The Lemon Fool

beeswax wrote:[

John, a metre seems quite a wide berth from the kerb and no wonder car drivers get impatient and wonder if that could be reduced to half that distance from the kerb?

You don;t cycle do you?

Have you seen th cr4p that accumulates in the first foot or so adjacent to the kerb? broken glass, nuts, bolts, sticks, bits of wing mirror... then there is the road "furniture" - drains, manhole covers. Pretty dangerous in the wet to a two wheeled vehicle.

Go on a bikeability course - endorsed/promoted/designed by RoSPA and govt departments etc (its a natioinal stabndard etc) - and it will explain/teach that a metre is the distance "needed".

But then maybe nobody is really very interested in the reasons, just the total and abject misery that not being able to get to the next traffic hold up 5 seconds earlier

didds

beeswax wrote:Maybe its another topic but shouldn't cyclists have insurance nowadays?

Most do of course through household 3rd party insurances.

But you knew that I suspect.

didds

beeswax wrote:I would also suggest that 20mph is too fast but that's just my opinion and if you went slower you could indeed see any obstacles in the way..

Why wouldn't that also apply to vehicle drivers, who especially don;t have the amount of field of vision cyclists do?

didds

didds wrote:broken glass, nuts, bolts, sticks, bits of wing mirror... then there is the road "furniture" - drains, manhole covers.

Where on earth do you live? Wowsers. If it were true I'd just lock myself up in the house and sell my bike.

Health and safety nerds are really out aren't they. For once I feel like a cool kid who thinks the rules are ridiculous and the follower of them just can not live in the real world. I'm normally on the other side saying rules are rules.

nmdhqbc wrote:

Ashfordian wrote:When cycling road positioning is the thing biggest thing a cyclist controls for their safety on a bike.

Let's take your example of 1.5m being the middle of the road(lane). In this example, the lane is 3m wide, which is rare. Whether you ride 0.5m from the edge of the lane or 1.5m, there is no safe overtaking without the overtaking vehicle having to cross into the other lane. However riding 0.5m from the edge will mean many more risky overtakes thus endangering the cyclist. This is basic road craft for cyclists.

My riding position does not say I'm more important or better. This is a flawed mindset. It says my journey/life is no less important that yours(notice the difference) and that as a cyclist my safety is not subservient to motor vehicle traffic. I have no issue with being passed, WHEN it is safe to do so.

Cyclists rarely delay other road users, as the vehicles will generally arrive at some other delay point (junction/roundabout/lights) behind other vehicles. I have driven instead of cycled the last 7 days and at no point has a cyclist delayed me to the point where I have not reached the next delay point and not had at least 1 vehicle in front of me.

OK, so it seems the point is in fact to actually prevent overtaking. I just shake my head in bewilderment. I feel very safe when cars overtake me. Just like I feel very in control when I overtake in my car. This logic is I control what others do on the road no matter how much it hinders them. Exactly as I said previously. The secondary position makes more sense but it seems that does not come into your thinking. You control the road to others detriment.

The more you comment, the more it becomes apparent that you don't cycle and you only drive but you think you know better than people who do actually cycle!

Yes, it is to prevent overtakes. In the situation I described an overtake is not safe if the cyclist is 0.5m from the edge of the road so riding 1.0 or 1.5m away from the edge stops attempts that are plainly dangerous. If you cycled you would be fully aware of this. There is no secondary position in this road scenario.

At least you get something, yes it is 100% to control others actions so they don't take actions that are dangerous to the cyclist. I wish we didn't have to do this but the standard of driving requires this control aspect. The fact it hinders them does not enter the thinking. Your mentality is of a driver who has never cycled because you incorrectly think cyclists slow you down!

nmdhqbc wrote:

didds wrote:broken glass, nuts, bolts, sticks, bits of wing mirror... then there is the road "furniture" - drains, manhole covers.

Where on earth do you live? Wowsers. If it were true I'd just lock myself up in the house and sell my bike.

I suggest rather than deceiving that you own a bike, that you actually buy one, head out and experience what roads are like. You won't see what is in the gutter of a road from your driving seat as you are clearly showing!

I'm a liar now. Lovely. I ride all the time and am fine and dandy. I worry about the altercations your I'm the only one that matters riding technique will get you into. Hope you don't get into too many unpleasant scenarios.

Quite right. Calling me a lair is not on. I am genuinely concerned. Was there not a BBC news guy who got in an unpleasant situation recently? He was legally in the right but I can well and truly see that sort of thing happening all the time if people ride like that. Real world people are busy. People are not nice or patient and it will cause trouble.

nmdhqbc wrote:Quite right. Calling me a lair is not on. I am genuinely concerned. Was there not a BBC news guy who got in an unpleasant situation recently? He was legally in the right but I can well and truly see that sort of thing happening all the time if people ride like that. Real world people are busy. People are not nice or patient and it will cause trouble.

Just so I understand you correctly. You think my son who was cycling at 20 mph about 100 yards before a 20mph zone and traffic lights with a queue of traffic stopped waiting, was in the wrong, while the car driver behind honking his horn just before a dangerous overtake, only to have to brake sharply ten seconds later and come to a halt, was somehow morally in the right?

Is that your position?

John

You're son is of no concern of mine. My position is that riding in the middle of the road to purposely stop cars passing is selfish entitled behavior. No matter how many official booklets tell people it's the official advise. Tucking in a bit so make it easier to be passed is not dangerous.

nmdhqbc wrote:

didds wrote:broken glass, nuts, bolts, sticks, bits of wing mirror... then there is the road "furniture" - drains, manhole covers.

Where on earth do you live? Wowsers. If it were true I'd just lock myself up in the house and sell my bike.

I can assure you it is true. As anybody that cycles can equally i am sure assure you.

didds

The vast majority of people in control of motor vehicles have at least some understanding of and empathy with vulnerable road users.

They understand that the vehicle can bring great danger and inflict lethal force.

Unfortunately, there is a significant minority of drivers who have forgotten about their duty of care to others in the public space.

They prioritise their convenience above the safety of others. Maybe they have no expectation of being momentarily delayed and behave accordingly.

redsturgeon wrote:I made the mistake of getting him a Cannondale CAA9 road bike !

John

No rack. No mudguards. That's a toy!

(Wish my dad had bought me toys like that).

UncleEbenezer wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:I made the mistake of getting him a Cannondale CAA9 road bike !

John

No rack. No mudguards. That's a toy!

(Wish my dad had bought me toys like that).

I know...I offered to put mudguards on but he won't have it!

My own commuter bike has rack, muguards and hub gears!

Wouldn't like them on my Kona Jake the Snake though or on my Cube Ltd hardtail or on my fixie.

nmdhqbc wrote:1.5m - I just got a tape measure out and that is outrageous!! You're almost on the other side of the road if you take that advise. And someone mentioned 0.5m as being on a grid - Look at a tape measure please. Grids are not nearly that wide.

I also took a tape measure. On the road that my son was riding, the drain covers are 60cm wide from the kerb. At around the spot where my son was honked the 60cm drain cover is surrounded by a trench in the tarmac that extends a further 15cm into the road.

Let's give my son a leeway of say 15cm to avoid his tyres falling into that trench and the MINIUMUM distance he can safely ride from the kerb at that spot is 90cm.

If you imagine a plank laid out on the road along which you felt you could safely ride your bike in a straight line without slipping off the edge, how wide would that plank be...I'd suggest you would struggle with anything less than 30-40 cm. Try riding along a scaffold plank if you think that is easy.

So it would seem on the road in question that he probably needs to be 1.3 metres from the kerb for his safe passage.

The police recommend 1.5 metres as the minimum safe passing distance from a cyclist, so a car must be 2.8 metres from the kerb at this point to complete a safe overtake. This distance would require the car to cross the centre line of the road and therefore a pass should not be attempted unless the opposite carriageway is clear. If it is clear, then the pass is simple and the cyclist does not impede the car, if the carriageway is not clear the pass, according to the police is unsafe and could result in a ticket.

Hopefully this narrative takes away any assumption of motive from the cyclist except a desire for personal safety.

John

nmdhqbc wrote:My position is that riding in the middle of the road to purposely stop cars passing is selfish entitled behavior.

Correct. And given that you no protection from the big metal boxes you are sharing the road with eminently sensible.

nmdhqbc wrote:No matter how many official booklets tell people it's the official advise.

You are asking cyclists to ignore the official advise?

nmdhqbc wrote:Tucking in a bit so make it easier to be passed is not dangerous.

It's been explained to you why it is dangerous. Which bit didn't you understand?

The "official" advise is complete over the top nonsense. I ride all the time (2 hour ride this morning by the way) keeping to the left with no issues whatsoever. The occasional wide grid can be navigated without issue temporarily. No need to block the road indefinitely. Sensible riding is a lot simpler than all this 1.5m nonsense.

redsturgeon wrote:I also took a tape measure. On the road that my son was riding,

I already told you your son's incident is of no concern of mine. I probably read it when this thread started but I don't recall the details. I've only commented on the insistence by people here that 1.5m all the time is reasonable. If for a few metres you need to move over safely then fine but don't sit yourself in the middle as the default position is my point. In reality I never see cyclist doing this so in the real world thankfully people tend to see the official advise as what it is - stupid.