Today's daft manoeuvre

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Mark, Apr 10, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    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.

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

    Mark
     
    Tags:


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

    > 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.
     
  3. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:54:39 +0100, "Mark"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.

    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.

    >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 http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  4. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:02:49 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:54:39 +0100, "Mark"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >
    > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.

    >>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.

    http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
     
  5. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > 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
     
  6. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

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

    > 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 http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
     
  7. W K

    W K Guest

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

    > 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.
     
  8. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:54:59 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>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.

    >> 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)

    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.

    >(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.

    >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.

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

    Absolutely.

    >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.

    >> 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.

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

    >> ...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]

    >>>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 :)

    :)
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  9. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:09:07 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

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

    >A cyclist is a fully signed up road user.

    Of course.

    >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 http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  10. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:25:55 +0100, "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

    The human shield approach?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  11. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

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

    > >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.
    >
    > >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'.

    > "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 bastard like me.

    > 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
     
  12. W K

    W K Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:25:55 +0100, "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> 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.
    >
    > The human shield approach?

    naah more like rebel without a cause.

    Do you actually understand what 26x1.5 means ?
     
  13. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:11:41 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> "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!!)

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

    >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 bastard 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 http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  14. Daniel Auger

    Daniel Auger Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Simon Mason wrote:

    > "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > 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 protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
     
  15. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:13:36 +0100, "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> >> 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.

    >> The human shield approach?

    >naah more like rebel without a cause.

    Or in your case, just without.

    >Do you actually understand what 26x1.5 means ?

    Average / small mountain bike tyre size.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  16. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

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

    >
    > Sorry. I've confused you.

    Not difficult :(

    > 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.

    > >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 bastard 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
     
  17. Kit Wolf

    Kit Wolf Guest

    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).

    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.

    > 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
     
  18. David Green

    David Green Guest

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

    Mark Guest

    > 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
     
  20. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

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

    [snip]

    >> 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)...

    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.

    >... 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 http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...