently qualified drivers display an 'A' on their cars. 

This has interesting effects and appears to divide such drivers into 2 groups:

1. those who drive carefully and well. Any errors they make through inexperience will be mitigated by their cautious speed and tendency to slow down in case of danger.

2. those who resent the implication and drive fast and dangerously in order to show that despite the 'A' they are a superb driver. They overtake even on blind bends and the crests of hills!

Fortunately 1 is less common than 2 and 2 usually calms down after a while.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> Glad you managed to judge their speed accurately this time



Only cause they had hi-vis and helmets on


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

asterix said:


> From this and your other posts I wonder if you are quite new to driving.



I have been driving over 20 years, have a full clean licence, and have passed the advanced motorcycle training and have been riding motorbikes for over 20 years too.

Some of my comments have been tongue in cheek which you seem to have missed


----------



## mickle (18 Mar 2011)

I'm not claiming any supernatural abilities but I never misjudge the speed of other road users. Especially cyclists.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> I'm not claiming any supernatural abilities but I never misjudge the speed of other road users. Especially cyclists.



And my Nan's Bob Marley


----------



## Dan B (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> That I have, that it is not always easy for a motorist to judge a cyclists speed


There's actually a very simple way to do this if you're behind the cyclist. What you do is, you slow down until the gap between you and the cyclist is no longer shrinking, then you read the number off the big dial in the middle of the dashboard. [ edit: no, not the rev counter. no, that one's the oil temperature. look for the one that probably has markings between 0 and about 100 and has the legend "mph" on it ]


Better spatial awareness and more practice will help to shortcut this process, and I would say the vast majority of drivers who pass me (and many of the ones who don't pass me) when I'm cycling are correctly judging that I move at around 20mph. But of the ones that for whatever reasons can't, I would suggest that they probably shouldn't be attempting overtakes made dangerous by their lack of ability


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> There's actually a very simple way to do this if you're behind the cyclist. What you do is, you slow down until the gap between you and the cyclist is no longer shrinking, then you read the number off the big dial in the middle of the dashboard. [ edit: no, not the rev counter. no, that one's the oil temperature. look for the one that probably has markings between 0 and about 100 and has the legend "mph" on it ]



That is the stupidist thing I have read yet. So a car driver sees a cyclist in front of him, should slow down, match his speed, work out his speed and then decide to overtake. 

Do you actually ever drive?


----------



## GrasB (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I then realised the cyclist was going a lot faster than I had *anticipated*; the road was a slight downhill gradient so he was probably doing 22-25mph. I was probably only going 5mph faster than him. Hence me putting a bit of a squirt on to make sure I can pull in in-front of him at a safe distance.


I'm a little concerned with the use of 'anticipated' here, if you're behind a vehicle with a relatively small closing speed there's little excuse as to why you couldn't gauge their speed fairly accurately. 




cd365 said:


> The road was clear ahead, the cyclist was not doing the speed limit, I was perfectly entitled to overtake. The problem arised when a car entered the road from a side road. Now unless I can predict the future there was no way for me to see that was about to happen!


The road wasn't clear, it had a junction on it, something like that should be viewed in a similar manner to the road having a central refuge. The reason for this is that with side road so you can anticipate with a fairly high probability someone may pull out. Remember you're approaching the junction on the wrong side of the road, the driver won't be paying much attention to road to their left as it's unusual for anything to be there. Sure it's bad driving but it's also common habit. 




reiver said:


> THis winds me up no end, the amount of times I have been following someone for miles at 45-50, I then overtake and find myself at 70 with them just behind also doing about 69, after a little while they will disappear as they drop back down to 45-50; why do so many drivers do this, are they trying to cause an accident?


This bugs me as well, it's nice to have a car that has a surprise overtake feature - it's very quiet but so quick. On occasions you can see people actually flooring it after you've basically passed them, like . Much harder to do in the lotus which is loud, in fact dropping a gear often 'encourages' the driver to speed up a bit & move to the offside, it's a bit like "I'm not going to let you overtake"


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

This was an urban road and like any typical urban road it had side roads coming off it and a junction at either end. If the view is that you can never overtake a cyclist because there is a side road within 200/300/400? yards then every other vehicle would permanently have to stick behind the cyclist because no overtake would ever be deemed safe.

In a perfect world there would be well maintained, wide cyclist only lanes on every road, with it being illegal to block these lanes. But we do not live in a perfect world, everyone has to share the road.


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Mar 2011)

CD365, every reply you make tells me that you need better driver training:

"I was perfectly entitled to overtake." No, there is nothing in the HC or in law that entitles anyone to overtake, ever. Overtaking is a potentially dangerous manoevre and should be approached with forethought and planning. It seems you did not even manage to estimate the cyclist's speed correctly, even though it can only have bee a few mph slower than your approach.

"That is the stupidist thing I have read yet. So a car driver sees a cyclist in front of him, should slow down, match his speed, work out his speed and then decide to overtake. " Yes that is exactly what you are meant to do. You are certainly not meant to make a wild guess and hope you can get safely past.

"If the view is that you can never overtake a cyclist because there is a side road within 200/300/400? yards then every other vehicle would permanently have to stick behind the cyclist because no overtake would ever be deemed safe." Indeed, given that the cyclist is moving at around 75% to 85% of the speed_ limit _(note, _not target_) then nothing is lost by waiting until he turns off from your route. Just how many seconds did overtaking save you anyway (given that you assure us you did not exceed the limit)?

"The road in front of me was now clear, i.e. no oncoming traffic, so coming up to the cyclist I gave him plenty of room as I prepared to overtake, about 200m down the road a car turns into the road and starts to head towards me. " So, you had prepared to overtake (which should mean you matched speeds and pulled out to overtaking position*) when a car [pulled into the road 200m away. At this point you are on the wrong side of the road with a car approaching; this is when you should have aborted the overtake and pulled back behind the cyclist.

*Get a copy of "How to be a better driver" (Advanced Driving) from IAM, which covers this amongst other things. Better yet, take a 'Skills for life' course.


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Mar 2011)

In summary, the op sees nothing wrong in what he did, and is unconvinced by arguments to the contrary.

Maybe it's best to leave this one alone now?


----------



## mickle (18 Mar 2011)

OT I know but when I had my Ferrari 412 drivers were very keen to get out of my way.


----------



## Crackle (18 Mar 2011)

In fairness to cd365, the posting style of some members has put him squarely on the defensive. I'm sure he's learnt something from all this and if he encounters the same situation again he'll approach it differently, which I think he said somewhere.


----------



## TheDoctor (18 Mar 2011)

The OP may think he did nothing wrong, but if you did that on a driving test you'd fail. And rightly so.


----------



## GrasB (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> This was an urban road and like any typical urban road it had side roads coming off it and a junction at either end. If the view is that you can never overtake a cyclist because there is a side road within 200/300/400? yards then every other vehicle would permanently have to stick behind the cyclist because no overtake would ever be deemed safe.


I think you've missed the point here. It's not that you can't overtake, it's that when you see a junction it should be treated in the same was as you would if there's a centre refuge there. It might be perfectly safe to overtake in the space provided it may not. The point is that you shouldn't be within the overtaking maneuver by the time you get to that junction.



> In a perfect world there would be well maintained, wide cyclist only lanes on every road, with it being illegal to block these lanes.


I'm going to STRONGLY disagree here, I'll not go into the reasons why as that's another, heated, thread in its own right.


----------



## Alien8 (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> In a perfect world there would be well maintained, wide cyclist only lanes on every road, with it being illegal to block these lanes. But we do not live in a perfect world, everyone has to share the road.



Unfortunately this has demonstrated your lack of understanding of road safety - for all road users, not just cyclists.


----------



## Dan B (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> That is the stupidist thing I have read yet. So a car driver sees a cyclist in front of him, should slow down, match his speed, work out his speed and then decide to overtake.


If he genuinely has no other way of judging the cyclist's speed (which was your claim not mine), what else do you suggest he do? Try and overtake anyway on the offchance?



cd365 said:


> Do you actually ever drive?


Yes. But I seem not to have as much trouble judging the speed of other road users as you suggest I should have. Perhaps that's because I make the effort to, instead of assuming they're all dawdling along and that I'm "entitled to overtake"


----------



## Dan B (18 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> THis winds me up no end, the amount of times I have been following someone for miles at 45-50, I then overtake and find myself at 70 with them just behind also doing about 69, after a little while they will disappear as they drop back down to 45-50; why do so many drivers do this, are they trying to cause an accident?


I doubt it's malicious: I think they're just driving on autopilot and don't notice until they see another vehicle that they're going much slower than they could be.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

GrasB said:


> The point is that you shouldn't be within the overtaking maneuver by the time you get to that junction.



I have used bikehike to check my distances. When I started my overtake I was 228 yards (or 208m) from the junction and I was nowhere near the junction when I completed my overtake, probably over 150 yards away.


----------



## MacB (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> I have used bikehike to check my distances. When I started my overtake I was 228 yards (or 208m) from the junction and I was nowhere near the junction when I completed my overtake, probably over 150 yards away.




It's no good, the residents of 'perfect driving' village have got their pitchforks out


----------



## Crackle (18 Mar 2011)

MacB said:


> It's no good, the residents of 'perfect driving' village have got their pitchforks out



All powerful and prescient champions of the cause, 'power to the keyboard' as Wolfie might say.


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2011)

MacB said:


> It's no good, the residents of 'perfect driving' village have got their pitchforks out



Get orf moi land


----------



## MacB (18 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> Get orf moi land



isn't it, get oota ma swamp?


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

MacB said:


> isn't it, get oota ma swamp?


----------



## adscrim (18 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> How on earth does wishing for "well maintained, wide cyclist only lanes on every road" demonstrate a lack of understanding for road safety ?




How do you turn right?


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

Turn Right 

Glad I could help lol


----------



## Alien8 (18 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> How on earth does wishing for "well maintained, wide cyclist only lanes on every road" demonstrate a lack of understanding for road safety ?



Well, there will always be points that cyclists and motorists come in to contact (not literally hopefully) like junctions and roundabouts etc.

Cycle lanes just marginalise cyclists, encourage poor cyclist/motorist behaviour, and not matter how wide are detrimental to overall road safety.

Show me a cyclist who is in favour of cycle lanes and I'll show you an inexperienced cyclist.


----------



## Alien8 (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> Turn Right
> 
> Glad I could help lol



And one for our friends: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Your-Turn-Signal


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Mar 2011)

Alien8 said:


> Show me a cyclist who is in favour of cycle lanes and I'll show you an inexperienced cyclist.



Hmm.

I'm in favour of decently constructed, designed and maintained ones, where the traffic speeds are high (say, 40+ mph). Certainly if we're not going to make drivers behave themselves, at least.

sadly, the uk experience is that being in favour of decently constructed, designed and maintained cycle lanes/paths effectively means being against most (charitably - pessimistically all) of the cycling infrastructure that we actually have.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

Alien8 said:


> And one for our friends: http://www.wikihow.c...our-Turn-Signal



Agreed, using your indicators in a car is a must that fewer people seem to do


----------



## Dan B (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> Turn Right
> 
> Glad I could help lol





> Extend your left arm away from your bike to initiate the right turn bike signal. Your elbow should be bent at a 90 degree angle with your forearm pointing upward. The left palm should be pointing forward to indicate a proper right turn.


Er, you what?


----------



## som3blok3 (18 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Er, you what?



Wtfunk? Left palm you what now  ......

After 8 pages, can't believe I've just read them all, let it drop v v v v v


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Wtfunk? Left palm you what now  ......
> 
> After 8 pages, can't believe I've just read them all, let it drop v v v v v



A non event has certainly done well to get to 8 pages


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> A non event has certainly done well to get to 8 pages



Will this make it 9 ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nope, I'll have toadd some more


----------



## som3blok3 (18 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> A non event has certainly done well to get to 8 pages



Fair play, lets aim for double figures.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

It's the most popular thread I have created and I've thoroughly enjoyed it, helped my work day go quicker lol


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Fair play, lets aim for double figures.



OK, cd365 was the cyclist you overtook wearing a helmet and earphones ?


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> OK, cd365 was the cyclist you overtook wearing a helmet and earphones ?




You forgot Hi Viz/ did they have lights ?


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> starts off as utter rubbish and ends in nastiness, I think this post puts me 100% on the side of CD365


It's certainly not rubbish to say that there is no entitlement to overtake. It is not nastiness to say someone would benefit from advanced training: I believe most drivers would and such training would allow cd365 and yourself to understand why this was a poorly executed manoevre. Or do you believe advanced driver training is some sort of remedial training?


Since it seems to be considered that the pitch-forks are coming out on behalf of aggrieved cyclists, I put cd365's description, as far as I can translate it and using his words (such as "entitled to overtake") into an Advanced Driving forum. I deliberately avoiding naming anyone and also avoided IAM as it seems to annoy some here...

Here are the responses, from advanced _drivers_ of various kinds:
http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3332

Note that the immediate response is "call it off" - then some discussion about assumptions....


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

HLaB said:


> You forgot Hi Viz/ did they have lights ?



No Hi Viz, no lights and dark clothing


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> So you are on a city street and there is a cyclist ahead. Obviously you are going to overtake as he is slower than you.
> 
> The road has parked cars either side, but there is a gap where you believe you can get past, so you are entitled to overtake. You have prepared to overtake when a car pulls out of a side road about 200metres ahead (approaching). You realise at this point that you had underestimated the cyclist's speed and he is doing 22 to 25 mph (limit is 30mph).



This was your post.

I was already overtaking when the car pulled out of the side road, I was alongside the cyclist, I was not in preparation mode


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> No Hi Viz, no lights and dark clothing




And he didn't pay road tax either


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

HLaB said:


> And he didn't pay road tax either



Maybe I should have asked him?


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> This was your post.
> *
> I was already overtaking when the car pulled out of the side road, I was alongside the cyclist, I was not in preparation mode*





cd365 said:


> Whilst driving last night, I was coming down a road cars parked on both sides, a couple of cars ahead of me and some cars coming towards me, hence a bit of squeezing through. I then noticed the cars ahead of me (about 50m) overtake a cyclist.
> 
> The road in front of me was now clear, i.e. no oncoming traffic, so coming up to the cyclist I gave him plenty of room* as I prepared to overtake, about 200m down the road a car turns into the road and starts to head towards me. *
> 
> ...


Spot the contradiction?


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

A bad description there from me, I was alongside cause I remember looking over at the cyclist as the car pulled out and shone his lights towards us. My bad!

Maybe I should have paid more attention to my original post when my driving started to be slaughtered!!


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Mar 2011)

Maybe. All we had to go on was your description and that's why 'pull back in' was advised. I'd still hope to avoid getting into the alongside position by better forward planning though. It will be educational (to me at least) to see how those drivers continue to respond.

Edit: And really, please do consider advanced training: In the same way that reviewing your own cycling can improve your decisions on the road, advanced training gives you an outside perspective on how well you're judging situations as they develop and gives tools for deciding "How could I have done that better", which (IMO) is how everyone should be approach any potentially hazardous incident on the road.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

I have recently taken the hazard perception course on the theory test learning DVD and passed all first time? Does that count?


----------



## Mad at urage (18 Mar 2011)

Hazard perception and forward planning are not the same thing I'm afraid. 

Ever tried to do a commentary of what you see as you drive, what might happen and how you plan to cope with the different possibilities? It's called commentary driving and -unfortunately - is no longer "required" on IAM tests at least, although many observers use it to ecourage the sort of attention to detail that is needed.

I'm an IAM associate member (means I've passed the test) and I've been assessed by a different firm who my employers use (voluntarily, i.e. _I decided_ it was time for another independent assessment of my driving) two years ago (when I was told that there was no point critiquing me as he normally would, he'd give criticism as if I were trying for advanced instructor level). Soon I'll be looking into ROSPA advanced training (too busy right now). All this because I believe that anyone in charge of potentially lethal machinery has an obligation to be as well qualified as they are capable of being.


----------



## mickle (18 Mar 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Hazard perception and forward planning are not the same thing I'm afraid.
> 
> Ever tried to do a commentary of what you see as you drive, what might happen and how you plan to cope with the different possibilities? It's called commentary driving and -unfortunately - is no longer "required" on IAM tests at least, although many observers use it to ecourage the sort of attention to detail that is needed.
> 
> I'm an IAM associate member (means I've passed the test) and I've been assessed by a different firm who my employers use (voluntarily, i.e. _I decided_ it was time for another independent assessment of my driving) two years ago (when I was told that there was no point critiquing me as he normally would, he'd give criticism as if I were trying for advanced instructor level). Soon I'll be looking into ROSPA advanced training (too busy right now). All this because I believe that anyone in charge of potentially lethal machinery has an obligation to be as well qualified as they are capable of being.



Admirable sentiments Sir. If only there were more on the roads with your attitude. Respect.


----------



## cd365 (18 Mar 2011)

My driving was tested last year by my company because of their H&S policy which I passed with flying colours.

Maybe I should look at the IAM since it will help with my insurance premiums (which went up 50% with no change in circumstances!). I did take the motorcycle version many years ago.


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> My driving was tested last year by my company because of their H&S policy which I passed with flying colours.



Are you a bus driver with Arriva ?


----------



## martine (22 Mar 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> ...I'm an IAM associate member (means I've passed the test) and I've been assessed by a different firm who my employers use (voluntarily, i.e. _I decided_ it was time for another independent assessment of my driving) two years ago (when I was told that there was no point critiquing me as he normally would, he'd give criticism as if I were trying for advanced instructor level). Soon I'll be looking into ROSPA advanced training (too busy right now). All this because I believe that anyone in charge of potentially lethal machinery has an obligation to be as well qualified as they are capable of being.


Hi 'Mad' - not sure I understand your first statement above...'IAM Associates' are *preparing* for the IAM Advanced Test...*when you pass you become a full member*. Or perhaps I've misundestood.

Quite agree with your sentiments though..all car drivers (and bikers) should take further training once they've passed their L-test...that's only the start to becoming ever better and yes you're right, no one's a perfect driver (not even me!).

Discussing tricky situations or even mistakes is very healthy in my opinion.

Martin - IAM Senior Observer and DSA: ADI


----------



## Rupie (22 Mar 2011)

Well I am new to this CycleChat forum and have just managed to trawl trough this topic. All I can say that I cannot believe some of the comments I have read. Why do all chat posts turn into Over aggressive witch hunts, quoting parts of the Highway code and all judgements being passed with little knowledge but masses of assumption. Its like watching a group of vultures circling a helpless abandoned animal. Irrespective of whoever is right it makes me ashamed to be a cyclist. Mybe the origiator of the topic should have thought more before typing anything I hope you all do not ast as agressivly on the road as you do on the internet.


----------



## mickle (22 Mar 2011)

Rupie said:


> Well I am new to this CycleChat forum and have just managed to trawl trough this topic. All I can say that I cannot believe some of the comments I have read. Why do all chat posts turn into Over aggressive witch hunts, quoting parts of the Highway code and all judgements being passed with little knowledge but masses of assumption. Its like watching a group of vultures circling a helpless abandoned animal. Irrespective of whoever is right it makes me ashamed to be a cyclist. Mybe the origiator of the topic should have thought more before typing anything I hope you all do not ast as agressivly on the road as you do on the internet.



Get a grip. There's nowt wrong with a bit of robust discussion - it's often an effective way of getting to the truth. 

And no, not aggressive, _assertive_. Until they 'cross the line' at which point I destroy them with my handlebar mounted howitzer. And thats not aggression, that's self defence your honour.


----------



## Rupie (22 Mar 2011)

Whatever, I'll leave you to all die of heart attacks brought on by stress of the battle for the great cycling God in the sky. You would never talk to each other like this if you were in the same room, unless very drunk.


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> ... If more cyclists considered what drivers might do or how they might get it wrong, they could be a lot safer.



Hmm.

I do that all the time, personally, and it's kept me from under the wheels of motor vehicles a few times. 

"What if he pulls out of that side road despite my travelling towards him at 20mph?"
"What if that bus tries to beat me around that illegally parked DHL van?"

And so forth. I'd strongly recommend doing other road users' thinking for them whenever you can, as societal attitudes to poor roadcraft seem very unlikely to change any time soon, so lord knows there's no legal punishment of any significance awaiting the impatient, inattentive and inconsiderate - in the case of drivers, the physical danger (vs a pedal cycle) arising from getting things wrong is minimal too.

Should I have to do it? Well no, I'd quite like to potter along the way I did when touring in France & Belgium, reasonably secure in the knowledge that stupid overtaking and lack of consideration for people not in cars was rare, rather than the constant companion that it is when riding in the uk. 

Although considerate drivers are getting better (more patient, more room on overtaking, or so it seems, in Manchester at least) the number of texters, mobile users and people who will skim your right elbow at 40mph to reach a red light 5 seconds (or less) ahead of you seems to have grown lately too.


----------



## Cubist (23 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Er, you what?


This may come as a surprise, but in countries other than UK, SA and Japan, people drive on the other side of the road to us. The instructions you read were in English, but not aimed at English children.


----------



## Cubist (23 Mar 2011)

Rupie said:


> Whatever, I'll leave you to all die of heart attacks brought on by stress of the battle for the great cycling God in the sky. You would never talk to each other like this if you were in the same room, unless very drunk.


Have you based you assumption of how CC works based on this thread alone? Have you already left us so soon after your first few posts? 

Shame.


----------



## GrasB (23 Mar 2011)

Cubist, I think that Dan B is referring to the signal suggested. While that signal maybe a hand signal in some countries I don't see that signal in the highway codes section on Signals to other road users & I think very few road users in the UK would understand that your left arm in an L shape with your fingers pointing upwards means you're turning right.


----------



## Cubist (23 Mar 2011)

GrasB said:


> Cubist, I think that Dan B is referring to the signal suggested. While that signal maybe a hand signal in some countries I don't see that signal in the highway codes section on Signals to other road users & I think very few road users in the UK would understand that your left arm in an L shape with your fingers pointing upwards means you're turning right.


That's what I said! He was expressing surprise that it was a left hand being used to signal right. I was pointing out it was aimed at foreign road users where this signal does mean something. 

I hope our OP was being ironic when he posted the link


If you remember, driver's hand signals all have to be done with the right arm here in good old blighty. Turning right, slowing down and turning left all have to be done out of the same window, using the right arm.


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Mar 2011)

martine said:


> Hi 'Mad' - not sure I understand your first statement above...'IAM Associates' are *preparing* for the IAM Advanced Test...*when you pass you become a full member*. Or perhaps I've misundestood.
> 
> Quite agree with your sentiments though..all car drivers (and bikers) should take further training once they've passed their L-test...that's only the start to becoming ever better and yes you're right, no one's a perfect driver (not even me!).
> 
> ...


Then I got the terminology wrong, I have a certificate (and a nice little card saying I passed, signed by Alan Budd), so I must be a full member


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2011)

Cubist said:


> That's what I said! He was expressing surprise that it was a left hand being used to signal right. I was pointing out it was aimed at foreign road users where this signal does mean something.


Per Wikipedia, apparently it's recognised in the US and Canada, but not in "foreign" more generally. I don't think it's anything to do with side-of-road



Cubist said:


> I hope our OP was being ironic when he posted the link



It would be nice to think so, wouldn't it?



Cubist said:


> If you remember, driver's hand signals all have to be done with the right arm here in good old blighty. Turning right, slowing down and turning left all have to be done out of the same window, using the right arm.



From memory, even then the left turn signal is a rotating thingy not a raised palm


----------



## Bman (23 Mar 2011)

Although not friendly, or indeed 100% justified, I can see why some responses seem rude. 

There are motorists out there that are seriously lacking in ability (or just lazy, or whatever). 

When was the last time you were the victim of, for instance, a poor overtake?

Me: The last time I was on the road, on my bike. In fact, it happens at least once on every commute...

This is why, threads like this, attract the posting styles you see. We are not all stress heads, but when someone trys to justify a driving misjudgement, that endangers an innocent cyclist, it gets our goat (or some of us at least)

Or am I wrong?


----------



## 2old2care (23 Mar 2011)

cd365 said:


> Whilst driving last night, I was coming down a road cars parked on both sides, a couple of cars ahead of me and some cars coming towards me, hence a bit of squeezing through. I then noticed the cars ahead of me (about 50m) overtake a cyclist.
> 
> The road in front of me was now clear, i.e. no oncoming traffic, so coming up to the cyclist I gave him plenty of room as I prepared to overtake, about 200m down the road a car turns into the road and starts to head towards me.
> 
> ...



The driver of the car that turned into your path should have in my opinion, seen that there was a cyclist with a car about to overtake and not put you both at risk by pulling out and narrowing the road.


----------



## martine (23 Mar 2011)

2old2care said:


> The driver of the car that turned into your path should have in my opinion, seen that there was a cyclist with a car about to overtake and not put you both at risk by pulling out and narrowing the road.


Yes but it works both ways...the driver perhaps shouldn't have overtaken with a junction in range. 

It's a classic serious RTA on a rural road...driver commits to overtake and then is confronted by a vehicle pulling out of a side turning ahead. 

Driving is all about sharing the road space and teamwork so that everyone gets to where they want with the minimum of risk to all.  

Anyone here read 'Mind Driving'? It's a brilliant book about driving not from the technical aspect but all about the psychology of what makes a better driver. I reckon it applies to cyclists as well...if your tempted give it a read.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Mar 2011)

martine said:


> Yes but it works both ways...the driver perhaps shouldn't have overtaken with a junction in range.
> 
> It's a classic serious RTA on a rural road...driver commits to overtake and then is confronted by a vehicle pulling out of a side turning ahead.



Absolutely right. My final word on this is that it's all very well for the OP to say "but there was no hazard when I started the overtake", but in actual fact, the very presence of a junction should be treated as a hazard precisely because of what happened in this instance. Never mind, we all make mistakes occasionally: the important thing is that we learn from them.


----------



## mickle (24 Mar 2011)

Rupie said:


> Whatever, I'll leave you to all die of heart attacks brought on by stress of the battle for the great cycling God in the sky. You would never talk to each other like this if you were in the same room, unless very drunk.



We _are_ all in the same room and we _are_ all very drunk - where the hell are you??


----------

