The Lemon Fool

Posted: **December 5th, 2017, 12:52 am**

redsturgeon wrote:
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.

You have an unusually thin son, on an unusually thin bike. In most case I'd suggest adding at least another 0.25m for the right half of the bike.

This is an attempt to use humour to remind people that despite what some drivers (and some cyclists) think bicycles have non-zero width.

Posted: **December 5th, 2017, 12:51 pm**

9873210 wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:
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.

You have an unusually thin son, on an unusually thin bike. In most case I'd suggest adding at least another 0.25m for the right half of the bike.

This is an attempt to use humour to remind people that despite what some drivers (and some cyclists) think bicycles have non-zero width.

As a car driver I make it my policy to pass bicyles by completely crossing the centre line whereever possible. It is seldom any serious impediment to my journey. It's what I'd do if it weren't a bicycle but a slow tractor or parked vehicle in the road. As such it really makes no difference to me whether the cyclist is 50cm from the edge or 1.5m or more.

GS

Posted: **December 6th, 2017, 1:12 am**

If its any consolation I tend to give cyclists a very wide berth even if they were close to the kerb and I would stay behind them if another car was coming the other way and then use my indicator to show I was pulling out as invariably I need to cross the centre of the road. But I nearly ran over one earlier today actually. I was doing a 3 point turn and instead of waiting for me to complete it, he darted out close to the front of my car and it was only a matter of inches. I didn't see him until the last minute.

I tell you what despairs me and why I don't like driving much after dark nowadays is the number of cyclists, motorbike riders and pedestrians wearing very dark clothes which makes them very difficult to see especially if the latter are crossing roads other than at pelican crossings...

I don't like road rage or angry drivers as they seem to be on the increase too..

Posted: **December 6th, 2017, 10:23 am**

Amidst some perfectly reasonable words:

beeswax wrote: I didn't see him until the last minute.

very difficult to see ...

I have the same problem driving in conditions of poor visibility. So I did the responsible thing and gave up driving altogether[1]. So should you, and doubtless many other drivers.

I still cycle. I can see a lot more when I'm out in the open with my sight unencumbered by a range of impediments of which the least obstructive is a windscreen ahead.

[1] Last time I drive was in 2005, when I hired a white van to move house.

Posted: **December 6th, 2017, 10:57 am**

beeswax wrote:I tell you what despairs me and why I don't like driving much after dark nowadays is the number of cyclists, motorbike riders and pedestrians wearing very dark clothes which makes them very difficult to see especially if the latter are crossing roads other than at pelican crossings...

Well I use high viz runners jacket (ie. very portable) + LED lights, with the rear one normally blinking. But let's not get started on those! :roll:

Posted: **December 6th, 2017, 1:30 pm**

beeswax wrote:I tell you what despairs me and why I don't like driving much after dark nowadays is the number of cyclists, motorbike riders and pedestrians wearing very dark clothes which makes them very difficult to see especially if the latter are crossing roads other than at pelican crossings...

What despairs me in the prevailing motorists' culture is that many drive with an overwhelming expectation that there will never be ( unexpected ) hazards. Thus they will drive in a manner that is, by definition, risky and unsafe.

Note the expectation that the other road users should make themselves extraordinarily SUPER-visible so that they themselves are not inconvenienced.

The divergence is that the drivers sit comfortably within their ever more powerful vehicles - packed full of ever more safety devices, but increasingly isolated from the environment through which they pass.
Meanwhile, pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders perceive the increasing risk presented by the drivers of the motor vehicles.
That is risk compensation & transference in action.

Posted: **December 6th, 2017, 2:42 pm**

beeswax wrote:I tell you what despairs me and why I don't like driving much after dark nowadays is the number of cyclists, motorbike riders and pedestrians wearing very dark clothes which makes them very difficult to see

you must be all but apoplectic with the vehicles that are driven with no lights on, side lights on in the dark, or headlamps out, appearing to be a motorcycle from distance.

didds

Posted: **December 13th, 2017, 12:22 pm**

beeswax wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:My son cycles the mile into college every morning, along the main road into the centre of Winchester.

I have schooled him to cycle assertively, taking his lane about a metre from the kerb which makes it difficult for cars to squeeze by if a car is coming in the opposite direction. He travels at 20 mph so does not hold up traffic much as it feeds into a major junction that always has traffic queues and is then in a 20 mph city centre zone. The vast majority of drivers are happy to drive with care and consideration on this urban road.

This morning he was cycling as usual when a Range Rover blasts his horn at him, then squeezes by, well within the 1.5 metre zone recommended by the police. He is ahead of my son for all of 100 metres before having to stop for traffic. My son overtakes and as he does the window is wound down...no doubt for the ignorant owner to tell my son off. My son pulls in in front of the car and just looks at the driver pityingly before riding off leaving the Range Rover to sit for several minutes in the queue he was able to join 10 seconds earlier by virtue of an unsafe and aggressive pass.

I can see why many cyclist have video cams.

John

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? Also 20 mph seems quite fast to me anyway? Also some cyclists I have seen don't always stop at traffic lights and meander across the junction. I was always taught as a car driver to give cyclists enough room to fall off their bike and if cars are doing that it doesn't leave that much room for passing cars coming in the other direction.

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

I do have insurance, I'm a CTC member.

A metre is not a long way out from the curb (or ditch/verge in my case). The main road I cycle 15 miles into work in on occasion is very potholed in that area - if I cycled closer I would either be weaving into the traffic unexpectedly to avoid the potholes or crashing as some of them are not small - they are being repaired slowly, but more are appearing due to the winter weather.

The Lemon Fool

Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover

Re: Please engage brain Mr Range Rover