Rant: London Driving - Cyclists

[Thekwango]

Same here, no issues with them in my car but when I’m in a 55ft artic they seem hell bent on putting themselves in extreme danger around it!

don't drive a lorry but have long ago made peace with myself that i will eventually kill a cyclist through no fault of my own. they seem, at least any of the 100's if not 1000's i've come across, to have little or no regard for their own safety. it's almost as if they give up all personal responsibility for their own safety as soon as the lycra goes on.

 

[Nasher]

Of course they can and thats the point. If they rode along in single file, you would get some driver trying to squeeze in between the cyclist and the traffic on the other side of the road. When they ride side by side, cars have to overtake using the other lane, which is how you should overtake anyway and most do not

Or they will force their way past anyway and make you choose between moving or getting pushed out of the way.

 

[Bear]

Or they will force their way past anyway and make you choose between moving or getting pushed out of the way.

There is that, you just hope one of them wont have videoed it and handed it to the police

 

[Conscript]

sorry i meant on country roads where it actually prevents cars from overtaking at all.

Gotcha.

Or they will force their way past anyway and make you choose between moving or getting pushed out of the way.

I would suggest that anyone moronic and dangerous enough to use their vehicle to force more vulnerable road users out of their way, would probably do so regardless of their position on the road anyway.

 

[Nasher]

Plenty of nutters around, most seem to drive DPD vans.

 

[Conscript]

Plenty of nutters around, most seem to drive DPD vans.

Indeed. But there are many more careful and considerate drivers, too.
It's almost like bad road users use all sorts of different vehicles, so focusing solely on "Cyclists™" as a homogenous group who are all bad is perhaps a bit misguided.

 

[NVP]

Cyclists are not a race... (Or something something nonsense)

 

[Feek]

worst one for me is when they cycle 2 or 3 abreast with cars behind

When it comes to overtaking, a car driver should treat a cyclist the same as another car. If they couldn't overtake a car, they shouldn't try and overtake the bike but the trouble is that there are too many idiot car drivers who don't do this. By riding two or three abreast, the cyclists are forcing the issue and it's effectively safer for them.

As a responsible car driver (and very occasional cyclist), I have no problem with it.

 

[NVP]

By riding two or three abreast, the cyclists are forcing the issue and it's effectively safer for them.

What they're actually doing, however, is reducing the amount of opportunities there are to overtake them, thus causing traffic to build up behind them fueling the hatred.

 

[jpaul]

? most cars have enough power to overtake 2 abreast, but might need to hold further back, anticipate better.

 

[NVP]

? most cars have enough power to overtake 2 abreast, but might need to hold further back, anticipate better.

It's not about the power, it's about having the room to pass.

 

[Feek]

What they're actually doing, however, is reducing the amount of opportunities there are to overtake them, thus causing traffic to build up behind them fueling the hatred.

No they're not.

If the following car driver treats a single cyclist the same as he would another car (ie gives them a decent amount of space), then it makes no difference whether there's one, two or three cyclists there. When I'm overtaking bikes, I go as wide as I would if I was overtaking a car because we know how the stupid things like to swerve out without any notice.

 

[NVP]

No they're not.

If the following car driver treats a single cyclist the same as he would another car (ie gives them a decent amount of space), then it makes no difference whether there's one, two or three cyclists there. When I'm overtaking bikes, I go as wide as I would if I was overtaking a car because we know how the stupid things like to swerve out without any notice.

I disagree. You don't need to be in the other lane to allow a cyclist or even a motorbike enough room when overtaking, however you do when overtaking a car or truck.

 

[Feek]

You don't need to be in the other lane to allow a cyclist enough room when overtaking

If you're not crossing the white line when you overtake a cyclist then you're too close to the bike, it's as simple as that.

 

[NVP]

If you're not crossing the white line when you overtake a cyclist then you're too close to the bike, it's as simple as that.

OK perhaps I should have said "completely" in the other lane, of course you'll cross the white line a little.

In my mini I would barely cross the white line much at all.

But if you need to go into the other lane completely you need more time to assess and maneuver, meaning less opportunities to overtake.

 

[Diddums]

As both a London cyclist and driver, I am all too familiar with both sides of this fence and the very simple truth is that both parties have absolute bell ends representing them. These are also the minority which screw it up for the rest.

The end.

 

[jpaul]

OK - so we've finally met someone who will squeeze past(overtake) with the minimum possible distance,
on my commute it is mostly older drivers in lower powered cars that have that strategy - it is some kind of cardinal sin to be on the other side of the road ,
well as soon as they legislate the minimum distance rule , and maybe regular eye tests the better

 

[NVP]

OK - so we've finally met someone who will squeeze past(overtake) with the minimum possible distance,
on my commute it is mostly older drivers in lower powered cars that have that strategy - it is some kind of cardinal sin to be on the other side of the road ,
well as soon as they legislate the minimum distance rule , and maybe regular eye tests the better

If you're referring to me, "squeeze" past is a bit sensational from what I posted, no? Why do you need to be completely in the other lane to overtake a cyclist? If that is the case, then why do cyclists filter on the inside of a queue at traffic lights, shouldn't you be waiting in line?

 

[Conscript]

If you're referring to me, "squeeze" past is a bit sensational from what I posted, no? Why do you need to be completely in the other lane to overtake a cyclist? If that is the case, then why do cyclists filter on the inside of a queue at traffic lights, shouldn't you be waiting in line?

Because slowly filtering past a stationary line of vehicles isn't really comparable to being overtaken at speed by one.

FWIW, when I ride, I don't really care how much room a car gives me when they overtake. As long as they give me a comfortable amount of room so I can adjust my line out of the gutter slightly if needed, it doesn't bother me if they don't go fully into the other lane.

 

[Alibaba99]

OK perhaps I should have said "completely" in the other lane, of course you'll cross the white line a little.

In my mini I would barely cross the white line much at all.

But if you need to go into the other lane completely you need more time to assess and maneuver, meaning less opportunities to overtake.

It's because of drivers with an attitude like yours that cyclists need to cycle two abreast. What happens if the cyclist has a wobble because they caught in a gust of wind, or have to move to avoid a large drain or debris on the road? Or what happens in the car coming the other way has to move across slightly to avoid something in their lane? The cyclist now has no room.

As for riding up the inside of a line of stationary traffic, well if the traffic isn't moving there isn't much danger from it.