Today's daft manoeuvre

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Within the last 2 miles of my mammoth 30 mile cycle into work.

Narrow, short, straight section of road.

Lorry comes towards me.

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so.....

This is always a hazard when there are no other cars going the same way as you, and the only way to
prevent it is to move centre-lane to make oncoming vehicles think twice about overtaking till the
danger has passed.

Mark said:

Within the last 2 miles of my mammoth 30 mile cycle into work.

Quoted message said:

Narrow, short, straight section of road.

Quoted message said:

Lorry comes towards me.

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed me
by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in basic
driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules appear to be
189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming cyclist. It would be a
really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next edition of the Highway Code.

This is definitely one of those road risks where better driver education is the only answer. He
probably was "completely unconcerned" and probably did not appreciate the degree of risk involved. I
agree that all drivers should act with proper responsibility at all times, and I certainly agree
that he didn't.

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle arrives.
Mostly I've seen this happen when the cyclist is fairly far away at the start of the manoeuver;
perhaps in such circumstances the risk is less obvious to the driver involved.

If you can get well out of the way, then obviously it's very much safer to do so. Some of you will
probably think I'm "blaming the victim". I am not. But whenever another road user fails to allow you
sufficient space it makes sense to do whatever you can to reduce the risk.

Quoted message said:

I was too cold & knackered to be angry at the time, and now I'm just sad.

Angry doesn't really help.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

Paul Smith said:

Mark said:

Within the last 2 miles of my mammoth 30 mile cycle into work.

Quoted message said:

Narrow, short, straight section of road.

Quoted message said:

Lorry comes towards me.

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed
me by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in
basic driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules
appear to be 189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming
cyclist. It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next
edition of the Highway Code.

No. There is no need to put something like this into the Highway Code.

Anybody who lacks the intelligence to see that overtaking in this sort of circumstance is reckless
is clearly not someone who should EVER be allowed to drive again. (Or at all which is why the
driving of motorized vehicles on the road is age restricted)

(I would make a distinction between someone who pulled out to overtake and then saw the bike and
stopped, forcing the bike to stop as well to untangle the situation. This is someone making a
misjudgement and then doing everything they can to rectify it. It doesn't excuse the original
fault but I think this could demonstrate the difference between careless and dangerous driving
quite nicely)

Guy got run off the road in this circumstance. Injured, fortunately not seriously it appears, driver
didn't stop. I've had it happen once to me - fortunately the car being overtaken saw the problem,
braked hard and pulled in as close to the kerb as he could which left just enough space for me who
was also braking as hard as I could consistent with ensuring that I kept enough grip on the rear
wheel to keep the bike as straight as possible.

And these are the sorts of accidents where a collision is bound to be serious.

Finally, you should remember that bicycles become less stable as they slow down. And in a real panic
stop to a standstill situation there is a good chance that you will fall off so you have to make a
split second decision whether to keep on going, slowdown but not stop, panic stop, or take a dive.

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle
arrives. Mostly I've

You reckon a cyclist could dismount and get out of the way in less than about 20 seconds? No. If you
need to dismount to avoid a crash in this circumstance then your only hope is to take a dive and
hope that hitting the road/pavement/verge at whatever speed you are doing is less serious than
hitting the car coming the other way.

Quoted message said:

seen this happen when the cyclist is fairly far away at the start of the manoeuver; perhaps in
such circumstances the risk is less obvious to the driver involved.

If you can get well out of the way, then obviously it's very much safer to do so. Some of you will
probably think I'm "blaming the victim". I am not. But whenever another road user fails to allow
you sufficient space it makes sense to do whatever you can to reduce the risk.

Absolutely. But it's not as simple as you make it. Cyclists ride so that they reduce the risk _IF_
another road user fails to allow sufficient space. This is why cyclists are advised to ride a
minimum of 1.5m from the kerb, and to move well out when approaching a junction when cars are
waiting or approaching.

This has two advantages. 1. The car is more likely to see you and
2. When a car does pull out there is a chance that you don't have a collision - this morning I came
within three inches of hitting my handlebars on the rear offside wing/door of a car. (It happened
so fast and required so much of my concentration and control to avoid a collision that I couldn't
even have said whether the car was 2 or 4 door) I was wearing a bright yellow cape and still the
driver didn't see me (or so she claimed when I caught up with her 100 yards along the road) I was
so close when she pulled out that I find it unbelievable that the didn't see me. I could accept
not noticing me initially but I was so close that I would have thought this bright yellow blob
moving in your peripheral vision would have attracted attention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was too cold & knackered to be angry at the time, and now I'm just sad.

Angry doesn't really help.

Yes it does - can save 5 minutes on an 8 mile commute when the adrenaline really gets going. This,
of course, relies on the "event" occuring near the start of the journey :-)

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in
basic driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules
appear to be 189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming
cyclist. It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next
edition of the Highway Code.

Neiter seem particularly relevant. Can I refer you to 138 which is directly relevant. The last
bullet of 139 & para 142 are helpful.

A cyclist is a fully signed up road user.

Adding extra paragraphs to the manual is the classic response of the bureaucrat. Once in the manual
it can safely be assumed 'everyone' has read it and can be safely forgotten about.

T

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed
me by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

I was too cold & knackered to be angry at the time, and now I'm just sad.

Similar thing happened to me the other day. I was approaching a pinch point with me having the
white arrow giving me priority over traffic facing me. A woman in a car approaching me obviously
thought that as I was not a car she wouldn't bother giving way .

Ordinarily, both of us could have fitted in the pinch point except that I chose to overtake another
bike at the same time, so now we are riding two abreast in the pinch point with this woman driving
straight at me.

By the look on her face I think she thought this situation was all my fault, whereas if she'd obeyed
the sign saying "give way to oncoming vehicles" then she wouldn't have put us all in danger.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances,
and cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming
vehicle arrives

I'd suggest moving out into the lane so that the driver has to slow down and pull back.

Only do this with 26x1.5+s and when you have a helmet on.

Tim Woodall said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Within the last 2 miles of my mammoth 30 mile cycle into work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Narrow, short, straight section of road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lorry comes towards me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed
me by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in
basic driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules
appear to be 189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming
cyclist. It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next
edition of the Highway Code.

Quoted message said:

No. There is no need to put something like this into the Highway Code.

Quoted message said:

Anybody who lacks the intelligence to see that overtaking in this sort of circumstance is reckless
is clearly not someone who should EVER be allowed to drive again. (Or at all which is why the
driving of motorized vehicles on the road is age restricted)

Depending on the width of the road, (and hence the degree of danger) I think at least 30% of drivers
are insufficiently aware of this particular special risk. I see it all the time on the A9 around
here. Many many drivers think nothing of overtaking when there's an oncoming cyclist. I completely
agree that it's bad driving in the range of careless to reckless, but too many drivers do it through
ignorance of the dangers.

Quoted message said:

(I would make a distinction between someone who pulled out to overtake and then saw the bike and
stopped, forcing the bike to stop as well to untangle the situation. This is someone making a
misjudgement and then doing everything they can to rectify it. It doesn't excuse the original
fault but I think this could demonstrate the difference between careless and dangerous driving
quite nicely)

All overtaking errors and accidents are "misjudgements" of one sort or another. I don't really see
your example as a good definition of careless / reckless. Surely, reckless means "being aware of the
danger and ignoring it"? Too many of these cases result without awareness of the danger.

Quoted message said:

Guy got run off the road in this circumstance. Injured, fortunately not seriously it appears,
driver didn't stop. I've had it happen once to me - fortunately the car being overtaken saw the
problem, braked hard and pulled in as close to the kerb as he could which left just enough space
for me who was also braking as hard as I could consistent with ensuring that I kept enough grip on
the rear wheel to keep the bike as straight as possible.

Yeah. Lucky.

Quoted message said:

And these are the sorts of accidents where a collision is bound to be serious.

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

Finally, you should remember that bicycles become less stable as they slow down. And in a real
panic stop to a standstill situation there is a good chance that you will fall off so you have
to make a split second decision whether to keep on going, slowdown but not stop, panic stop, or
take a dive.

Depending on the time available, yes. A complete overtake between a van and a lorry might take 8 or
10 secs (typically) and if the cyclist is towards the end of the manoeuver, I'm sure there will be
time to stop and dismount.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle
arrives. Mostly I've...

Quoted message said:

You reckon a cyclist could dismount and get out of the way in less than about 20 seconds? No. If
you need to dismount to avoid a crash in this circumstance then your only hope is to take a dive
and hope that hitting the road/pavement/verge at whatever speed you are doing is less serious than
hitting the car coming the other way.

Really? 20mph to 0 should take about 2 seconds. Dismount another 1.5 secs?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...seen this happen when the cyclist is fairly far away at the start of the manoeuver; perhaps in
such circumstances the risk is less obvious to the driver involved.

[agreed / snipped]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was too cold & knackered to be angry at the time, and now I'm just sad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Angry doesn't really help.

Quoted message said:

Yes it does - can save 5 minutes on an 8 mile commute when the adrenaline really gets going. This,
of course, relies on the "event" occuring near the start of the journey :-)

🙂
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in
basic driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules
appear to be 189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming
cyclist. It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next
edition of the Highway Code.

Quoted message said:

Neiter seem particularly relevant. Can I refer you to 138 which is directly relevant. The last
bullet of 139 & para 142 are helpful.

Helpful, certainly, but not clear enough about this specific risk.

Quoted message said:

A cyclist is a fully signed up road user.

Of course.

Quoted message said:

Adding extra paragraphs to the manual is the classic response of the bureaucrat. Once in the manual
it can safely be assumed 'everyone' has read it and can be safely forgotten about.

Possibly, and I'm very anti-bureaucracy, but suppose the following is true:

"A significant proportion of drivers have not had explained or even considered the special risks of
overtaking when there's an oncoming cyclist. On a straight assessment of available width there is
room to overtake without striking the cyclist, and drivers assume that to do so is reasonable safe."

If that's true (and I believe it is) then what measures could you take to improve the situation?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle
arrives

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest moving out into the lane so that the driver has to slow down and pull back.

Quoted message said:

Only do this with 26x1.5+s and when you have a helmet on.

The human shield approach?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Neiter seem particularly relevant. Can I refer you to 138 which is

directly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

relevant. The last bullet of 139 & para 142 are helpful.

Helpful, certainly, but not clear enough about this specific risk.

Quoted message said:

A cyclist is a fully signed up road user.

Of course.

138 is directly relevant. The only problem is that it is a 'should' rather than a 'you must'.

Quoted message said:

"A significant proportion of drivers have not had explained or even considered the special risks
of overtaking when there's an oncoming cyclist. On a straight assessment of available width
there is room to overtake without striking the cyclist, and drivers assume that to do so is
reasonable safe."

An interesting quote. Where does it come from? (Since I assume you want someone to ask so you can
demonstrate your superior knowledge!!)

Of course, it shouldn't be necessary to explain to even the terminally stupid that driving into a
cyclist is likely to damage your paintwork and may cause some offence.

It amazes me how many drivers assume cyclists are zero width objects -- even when the rider is
clearly a fat [censored] like me.

Quoted message said:

If that's true (and I believe it is) then what measures could you take to improve the situation?

Handle bar mounted rocket launchers? Certainly more effective than a paragraph in a book that most
people haven't read in a decade or 3.

T

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle
arrives

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest moving out into the lane so that the driver has to slow down

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pull back.

Quoted message said:

Only do this with 26x1.5+s and when you have a helmet on.

The human shield approach?

naah more like rebel without a cause.

Do you actually understand what 26x1.5 means ?

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

"A significant proportion of drivers have not had explained or even considered the special risks
of overtaking when there's an oncoming cyclist. On a straight assessment of available width
there is room to overtake without striking the cyclist, and drivers assume that to do so is
reasonable safe."

Quoted message said:

An interesting quote. Where does it come from? (Since I assume you want someone to ask so you can
demonstrate your superior knowledge!!)

Sorry. I've confused you. Those are my new words. I just wanted you to suspend disbelief long enough
to consider possible solutions.

Quoted message said:

Of course, it shouldn't be necessary to explain to even the terminally stupid that driving into a
cyclist is likely to damage your paintwork and may cause some offence.

Quoted message said:

It amazes me how many drivers assume cyclists are zero width objects -- even when the rider is
clearly a fat [censored] like me.

Most vehicles are safer than cyclists to pass with a nominal clearance. That's where the mistake
mostly comes from. Failure to understand or anticipate the need for wobble room.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

Simon Mason said:

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed
me by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

I was too cold & knackered to be angry at the time, and now I'm just sad.

Similar thing happened to me the other day. I was approaching a pinch point with me having the
white arrow giving me priority over traffic facing me. A woman in a car approaching me obviously
thought that as I was not a car she wouldn't bother giving way .

Ordinarily, both of us could have fitted in the pinch point except that I chose to overtake
another bike at the same time, so now we are riding two abreast in the pinch point with this woman
driving straight at me.

I sometimes find a similar problem. We have a "pinch point" in Cambridge. I usually cycle about 1.5
m from the kerb and have had several shouts of "single file". I haven't been overtaking or been
about to overtake another cyclist at the time. :-|

I think there is a perception amongst some cyclists and drivers that the correct position for a
cyclist is "in the gutter" and that cyclists travel to the left of the main traffic stream rather
than in it.

--
Daniel Auger - [email hidden] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances, and
> cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming vehicle
> arrives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest moving out into the lane so that the driver has to slow down and pull back.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only do this with 26x1.5+s and when you have a helmet on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The human shield approach?

Quoted message said:

naah more like rebel without a cause.

Or in your case, just without.

Quoted message said:

Do you actually understand what 26x1.5 means ?

Average / small mountain bike tyre size.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I've confused you.

Not difficult 🙁

Quoted message said:

Those are my new words. I just wanted you to suspend disbelief long enough to consider possible
solutions.

So the quotes were unnecessary decoration. The 'possible solutions' are that motorists realise
that cyclists are fully signed up road users and not minor inconveniences that can be driven at
with impunity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, it shouldn't be necessary to explain to even the terminally stupid that driving into a
cyclist is likely to damage your paintwork and may cause some offence.

Quoted message said:

It amazes me how many drivers assume cyclists are zero width objects --

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when the rider is clearly a fat [censored] like me.

Most vehicles are safer than cyclists to pass with a nominal clearance. That's where the mistake
mostly comes from. Failure to understand or anticipate the need for wobble room.

Here I suspect you are wrong. It is doubtless true that cyclists do need some 'wobble room'. But I
think (tested by experience both on the bike and in a car) that drivers find it difficult to
estimate the width of a bike (motor or pedal) and so often under estimate it. Bikes tend to have
fairly wide, sticky out things (known as handlebars) that can easily be a metre + wide (nearly
1/3rd the width of a car). Also, drivers assume that bikes belong in the gutter rather than 1 to
1.5 m from the gutter so base their width estimates from the edge of the road rather than the
middle of the bike.

T

It is doubtless true that cyclists do need

Quoted message said:

some 'wobble room'. But I think (tested by experience both on the bike and in a car) that drivers
find it difficult to estimate the width of a bike (motor or pedal) and so often under estimate it.
Bikes tend to have fairly wide, sticky out things (known as handlebars) that can easily be a metre
+ wide (nearly 1/3rd the width of a car).

Cars may also have sticky out things such as wing-mirrors and caravans that drivers sometimes
fail to take into account. Put the two together at a closing speed of 80 mph and it's not fun to
be the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Also, drivers assume that bikes belong in the gutter rather than 1 to 1.5 m from the gutter so
base their width estimates from the edge of the road rather than the middle of the bike.

T

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Within the last 2 miles of my mammoth 30 mile cycle into work.

Narrow, short, straight section of road.

Lorry comes towards me.

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so. Of course, to do
so, he needs to be on my side of the road, and seems to be completely unconcerned that he missed
me by mere inches whilst accelerating to 70 to overtake.

Can you give us some idea of how visible or otherwise you were? Any hi-vis or reflective clothing,
arm or leg bands etc? Misty, sunny or what?

David.

Quoted message said:

Can you give us some idea of how visible or otherwise you were? Any hi-vis or reflective clothing,
arm or leg bands etc? Misty, sunny or what?

Altho' I didn't have any bright clothes on (grey top, black tracksuit bottoms), it was daylight - a
crisp, clear morning - and I had the main beam of my Smart headlights on.

I reckon he definitely spotted me as he pulled out, hesitated and then did the overtaking manoeuvre.

And he didn't register any shock on his face as he went past as if he had just seen me.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:06:32 +0100, "Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most vehicles are safer than cyclists to pass with a nominal clearance. That's where the mistake
mostly comes from. Failure to understand or anticipate the need for wobble room.

Quoted message said:

Here I suspect you are wrong. It is doubtless true that cyclists do need some 'wobble room'. But I
think (tested by experience both on the bike and in a car) that drivers find it difficult to
estimate the width of a bike (motor or pedal) and so often under estimate it. Bikes tend to have
fairly wide, sticky out things (known as handlebars) that can easily be a metre + wide (nearly
1/3rd the width of a car)...

Proper "wobble room" in typical circumstances = 2m

Width of cycle from centreline = 0.5m

When the width is only around 25% of the space requirement, I don't see why you think the primary
error is in width estimation. After all, even with an assumption of zero width, you would still get
1.5m clearance which is mostly harmless.

Quoted message said:

... Also, drivers assume that bikes belong in the gutter rather than 1 to 1.5 m from the gutter so
base their width estimates from the edge of the road rather than the middle of the bike.

I don't see this claim at all. Maybe the odd aggressive driver who thinks about "pushing the cyclist
back where he belongs". I can't see it as a width estimate problem.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives