Doubling Up On Road

[srw]

actually.....to introduce a complicating factor....there are times when I can see an opportunity for a driver to pass, and I'll wave him or her past in a big way, while slackening off the pace a bit.

I'd never actually wave someone past - the decision whether or not to overtake is always the driver's. But I'll quite happily pull in, turn round and look meaningful. Whether I'm in a car going slowly or on a bike.

 

[montyboy]

I'd never actually wave someone past - the decision whether or not to overtake is always the driver's. But I'll quite happily pull in, turn round and look meaningful. Whether I'm in a car going slowly or on a bike.

many here would disgree.

 

[snailracer]

I am still not sure on this one.

As the cyclist does not know the size, characteristics and space/time required for the vehicle following to make the manouvre I dont believe that they are in a position to make that decison.

I think that it is very dangerous for any road user to veto the movements of a following road user and this is the cause of much unpleasantness.

As I posted earlier...

Lorry drivers, whose training is much more rigorous than that of a car driver or cyclist, are trained to swing across and block as many lanes as is necessary, when negotiating a roundabout or junction - this is to prevent cars over- or undertaking and getting wedged under the side of the turning lorry.

Most would agree this is in everyone's interest, and yet it is clearly a case where the vehicle in front has "vetoed" the potential actions of those behind. Implicit in this technique is that it is acceptable for the vehicle in front to do this, and also that you should not rely on following vehicles to do the safe thing.

I see no difference in principle between such a manouevre being carried out by a lorry or cyclist. IMO, it would seem even more important for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than lorries, for whom collisions with cars are a mere inconvenience.

 

[montyboy]

As I posted earlier...

Lorry drivers, whose training is much more rigorous than that of a car driver or cyclist, are trained to swing across and block as many lanes as is necessary, when negotiating a roundabout or junction - this is to prevent cars over- or undertaking and getting wedged under the side of the turning lorry.

Most would agree this is in everyone's interest, and yet it is clearly a case where the vehicle in front has "vetoed" the potential actions of those behind. Implicit in this technique is that it is acceptable for the vehicle in front to do this, and also that you should not rely on following vehicles to do the safe thing.

I see no difference in principle between such a manouevre being carried out by a lorry or cyclist. IMO, it would seem even more important for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than lorries, for whom collisions with cars are a mere inconvenience.

I think that I would agree with 99% of that and in some of my previous posts I have referred to taking similar actions myself when towing a trailer.

I think what I was referring to where cyclists have adopted the primarily to prevent an overtake where it was perhaps inappropriate to do so. The conditions for a safe overtake will vary depending upon the vehicle from a car to an hgv etc.

My last point is poorly worded. I was trying to say that a badly judged decison to veto can the cause of confrontation.

 

[theclaud]

I think what I was referring to where cyclists have adopted the primarily to prevent an overtake where it was perhaps inappropriate to do so. The conditions for a safe overtake will vary depending upon the vehicle from a car to an hgv etc.

My last point is poorly worded. I was trying to say that a badly judged decison to veto can the cause of confrontation.

As I said before, it's the cyclist's call. That a driver might consider a cyclist's road position "badly judged" is irrelevant, as they might be of this opinion even when the position is very well judged indeed.

 

[benb]

I dont think a "couldnt care less" attitude doesnt do anyone any favours.

If a motorist said the same thing we would quite rightly be critical.

It should be obvious from my post that I meant I couldn't care less if the driver thinks I'm being aggressive - not that I generally have a "couldn't care less" attitude. My priority is my safety, and that frequently means taking primary to prevent or discourage an unsafe overtake. If that annoys the car driver, then TBH that's just tough.

 

[montyboy]

As I said before, it's the cyclist's call. That a driver might consider a cyclist's road position "badly judged" is irrelevant, as they might be of this opinion even when the position is very well judged indeed.

Does the motorists view become relevant if the cyclists position is indeed badly judged?

 

[freecyclist]

we'll make a droid of him yet!

FTFY

 

[theclaud]

Does the motorists view become relevant if the cyclists position is indeed badly judged?

No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.

 

[montyboy]

It should be obvious from my post that I meant I couldn't care less if the driver thinks I'm being aggressive - not that I generally have a "couldn't care less" attitude. My priority is my safety, and that frequently means taking primary to prevent or discourage an unsafe overtake. If that annoys the car driver, then TBH that's just tough.

But isnt that the point, you should care if the motorist thinks you are being aggresive?

If he thinks that you are being aggressive it is likely that you will meet with a similar position. If he thinks you are preserving your safety he is likley to support your manouvre.

 

[montyboy]

No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.

You really do need to take a more balanced view. If we were to consider every road users position I believe we would all get along a lot better to everyones benefit and safety.

I dont think we should adopt the "as long as I am alright" school of thought.

 

[srw]

No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.

It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.

(Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)

 

[montyboy]

It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.

(Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)

Why did you call me Toryboy?

I have never made any posts that would give any indication of my political persuasion.

I think that this is your third post today where you have made a claim about me without any evidence whatsover. Why is that?

 

[theclaud]

It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.

(Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)

Spot on.

 

[theclaud]

You really do need to take a more balanced view. If we were to consider every road users position I believe we would all get along a lot better to everyones benefit and safety.

I dont think we should adopt the "as long as I am alright" school of thought.

What on earth are you banging on about?