/ Almost came off due to inconciderate prat.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dax H - on 24 Apr 2012
I was riding down a hill on a back road in Scotland and went to overtake a cyclist on a righthand bend with very good visability all the way round the corner and beyond.
As my front wheel came level with his back wheel he decided to cut the corner and without so much as a shoulder check he swung over to the right side of the road and had I not slammed on the brakes we would have ended up in a heap on the road no doubt with 1/4 ton of motorbike on the top.
Fortunatly I paid the extra for ABS and managed to stay upright.
The cyclist was totally oblivious to me and only realised I was there when I hit my horn, at that point he realised what he had done and took off over a field before I could have a quiet chat with him.
I know no one will care about this but I thought it might make a good counter point to the bike v milk truck thread.
highclimber - on 24 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: while I mostly side with cyclists in general, I think there are some cyclists out there who don't do the rest any favours.
Aly - on 24 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: When driving, I'm always very wary about overtaking on corners even when you can see round them, especially right handers as there is always the potential that the other vehicle is going to cut the corner not realising that you're there. I've certainly cut corners (in my car) in the past having not noticed a bike or a car that has crept up behind me and may be wanting to overtake.

On the other hand, I'd never do it on a bicycle without knowing that there was nothing behind me.

A good attitude to adopt is to assume that everything smaller than is trying to throw themselves under your wheels, and everything bigger than you is trying to kill you! :)
Bimbler - on 24 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:
- Almost came off because I was an inconciderate prat sounds more like it. It's a road not a race track.
MHutch - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Cyclists going fast downhill can often hear bugger all due to the wind noise. This makes me pretty wary if I'm coming up behind one.

Not glancing over your shoulder before cutting the corner is Darwin Awards territory though.
victim of mathematics - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Whilst he might not be winning any awards for outstanding contribution to forward thinking, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for you. I tend to work on the assumption that all other road users are idiots who might do something stupid when presented with the opportunity. That way I'm not surprised when they do...
Alex Slipchuk on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: don't overtake on bends. You were in the wrong and you don't know it. Diesel spills on bends! You were actually cutting the corner whilst overtaking. You should have the patients, the power and the permission to do it safely on the straight.
Alex Slipchuk on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: narrowmindedness or troll. I await the verdict.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Was it a singletrack road? If so you were in the wrong.

If it was a two lane road did you move into the other lane? If so he was in the wrong for changing lane without indicating and checking.

Either way, I don't think it was particularly smart for him to change direction without checking even if he was staying in his own lane.

Also, I don't think it was particularly smart of you to overtake in a corner no matter what the visibility or apparent road conditions.
Nigel Thomson - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to The Big Man: Big Man, I know you've popped your little disclaimer into your profile re spelling and punctuation but it really is getting worse. Come on, you can do better. You're supposed to be degree educated but from your recent posts one would imagine you to be twelve or thirteen years old.
Use a spell checker if you're not confident.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: Also, whenever I have near misses on my push bike, motorbike, car, or as a pedestrian I tend to have a think about what I could have done to avoid it. You can't change other people's behaviour, after all.

Just saying he was an inconsiderate prat and then carrying on doing exactly the same thing doesn't help anyone very much.
Dax on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

I did wonder if this was a troll but I guess not.

So you where riding along a back road in Scotland .. a lot of traffic on it was there? I mean apart from you and the cyclist. I can cycle for miles and miles in the cotswolds and not see another road user at all. That in conjunction with quite vehicles and wind noise in the cyclist's ear, mean it's not difficult to see how this kind of thing happens.

Why didn't you beep your horn as you came up to over take? TBH on a country road I think any over taking manoeuvre you should always consider this .. although with horses it's debatable :-)

I'm not saying its your fault (it obviously isn't) but try to take something from this and learn to be a better rider. If you'd crashed it still would have hurt regardless of whose fault it was.

I ride a bike, ride a motorcycle and drive a car.
Toby_W on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Sounds like he should have looked (& could have been up for a darwin) but as the over taking vehicle you are responsible for taking care. I wouldn't overtake a bike or motor bike on a bend as I would expect them to cut the corner to an extent.

Sorry.

Toby
AlisonSmiles - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

I wonder why he didn't hear you. Wasn't wearing head phones by any chance ... (big stirry spoon out here ...). Pet peeve.
Dax H - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: I am not trolling and will address a few points.
It was not a road race, it was a 60 limit and I had slowed down to 30 for the overtake because I have been on the other side on the push bike and dont like it when someone blasts past at high speed.
It was a 2 lane road, I was in the center of the right lane and he was in the center of the left lane and he cut the corner accross to the right side of the right lane without looking.
He was not wearing headphones that I could see.
I did not sound my horn because I did not want to startle him and there was ample room to overtake had he not crossed 2/3s of both lanes on a twin lane road.
At the end of the day you dont change lanes without checking. Before I change lane on the motorbike I check the mirror first and then a shoulder check, on my push bike I just do a shoulder check due to the lack of mirrors.
Enty - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to AlisonSmiles:

He could have had a helmet on. The wind noise past your ears from a helmet can be a nightmare when riding fast (worse into the wind) that's why I never wear one unless forced to in a comp.

No excuse for not looking over his shoulder though.

E
Enty - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Sounds like one of the majority of cyclists who don't have a clue. ;-)

E
JoshOvki on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

I wonder if he had a driving licence too. My riding style changed a lot after having driving lessons, more checking behind my when moving, or just to see if there was a car I was blocking up. I could imagine someone who hasn't had training in how to use a road be totally oblivious to that they should check behind them.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

Also worth remembering that cyclists can misjudge their speed same as any other road user. Could have been he was planning to stay in lane but then realised he was going too fast and cut the corner without planning to.

Another reason to avoid overtaking anyone on a corner.
Alex Slipchuk on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to the weegy: i'm dyslexic, only mildly though, predictive text gets me away with a lot, it does sometimes insert the wrong word. There is no "suppose" about my education.
M0nkey - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Bimbler:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> - Almost came off because I was an inconciderate prat sounds more like it. It's a road not a race track.

Not quite sure why you describe the OP as inconsiderate. His manoeuvre sounds legal and safe. It would have been uneventful had the cyclist not decided to veer out of position without checking. I didn't see anywhere in his post where he said he was going fast?
PondLife - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: If anyone was an inconsiderate prat then it would have to be you for overtaking another road user on a corner. I can't believe the amount of impatient drivers who manage to endanger everyone else around them. Hopefully you will have learnt something from this episode.
Dax on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to PondLife:

You don't now the road, you don't know the corner.

He doesn't appear to be impatient - he appears to have actually been considerate. If everyone drove like he did than I would be a much happier cyclist. He was just unlucky. He can (and I bet he did) learn something from it - that all other road users are imperfect and have the potential to be total idiots.
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: Why are you suprised he veered right on a right hand bend? You shouldn't be overtaking on the bend. I've nearly been wiped out several times whilst been overtaken on a bend only for them to rejoin far to close to me and expect me to brake faster than I feel safe. I know you were propably not going to cut him up but for all you know he may have just been stopping you from overtaking on a bend by veering right. The cyclist has a right to the road as well.
dpm23 - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to PondLife: You would never overtake a cyclist on a corner on a motorbike? You would sit behind at 15-20 mph(?) in a national speed limit 60 limit waiting for a straight line?

Based on info available, cyclist crossed centre line without checking it was safe to do so and owes his continued good health to an attentive motorcyclist.

Yep, there are idiot road users that put cyclists in danger but this does not seen to be one of them.
Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> You shouldn't be overtaking on the bend.

Nothing about that in the highway code; if there is good visibility ahead, then overtaking on a bend is fine. However it explicitly states that you should stay in your lane at all times unless overtaking, turning or passing. That you need to check behind you before moving lanes (or even changing position within a lane) hardly needs stating.
Enty - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> (In reply to Dax H) Why are you suprised he veered right on a right hand bend?

According to the OP he veered all the way over the white line to the other side of the road. We call this the racing line. If you do this on a public road without looking over your shoulder you won't last very long.

E
Liam M - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
> [...]
>
> According to the OP he veered all the way over the white line to the other side of the road. We call this the racing line. If you do this on a public road without looking over your shoulder you won't last very long.
>
> E

I read his clarification of this as he moved into the right hand lane of two travelling in the same direction, rather than onto the other side of the road. Not sure it makes a huge difference to the case either way though.
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Liam M: I agree that is dangerous and not very clever but my point is that the cyclist must have been moving to the right when he was overtaken, the motorist assumed he was going to stop at the middle of the road or somewhere else in the OPs mind? Regardless of how far right he went he shouldn't have been overtaken on that bend as yet again (can only assume because we weren't there) the motorist may not have left enough room when overtaking.
dpm23 - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma: permanenttrauma: I am a motorcyclist so I try to think what I would do and consider reasonable. Yep, anticipating that the cyclist would move towards the right is a reasonable assumption, so therefore moving to the right lane to give plenty of room for the overtake also seems reasonable. Is it reasonably foreseeable that the cyclist would, whilst not overtaking another road user, move not only to the right, but change lanes completely? I don't think so.

To suggest that the motorcyclist doesn't own the road (none of us do) and that the cyclist moved across to deliberately block the motorcyclist would mean that they have committed a road traffic offence surely? That is just suicidal behaviour from such a vulnerable road user
ads.ukclimbing.com
ceri - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: It was a 2 lane road, the OP was in a different lane to the cyclist, who suddenly changed lanes in front of him. Corner or not, the cyclist was in the wrong!
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Enty: I just think either the OP wasn't being very aware and was genuinly suprised or he was a lot less suprised than he makes out and just wants to have a rant on here.
Enty - on 25 Apr 2012
There's some argumentative buggers on here sometimes.

If you think it's ok to switch lanes without looking fair play. Like I say - you aint going to last very long.

15000km a year on a bike and I can't remember ever making a manouvre without looking.

E
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to dpm23: As I said, changing lanes is just wrong and I agree 100% with that. I don't think cyclists should however be forced to ride on the left at all times because quite often people think there's enough room when there just isn't. People don't leave as much room as they would for a car which, they should.

I understand this is not how you were driving but if you had hit him on that corner you would be in a bit of trouble (unfairly I think most of us agree) but that is what probably would have happened.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

To the OP, are you 100% sure the cyclist intended to take the racing line. The only time I've gone across the white lines on a corner was going downhill at about 25 or 30mph, misjudging the corner, and having to choose between cutting the corner or going off the road.

Is it possible that the cyclist simply misjudged his speed made a dangerous manoeuvre because of it?
Enty - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:
>
> It was a 2 lane road, I was in the center of the right lane and he was in the center of the left lane and he cut the corner accross to the right side of the right lane without looking.
>

Ah, even more stupid then going all the way across without looking.

E
Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> (In reply to dpm23) As I said, changing lanes is just wrong and I agree 100% with that. I don't think cyclists should however be forced to ride on the left at all times because quite often people think there's enough room when there just isn't. People don't leave as much room as they would for a car which, they should.

You are arguing against a position that isn't being taken! All you say is correct, but in this case the road ahead was clear, and the m/c was in the other lane. By definition, this would give the cyclist more room than if he were a car. There is no justification for obstructing an overtake in this case.



permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee: Or a pot hole, or a rabbit/pigeon, freak gust of wind. You can't assume the cyclist is going to be sensible. Expect the unexpected.
MG - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> (In reply to BruceWee) Or a pot hole, or a rabbit/pigeon, freak gust of wind. You can't assume the cyclist is going to be sensible. Expect the unexpected.

There is a limit to what can be expected and accommodated though. By the sounds of it the OP left a lot of space and the cyclist was completely at fault for swerving across a full lane without looking or indicating. The only complication is the bend but if this didn't obscure the OP's view I don't think it's relevant.

Toby S - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Enty:
> There's some argumentative buggers on here sometimes.
>
> If you think it's ok to switch lanes without looking fair play. Like I say - you aint going to last very long.
>
> 15000km a year on a bike and I can't remember ever making a manouvre without looking.
>
Agreed, it's not called a 'Life Saver' for nothing. Equally applicable to cyclists as it is to bikers.
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Markel:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
> [...]
>
> There is no justification for obstructing an overtake in this case.

I was offering this as a potential reason for his behaviour, as there are several potential reasons. I just want to get across that when on a bicycle unexpected things can happen that affect you more than when you're in a car m/c. Also that the OP would have been in more trouble with the law than the cyclist (should he have lived) unfairly as I said.
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> [...]
>
> Ah, even more stupid then going all the way across without looking.
>
> E

I'm not excusing the cyclist. If you're a motorist you've got to be careful around bikes for whatever reason and not make assumptions.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
> [...]
>
> There is a limit to what can be expected and accommodated though. By the sounds of it the OP left a lot of space and the cyclist was completely at fault for swerving across a full lane without looking or indicating. The only complication is the bend but if this didn't obscure the OP's view I don't think it's relevant.

The other complication is, could the cyclist have misjudged his speed, panic, and cut the corner to avoid crashing?

If so then he's not so much an inconsiderate prat as a guy who made a mistake on the road which is something that all road users have done at some point in their lives.

That's why I said earlier that overtaking on a corner is a bad idea even if visibility and road conditions seem OK.
Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:

> I was offering this as a potential reason for his behaviour, as there are several potential reasons. I just want to get across that when on a bicycle unexpected things can happen that affect you more than when you're in a car m/c. Also that the OP would have been in more trouble with the law than the cyclist (should he have lived) unfairly as I said.


OK, that's fair enough. It sounds like the OP did about as much as could have reasonably been expected in this case, i.e. matched speed, waited for a view ahead and then moved well over to pass. Also bear in mind that he had left enough in hand to avoid a collision despite the recklessness of the cyclist.

If you can't guarantee sufficient control that you can stay in your lane then you should either slow down or get off the road, regardless of your vehicle.

Regarding the legality, it would seem pretty clear cut both in terms of civil and criminal law, or was that not quite what you meant?
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Markel:

> If you can't guarantee sufficient control that you can stay in your lane then you should either slow down or get off the road, regardless of your vehicle.
>

Absolutely, but are you telling me you have never misjudged your speed or made a mistake on the road?

Driving defensively is all about anticipating people being idiots and/or making mistakes on the road.
Milesy - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
> I wonder why he didn't hear you. Wasn't wearing head phones by any chance ... (big stirry spoon out here ...). Pet peeve.

Spoon indeed. How is this different from car drivers who have their music up to a volume that they can't hear what is doing on out there. I would argue that a cyclist with headphones will have better hearing than a modern insulated car with music playing. My car you need to have the windows down to hear anything outside clearly. Additionally my earphones have small vents at the back which allow noise behind you to be heard through them.
permanenttrauma - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Markel:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
>
> [...]
>
>
> OK, that's fair enough. It sounds like the OP did about as much as could have reasonably been expected in this case, i.e. matched speed, waited for a view ahead and then moved well over to pass. Also bear in mind that he had left enough in hand to avoid a collision despite the recklessness of the cyclist.

No. Only in your opinion is it reckless. You do not have all the facts. In my opinion he did not do everything possible, he could have waited a few seconds till he was on the straight

>
> If you can't guarantee sufficient control that you can stay in your lane then you should either slow down or get off the road, regardless of your vehicle.

No. there's always possible so-called acts of god. Unseen or unexpected things can happen. A bike is more likely to lose control in such circumstances. So like I say expect the unexpected with bikes.

> Regarding the legality, it would seem pretty clear cut both in terms of civil and criminal law, or was that not quite what you meant?

No. Overtaking on a bend is wrong. It might be wrong and stupid but expecting a bike to take a 'racing line' is foreseable. I see moterbikes do it all the time btw. Personaly I think it is DUMB to do it on a bike.
MG - on 25 Apr 2012
Can I have the jury's opinion of something similar that happened to me last night?

I was driving a car in moderate traffic at about 15-20mph in town. Ahead the road got a lot narrower due to roadworks so I was forced to move left nearer the kerb. Before doing so I checked my left mirror and saw a cyclist going faster about to undertake me. There would not have been room for both of us in the narrow lane so I braked hard until he had passed. Am I right for being annoyed at him for putting me in a position where I might have hit him had I not braked when it was my right of way. My thinking is he shouldn't have been undertaking at all and certainly not when the lanes ahead were clearly narrowing and he would be squashed if I happened not to see him.
Milesy - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> Driving defensively is all about anticipating people being idiots and/or making mistakes on the road.

I agree with that for both driving and also cycling. No matter which I do I have a mindset that people are intentionally going to do things unexpected and they normally do.

This isn't just a bike thing. Every day I drive other drivers do stupid things without looking or outside rules. It is a human thing.

Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

> Driving defensively is all about anticipating people being idiots and/or making mistakes on the road.

Again, a fair point. I guess it's hard to call without having been there. I certainly think that it is OTT to say that you should never overtake on a bend. But perhaps on a tight bend with an obviously fast vehicle, it might be worth hanging back a bit (at least until after the apex).
MG - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

> Driving defensively is all about anticipating people being idiots and/or making mistakes on the road.

Of course but there are limits! Swerving a full lane is pretty erratic. If on a bend why not on a straight, in which case overtaking becomes impossible!?
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Milesy: I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing it but I would recommend they don't.

When I'm on the bike I don't want any of my senses to be reduced at all (so I guess I should really be asking myself why I cycle home from the pub but that's another story).
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to BruceWee)
>
> [...]
>
> Of course but there are limits! Swerving a full lane is pretty erratic. If on a bend why not on a straight, in which case overtaking becomes impossible!?

I think I've said it about three or four times now but here goes yet again:

Is it at all possible that the cyclist misjudged his speed (something that I'm sure we've all done once or twice in our lives) and cut the corner because he panicked rather than because he was hell bent on taking the racing line?

BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> So has the thread officially ruled that you can't overtake on bends even if it is a dual carriageway?
>

Has anyone said that?

Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:

> No. Overtaking on a bend is wrong. It might be wrong and stupid but expecting a bike to take a 'racing line' is foreseable. I see moterbikes do it all the time btw. Personaly I think it is DUMB to do it on a bike.


Can you point me to the relevant section in the highway code or RTA?
MG - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

> Is it at all possible that the cyclist misjudged his speed (something that I'm sure we've all done once or twice in our lives) and cut the corner because he panicked rather than because he was hell bent on taking the racing line?

Of course it's possible. I'm asking though how much latitude it is reasonable to give though? If you allow for misjudging speed on corners resulting a full lane swerve, why not a gust of wind on the straight? What if you were driving the other way round the corner and a bike misjudges their speed? There is defensive driving but I think assuming people will be on there own side of the road is necessary if the roads are to work at all.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Markel:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Can you point me to the relevant section in the highway code or RTA?

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Dax H - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> To the OP, are you 100% sure the cyclist intended to take the racing line. The only time I've gone across the white lines on a corner was going downhill at about 25 or 30mph, misjudging the corner, and having to choose between cutting the corner or going off the road.
>
> Is it possible that the cyclist simply misjudged his speed made a dangerous manoeuvre because of it?

I cant be sure but it looked to me more like taking the racing line rather than a emergency manuver. It was quite a sweeping corner and he was very smoth.
My assumption would be that it was a quiet road and he decided to use all of it for this particular corner and I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
From the look on his face once I made my presence known it is a fair safe bet that he wont cross the center line again without looking first.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to BruceWee)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm asking though how much latitude it is reasonable to give though?

Apparently a bit more than the OP did.

A corner where there is any benefit for a cyclist to take the racing line in terms of energy saving or carrying speed is not somewhere to pass IMO. The cyclist would have to be going at a high enough speed and the corner would have to be tight enough.

Markel on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

> 213
> Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

That doesn't seem particular to overtaking on bends and could equally apply to a straight. Slowing down and moving to the other lane would seem to adequately cover it. I really don't think that there would be any legal controversy if there had been an accident but am far from expert.
MG - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Apparently a bit more than the OP did.
>


Can you conceive of any circumstance when you would simply say a cyclist was wrong?
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

> From the look on his face once I made my presence known it is a fair safe bet that he wont cross the center line again without looking first.

Hopefully he will. The question is will you think twice next time?

BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:

Yes. He either took a stupid line on a public road or he wasn't in control of his bike. Either way he was wrong.
BruceWee - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Markel:
> (In reply to BruceWee)
>
I really don't think that there would be any legal controversy if there had been an accident but am far from expert.

No, me neither. Cyclist was in the wrong either intentionally or by accident.

Right, I'm off climbing :-)
LastBoyScout on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

I agree the cyclist was a muppet for not looking behind him further back up the road, if it was his intent to cross the line to carry speed through a corner. They may, however, have been more intent on scanning the road ahead for gravel, potholes, leaves, etc, and looking behind at speed might be the difference between avoiding something or ending up in a heap.

However, given that the cyclist was going down a hill and the road had good visibility and nothing coming, I would have fully expected the cyclist to take the "racing line" and therefore held back from an overtake until the road straightened up again.

Either way, the cyclist had right of way, as he was in front of you and, therefore, in this situation, I think it is you that is in the wrong for attempting an overtake without anticipating what the cyclist might do.

Scout - cyclist and motor cyclist.
Dax H - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to Markel)
> [...]
>
> 213
> Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

So by your reasoning by slowing to half the posted limit and moving to the other side of the road I was not giving plenty of room.
Next time I come up to a push bike I will slow to his speed and keep my finger on the horn untill he or she acknowledges that I am there and waves me past and then only if the road is as wide as the M1

dpm23 - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to LastBoyScout: If there had been an accident i'm not sure the the cyclist would have got a great response with 'I had right of way, I was taking the racing line your honour'? He may have had right of way in his lane but the motorcyclist wasn't in his lane. I take the 'racing line' on the bike but that does not give me right of way over anyone, especially a road user in a different lane to me. I should stay within my own lane if to change lane would cause another road user to brake or adjust their own line to avoid me.
ceri - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> No. Overtaking on a bend is wrong.
but this was a 2 lane road, are you saying that if you are in the right hand lane on a dual carridgeway or motorway or roundabout with 2 lanes, you never pass a vehicle in the right hand lane because it would be dangerous? Because that's what the OP seems to have done. He didn't squeeze past the cyclist in the same lane. The cyclist had a whole lane to use to avoid pot holes or take a racing line, yet he needed more than that, and changed lanes without looking, a complete no-no.
Irk the Purist - on 25 Apr 2012
Surely overtaking on right hand bends is one of the safest places to do so. Visibility is better because you can see around the vehicle in front and you can cut the corner, making the overtake faster at a lower speed and therefore safer.

Don't know how that fits into the bike scenario, because visibility is not an issue and it's easy to get past one wherever you are.

If there'd been a clattering of two wheeled vehicles I would apportion the blame on the motorbike, because it's always the overtaker's fault, short of seriously extenuating circumstances. (ie a James Bond style ramming)



Bruce Hooker - on 25 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to BruceWee)
> [...]

> Can you conceive of any circumstance when you would simply say a cyclist was wrong?

Having just read the whole thread (sad but true, it's raining!) I was wondering exactly the same thing.

This is seriously worrying, we can't go on agreeing like this!

BruceWee - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Having just read the whole thread (sad but true, it's raining!) I was wondering exactly the same thing.
>

I think what you meant to say was:

"Having read the whole thread (except the bits where BruceWee said the cyclist was completely in the wrong) I was wondering exactly the same thing."
MG - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> I think what you meant to say was:
>
> "Having read the whole thread (except the bits where BruceWee said the cyclist was completely in the wrong) I was wondering exactly the same thing."

You keep going on about how the OP was in the wrong/careless too. The question was can you conceive on a situation when you would *simply* say the cyclist was wrong, i.e. without criticising other road users too.

dissonance - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:

> You keep going on about how the OP was in the wrong/careless too. The question was can you conceive on a situation when you would *simply* say the cyclist was wrong, i.e. without criticising other road users too.

yes, when they hit another cyclist :)

Depends on your definition of criticising others. There are very few cases where one party involved is absolutely 100% to blame but for the normal balance of blame then yes.

Example would be a cyclist jumping a red light when the road behind them is completely clear and either hitting a pedestrian or a car going through the other way.
BruceWee - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to MG: There are two ways to deal with a near miss that was 100% someone elses fault. One is to call the offender a prat, take absolutely nothing away from the experience, and continue driving/riding/walking in exactly the same way you always have.

The other is to call the offender a prat and then have a think about whether there was anything at all you could have done to avoid the situation.

I'm suggesting that next time the OP is approaching a cyclist who is doing 30mph coming up to a bend where he might be able to carry more speed if he cuts the corner then assume he's going to cut the corner on purpose or by not being fully in control of the bike. Then just wait until a straight bit to pass. Even if that means slowing to half the national speed limit for a bit.
MG - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee: I think, you're basically saying you should never overtake a cyclist though. I know you said wait until the straight but if the event the OP described had occurred on a straight, say due to a pot-hole or wind, I bet you would be saying he should have checked for pot-holes and waited, or waited until a sheltered section of road. There is a limit to what is possible in terms of defensive driving while still being able to have a usable road.
Bimbler - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to BruceWee) I think, you're basically saying you should never overtake a cyclist though.


I don't think he is though... I can't believe this is still bring 'debated'!
BruceWee - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to BruceWee) I think, you're basically saying you should never overtake a cyclist though.

Erm, no. I'm not.

I've never seen anyone have to swerve into the opposite lane to avoid a pot hole or be blown across two lanes by a gust of wind.

I have however seen people change lines to take the racing line (both on bikes and in cars) so it's something I try to be mindful of.

If I've never seen something happen and can't conceive it happening then I don't worry about it. A road user taking the racing line is something that can and does happen so it's a good idea to be aware of it.
permanenttrauma - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to MG) There are two ways to deal with a near miss that was 100% someone elses fault. One is to call the offender a prat, take absolutely nothing away from the experience, and continue driving/riding/walking in exactly the same way you always have.
>
> The other is to call the offender a prat and then have a think about whether there was anything at all you could have done to avoid the situation.
>
> I'm suggesting that next time the OP is approaching a cyclist who is doing 30mph coming up to a bend where he might be able to carry more speed if he cuts the corner then assume he's going to cut the corner on purpose or by not being fully in control of the bike. Then just wait until a straight bit to pass. Even if that means slowing to half the national speed limit for a bit.

Nail on the head. Case closed
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> (In reply to BruceWee)
> [...]
>
> Nail on the head. Case closed

The nail could also be hit on the head in a different way, but you won't like it as it implies a minute effort for the cyclist, bicycles could be fitted with mirrors.

When I was a kid we had mirrors on our bikes, bought after the bike usually, but today you hardly ever see them. In this case the fault of the cyclist stemmed from his not looking behind him, with a mirror this would never have happened.

It could be a nice little earner for someone - small polished aluminium mirrors that fitted on the handlebar unobtrusively.
wintertree - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Mirrors on a pushbike would be worse than useless. Mirrors on many small motorbikes are not big enough to see everything behind you - at worst they lull the rider into a false sense of security. Having said that, there's an old boy round here with the wingmirror from a large van ducktaped onto his bicycle...

In other news, if you're going to overtake someone on a bend, then anticipate that they might cut the bend, identify your course of action if they do, evaluating any hazards (swerving out, oncoming traffic, visibility and road condition on the wrong side of the road) and then decide if you really want to do it. Always keep in mind that the person you are overtaking may have to swerve out for some legitimate reason that isn't obvious to you at the time, and that leaves them little time to check their rear view.

If you don't do those things, especially if you are on a motorbike, you are quite likely to die, and then there's no use arguing over whose fault it was, is there?
permanenttrauma - on 26 Apr 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
> [...]
>
> The nail could also be hit on the head in a different way, but you won't like it as it implies a minute effort for the cyclist, bicycles could be fitted with mirrors.

Sorry Bruce but you're completely wrong. His statement applies to both parties whether the blame is 100% or 50/50. Iíve been knocked off, it was 100% the motorists fault and the police agreed (after they tracked him down). Just because it is 100% somebody elseís fault doesn't mean you can't learn from it or that you need not change your behaviour. I know I did.
Bruce Hooker - on 27 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma & thesaunter:

I had a look in Decathlon yesterday and they sell mirrors - two models, one at £5 and one at £12 - either, if used, would have avoided the near accident in the case in question.

As for driving in a way that takes into account the sort of antics of this cyclist, by the same rather weird logic cyclists should cycle in a way that takes into account lorries or cars swerving madly from lane to lane too, or any other nutty behaviour! This is clearly impossible unless you lock your bike in the shed and never use it.

You can't blame someone acting reasonably, as the OP clearly was, because he didn't take into account the totally idiotic behaviour of another road user.

Get a mirror and use it, just like everyone else - inluding many cyclists, at least I did when a kid. Now I don't, which is not a good thing, I will remedy it though, I think.
permanenttrauma - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> As for driving in a way that takes into account the sort of antics of this cyclist, by the same rather weird logic cyclists should cycle in a way that takes into account lorries or cars swerving madly from lane to lane too, or any other nutty behaviour! This is clearly impossible unless you lock your bike in the shed and never use it.

Thats exactly how I cycle, it happens a lot more than you know. You would notice if you got out of your ivory tower.
Orgsm on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H:

The cyclist might not have genuinely seen you. You know Sorry Mate I Didn't See You (SMIDSY). This can happen both ways.
Dax H - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
>
> I have however seen people change lines to take the racing line (both on bikes and in cars) so it's something I try to be mindful of.
>

In anticipation of the cyclist maybe taking the racing line I dropped my speed to 30mph so that if he had bothered to do a shoulder check / life saver A he would have seen me and B I would have had time to see him look and back off a bit more.
When he first came in to view I checked my mirrors to make sure it was safe to halve my speed then when I was about 200 yards away I rechecked my mirrors and did a sholder check, indicated and moved over to the other side of the road.
I fail to see how I could learn anything from this other than maybe trying to develop some sort of extra sensory perception that will tell me when another road user is going to blindly cross 3/4 of a road without looking or giving any sort of indication.

Can anyone on here say that they would cross from one lane to another without having a quick check first ?
If the guy had looked and not seen me because I was in his blind spot I would say it was my fault fof overtaking after I have seen him check but by not looking at all he was indicating to me that he was going to hold his position. It never entered my mind that someone would be stupid enough to cut a corner without looking.


Dax H - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to A Game of Chance:
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> The cyclist might not have genuinely seen you. You know Sorry Mate I Didn't See You (SMIDSY). This can happen both ways.

Obviously he did not see me because he did not look unless he had eyes in the back of his head capable of seeing through his lid.
woolsack - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to A Game of Chance:
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> The cyclist might not have genuinely seen you. You know Sorry Mate I Didn't See You (SMIDSY). This can happen both ways.

What the OP hasn't told us is at what speed he was travelling before he slowed to the national speed limit :)

Dax H - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to woolsack: I did not slow down to the national speed limit. I slowed down to half of it. Before I slowed down I was maintaining a speed fo between 50 and 60 mph. I was leading a small group back from a 4 day tour of the highlands and in a group you lead at the pace of the slowest rider.
Had I been on my own I would have been quite a bit faster.
Dax H - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to Dax H: I am going to add that in 22 years of driving about 30k miles per year mostly urban and back roads I have only had one previous near miss with a cyclist when I did not see one as I pulled out of a junction. He flew off the handle big time untill I pointed out that it was an unlit road in the dark and he had forgotten to turn his front light on.

On top of that I ride a push bike and a motor bike and have never come close to being knocked off either. I ride defensivley and keep out of blind spots and when I manovur I look and indicate first.
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:

> You would notice if you got out of your ivory tower.

I've driven or ridden most sorts of vehicles, push-bikes, motor bikes, sidecars, cars, vans, tractor, lorries but never an ivory tower.

A persecution complex is worth trying to see someone about :-)
permanenttrauma - on 30 Apr 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
>
> [...]
>
> I've driven or ridden most sorts of vehicles, push-bikes, motor bikes, sidecars, cars, vans, tractor, lorries but never an ivory tower.

An Ivory tower is not a vehicle. What's that saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Just because you sat on a bike when you were 7 doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about.

Stuart William - on 30 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> An Ivory tower is not a vehicle.

Just a wild stab in the dark but I have a feeling he already knew that. I think there is a word for what he was doing; might start with "sarc..."?
permanenttrauma - on 30 Apr 2012
In reply to 2PointO:
> (In reply to permanenttrauma)
> [...]
>
> Just a wild stab in the dark but I have a feeling he already knew that. I think there is a word for what he was doing; might start with "sarc..."?

Who knows what Bruce does or doesn't know? He thinks he knows everything.
Bruce Hooker - on 30 Apr 2012
In reply to permanenttrauma:

> He thinks he knows everything.

You really can't stand any criticism of a cyclist, can you?

BTW I have cycled quite a lot, even after 7, although I doubt that I have as flashy a bike as you do. Even so it's hardly required to be able to read the information given by the OP and understand what happened. Of course he could have invented the whole story, as can any poster on any thread, but reacting in a way that takes this into account is about as difficult as driving in a way that allows for slow moving push-bikers suddenly swerving right across the road without looking or giving any signal. This would be easier for you on your cycle as you would be moving slowly like the erratic rider.

On the other hand, if we must allow for absolutely any demented behaviour, how would you cycle or drive along a road in a way that takes into account a mad lorry driver coming the other way suddenly changing lanes and squashing you? We are all obliged to assume a certain minimum of normality from other road users.

Maybe you pseudo is trying to tell us something though?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.