UKC

scene setting.
i was riding on my own from bottom towards leek,a van came past me so close if id swerved a little to go around a grid he would have knocked me off and the speed he was going would have killed me.
the road is wide enough to get 4 vans across without trouble.i saw him look in the mirror so he knew i was there.
i managed to see the sign writing on it.
when i got home i googled it,its a leek company
i went to the address to find the house empty and for sale.

what would any of you follow it up with?
is it worth reporting to the police?
id imagine they would show no interest as its his view against mine.

any advice?

In reply to mark s:

Still worth reporting IMO.

In reply to mark s:

As you say, your word against his. Not sure the police would be able to do much?

In reply to mark s: But if you do register a complaint, yes it is your word against his, accidental or deliberate. But if he does it again and hurts someone then your complaint on record will stack up the evidence against him.

Good luck,cycle safe.

Robin

In reply to mark s:What he said. ^^^^

In reply to annieman:

x 2

In reply to mark s: Ring them up Liam Neeson style. Or report it as above.

Just wondered what you were wearing re:visability?
He was probably on his phone or not paying attention or at least I hope it was that!

In reply to mark s:

Yea waste everyones time and ring the police.

I understand that he "could" have hit you if you swerved into his path.

But come on, I see cyclist's taking up most if not all the road everytime I go through the peak district or lakes. Making car users slow down, just so you can all have a conversation with eachother. And I don't ring the police telling tales.

Seriously you bikelists think every driver is against you.

In reply to xplorer:Nah, it's simply the dangerous ones can actually kill people.

If they nearly hit cyclists they can nearly hit pedestrians, it's only a foot or two between a nearly and a death.

I never hold cars up by chatting to people i'm cycling with by the way. A lot of people both drive and cycle.

In reply to xplorer:


Good job too because there's no "tale" to tell. Cycling abreast on one side of the carriageway is legit AFAIK.

In reply to Fraser:Take a look under the bridge?

In reply to mark s:

That's right, everyone with an opinion is a troll.

You clever clever man!

In reply to mark s:

Keep a note of the telephone no and company.

Next time you get buzzed by a van, take their no and company.


Wait a wee while, because revenge is a dish best served cold.

Phone one up, to make an appointment for them to go and visit the other company, and vice versa.

Relax.

In reply to xplorer:

It was the telling tales and Bikelists bits, they seemed too stupid to be genuine.

Honestly, that's what I genuinely thought.

You do realise how dangerous cars can be to pedestrians and cyclists I hope?

In reply to mark s:

Earlier this year, I was driving behind a lorry which was towing a huge pile of hay. The driver was hammering it around this little country road, so I was keeping well back, when suddenly the hay shook so violently from side to side - due to his speed - that it hit a telegraph pole which broke in two, the top half of which came thundering towards my car. I had to swerve to miss it, and had there been a car coming the other way, we'd all be dead.

So, I reported it. Nothing came of it but it's good to get it down on record and gave me somewhere to put all the shock and subsequent emotional nasties that come from such a close shave. Yes, it may be your word against theirs, but I doubt that the police would think you'd contrived such a story just for the fun of it. Twonks on the road should always be reported, in my opinion...

In reply to Fraser: It is illegal or at least against the HWC in traffic.

In reply to Timmd:

Arrrr! First troll, then grammer and spelling. Typical ukcer

In reply to xplorer:

Was it you??

In reply to xplorer:

It's spelt grammar.

In reply to LP:

Yea it was me!

I'm off now anyway. I just had an opinion that's all.

Bloody democracy

In reply to xplorer:

Sorry, i've just realised what i've become. ()

Seriouly though, was a bit much for me to say I thought you were being too stupid to be serious.

Maybe you don't know how unnerving it is to have something woosh past you very closely and quickly enough to do you quite a lot of harm or possibly kill you.

If you did you'd probably appreciate why the OP is/was rather unnerved.

Sorry for calling you stupid. ()

In reply to xplorer: I know mate; was just trying to be funny.xx

In reply to mark s:

I really do understand. Just think following the guy and reporting him to the police is abit over board. Fair enough if the driver actually wanted to him. Probably just an accident.

In reply to MG:
I don't think it is, the gov.uk website link below says you *should* not ride *more* than two abreast apart from busy roads or bends. This means that two abreast is usually fine, and it is guidance rather than stipulation anyway:

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

There are pretty obvious practical reasons why two abreast makes sense anyway: shorter lines of cyclists, a wider profile which encourages safer overtaking, and allows group members to take turn on the front.

In reply to mark s:

And the "bikelist" was supposed to be funny.

But fair enough, comedy and spelling are not my best skills.

Good job I'm a top notch climber

In reply to mark s:
I'd report it as said above, it could add to the story if this chap is involved in another event.
I had a minibus do something similar to me as I was on my way to work on Friday. it was a wide road, I was dressed in fluoro yellow with two lights on the back and yet this chap got really close to me. I caught up with him at the lights and he had his window opne a bit so I decided I would very politely ask if he would consider giving cyclist a bit more space in the future. His response was ridiculous, he just wouldn't accept that he had been at fault in any shape or form, just kept say that he'd left loads of room and he was fine.
people like that need to be forced to ride around on a bike for a while to experience what he calls loads of room.

In reply to gethin_allen: going do a trip down to the company hq tomorrow.thinking the house for sale could be some fun.

as for the bell end troll saying cyclist taking up the road,i was inline with the grids and the road was clear towards me and was easy wide enough to take 4 or 5 vans.

its tw*ts who drive like that why there are so many deaths on the roads.
all it would have taken from me was to go around a grid and i wouldnt be here typing this now.

In reply to mark s:

Well done mark!

You are obviously a very civilised person. Who doesn't get angry.

Maybe your anger is the problem.

In reply to xplorer:
please tell me why anger maybe my problem?

In reply to mark s:

Maybe you are a little bit angrier than normal?

Just an observation

In reply to Aly:

That's what I said above - on most roads it is not allowed since most are busy. Common sense and courteous anyway.

' never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends'

In reply to mark s:

That's what I said above - on most roads it is not allowed since most are busy. Common sense and courteous anyway.

' never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends'


This would make perfect sense, but I really do see a lot of people ignoring this.

In reply to MG:

Are you sure about that? Chris Boardman and a guy from the A.I.M. were on tv the other day and when asked about that specific issue, they said it wasn't illegal.

In reply to xplorer:

angry?

what would your reaction be to someone who could have killed you?

had he stopped then yeah i would have got a tad angry.well within my rights as far as i am concerned

In reply to Fraser: i wouldnt have thought two a breast to be illegal. the quicker vehicle approaching from behind has no priority over the slower bikes.it maybe safer as cars behind will have to slow to pass rather than nip through little gaps.
this today was the closest anyone has come past me,he could have given 20 foot how much room was available.

In reply to Fraser: from department of transport



Am I allowed to ride two abreast on the road?

Yes you are allowed to ride two abreast on the road. The exception to this is where a bicycle lane exists and is in operation and there is insufficient room for two riders to ride abreast inside the lane, In this case you must ride single file. Also whilst it is legal to ride two abreast it is important to consider other road users and not hog the road.

In reply to Fraser: Quote from HWC above

In reply to Fraser: so probably recommended rather than directly illegal

In reply to MG:

No, it is allowed - and is perfectly legal.
The statement you quoted is given as guidance, in exactly the same way as it is not illegal to cycle in baggy trousers and/or a black jacket - but they don't recommend it.

Often cycling two abreast is safer and more sensible anyway for the reasons I mentioned above, but that doesn't mean I don't think courteous riding is important.

In reply to mark s:

Sounds like you had a close call.

Fill out a timeshare application form & give the contact details of the tw*t that nearly killed you. Endless cold phonecalls from foreign call centres - 'It's the gift that just keeps giving'

In reply to mark s: There is legal and there is fair and sensible. Walking down a dual carriage way fast lane is not specifically illegal...

In reply to Aly: It is not quite that simple. Ignoring the HWC would be strong evidence of more genersl offences. It is more than just some suggestions.

Course you should report it in to the local station! You are not pressing charges, simply making the police aware that a potentially dangerous driver is floating around.

I have non idea what the cops are like round your way, but I have lived in rural areas for most of my life, where you still (just about) have a local copper. What happened around our way was if you reported something to him he would then have a quiet word with the other party. Nothing official, just a quiet word to say he would be keeping an eye on them for a while!

I would hope that this still happens elsewhere, it was one of the areas where prevention is far better than punishment!! It may be the guy messed up, only saw you at the last minute and didn't want to stop for embarrassment. A quiet word would likely have an effect if that was the case.

Or the guy could be a deathtrap behind a wheel, where a quiet word to say police attention is directed his way might rein him back a touch.

Just make sure you mention to the cops that you are not making a formal complaint, more making them aware.

In reply to mark s:

Arrange a viewing of the house, then take a sh1t in a wardrobe when no-one's looking.

;0

In reply to xplorer:

prick

In reply to mark s: I would report him. As a car driver I've reported van drivers before. The police may already be aware of him and more witnesses won't be a bad thing.

http://tinyurl.com/ngfqp6

In the current climate lots of businesses are going to the wall. The fact he is selling his house could be an indication he is in financial trouble. This could lead to a bad mental state behind the wheel and won't be an isolated incident. I can never understand why van drivers of signwritten vans drive like they do.

In reply to DancingOnRock: more searching has found his antique shop on saint edwards street in leek.im going to make a visit tomorrow

In reply to mark s: I wouldn't get involved. Report it, move on. You'll just escalate it.

In reply to mark s: You look like a scary dude so a visit will make him think twice about carving bikes up next time.

In reply to mark s:

This is getting a little to deep now.

In reply to mark s:

I'd report him to his boss. I've done this a couple of times, and the bosses appear to take it a helluva more seriously and can make his life much more directly miserable than the police are likely to.

The company bosses tend to take a dim view of this kind of thing, as it makes them worry about their insurance, their property (both whatever goods the van is carrying and the van itself), and the PR aspect of it. They do *not* want to be the people in the paper where "non-one from the company was available to comment" after one of their drivers kills somebody.

'course, sometimes the boss is the person driving...

In reply to mark s:

You could write him a note and place it on the windscreen.
But I wouldn't have a word.
Not wanting to excuse an impatient driver, but he may be going through a tough time and face to face confrontation may cause him to flip. A note would still get your point across.

I was out just tonight, rounding blind left hand bend, on coming car, I could here a car approaching from behind, the behind car overtakes me forcing oncoming to slow. I shook my fist at the overtaking car then realised I new the reg. Twas a middle aged women who's into saving animals n horses. All drivers can be impatient.

It takes no real effort for the cyclist to slow for the pedestrian when riding on the path say hello then ride off.
It takes no effort for the car driver to slow for the cyclist and over take at a safe respectful distance.
Attitudes need to change.

In reply to xplorer: Were you born a dickhead or does it come with practice.

In reply to Grumpyoldgit:

No not at all.

Do you think that going around trying to find this guy and confronting him is the right thing. Fair enough ring the police and pass on his details, but to follow the guy and possibly put yourself in more danger, doesn't seem sensible to me at all.

Anger isn't all bad, but when you are obviously incredibly stupid and angry it won't do you any favours. You will either end up in hospital or prison.

People these days, like to pretend that their an up standing piller of the community, but you are blatently a liability to yourself, and the rest of your town.

My guess is that either common sense will prevail or stupidity and anger will rear its ugly head, and mark will end up crying at home to his loverly wife.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Agreed. Report it and walk away, despite how frustrated and angry you may feel.

In reply to xplorer: im extremely stupid???
maybe you are the type to take shit off people.
i wont and if someone threatens my safety i wont just do nothing,wether that be in the street in a pub or riding my bike.
i am well within my rights to go a see what he has to say.
why do you think im going to end up crying at home?
you are very good at assuming things.
obvious you have a thing about cyclists so why look at the cycling side of the forum?

In reply to mark s:

What do you hope to achieve by visiting someone (the driver?) at work?

If you think he was driving dangerously report the incident to the police and leave them to it, that's what they're there for. Turning up to vent your frustration just risks turning the situation into something bad for both of you.

jk

In reply to mark s: You are making the mistake of turning a random road incident into a personal attack. It's not. Take a step back. Call the police. Forget about it.

In reply to mark s: do some sprints get the aggression out, and benefit from extra training. In the 100,000s of miles I ve done it happens, I once caught up, got of the bike went to open the door they locked it I gave the car a shoeing they drove off, but I was 21, and never bothered getting involved again. Joys of cycling

In reply to mark s:

From Road.cc: http://road.cc/content/news/71139-radio-newcastle-dj-gets-ban-and-fine-care...

Probably worth reportin all the same. Get it on record.

In reply to mark s:

+1 for report him but don't get involved. Will get you nowhere, just harden any disregard for cyclists' safety he does have.

Xplorer's dislike for two-abreast is totally irrelevant to what happened to you, which was a driver failing to give you any consideration or space during an overtake. Your road positioning sounds fine.

There are too many drivers around my area who think that giving you a foot's clearance while they overtake you without even slowing down into oncoming traffic is OK. There is a 300-yard section of my local loop up a short hill near Rylstone where I am nearly always overtaken dangerously.

Visit the company and kick the shit of the the vehicle.

And to the trolling ant cyclist f*ckwits WANKING on about "the highway code" because they have to (HORRORS) pay attentino for a while...

Rule 66: "never ride [b]MORE[/b] than two abreast, and ride in single file on [b]narrow or busy[/b] roads and when riding round bends"

SO F*CK YOU TO F*CKING DEATH

In reply to Animal:


Quite brilliant; that made me laugh

In reply to mark s:
When I did my cycling proficiency at school 25 years ago I was taught to ride the width of the grids away from the kerb.
As someone has already stated in defence of riding 2 abreast, it is a more dominant road position which forces a safer overtake.
Andy

In reply to Animal: Delightful. I am sure you will do much for cycling's reputation and cyclists' safety.

In reply to Removed Userlfenbo:

Welcome welcome!

Your obviously another upstanding member of the ukc community

In reply to MHutch:

Never mentioned 2 a breast.

Please read comments carefully before responding

In reply to Animal:

SO F*CK YOU TO F*CKING DEATH


Hahaha grow up kiddo

In reply to Andrew Wilson:

I think this is probably where the car v bike problems start. It's not up to the cyclist to decide where it is safe for the car driver to overtake, it's up to the car driver. Many (non driving?) cyclists just don't like being passed by any car, regardless of whether it is safely or dangerously.

You're not out on the tour de France, you're on the public highway, ride sensibly and car drivers won't get frustrated and try to overtake in stupid places. Some will, but they will be in the minority. Hold up traffic until it is safe, in your opinion, to pass and you run the risk of annoying a lot of the otherwise sensible car drivers.

It's like saying pedestrians should stand in the road and make cars slow down so that they can cross the road more safely.

In reply to DancingOnRock: Well put.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
I'm not talking about blocking the road. Just riding straight approximately 30cm away from kerb thus avoiding the need to swerve in and out of grates and also maintaining a steady and predictable course for other road users to accommodate more easily.

In reply to Andrew Wilson:

30cms is in the gutter. 60-80cms is more like it

In reply to nniff:

I don't have a problem with this. But riding in the middle or using the excuse that cars overtake dangerously so you can ride two abreast isn't a good attitude to take.

In reply to mark s:

Can't we all just get along?

I'm a cyclist and I've been knocked off once this year, bit of negligence on both our parts, settled over a cup of tea and the world's worst first aid kit.

Getting angry and aggressive gets us no where and merely encourages the resentment of cyclists by drivers.

I nearly got knocked off a least once a week cycling into London this year and a couple of times I've caught up with the driver at lights, knocked on the window and politely asked if they can keep a bit more of an eye out for cyclists. Received an apology both times and hopefully they will. The woman who knocked off will definately look out for cyclists more before turning and hopefully will indicate in future. I do shout at people who don't indicate and try a number of different hand signals to show why I'm unhappy. I normally just look like I'm dancing.

My advice would to be not go round and arise a confrontation, not bother the police, leave him a note or a letter. Oh and go torch his house...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sorry, but in my opinion you are talking bollocks.

In effect, you seem to be suggesting cyclists should not make the effort to make their bike ride any safer, and should in fact be happy when bad drivers make stupid decisions.

I think the poster who used the term "forces a safer overtake" used the wrong terminology, what in fact you are actually doing is influencing the actions of other road users by your own actions. In this case, single file riders run the risk of drivers pushing their way past even when other traffic is coming towards them by crowding the riders into the side. By riding two abreast, an overtaking car has to wait to do a safer overtake when the way is clear.

This skill of "influencing" other road users is something taught to "blues & 2's" drivers, and I understand is taught in Advanced driving courses?

However, I am not surprised you hold these views, the very fact your post suggests that the majority of cyclists (I think you say many, but your meaning is clear enough) are at fault, and drivers are innocent is enough to suggest to me that you are likely to be of the type to display poor road manners. I may be wrong, but that is the impression you give.

In reply to thebrookster:

I think we can all agree that we don't live in a perfect world.

Driver and cyclists are both at fault on the whole. It happens, and it always will happen.

And I think the majority of people believe that confronting the guy is pointless.

If you look for trouble you will find it!

In reply to thebrookster: No. By riding two abreast you are preventing a driver overtaking when it would be perfectly safe to overtake two cyclists riding in single file.

In reply to mark s: Stop crying and get on with it. (From a cyclist)

Cyclists are guilty of their fair share of more than their fair share of idiotic behaviour, yet seem to want to take the moral high ground all the time. The number I pass in the car riding two or three abreast on country lanes is astounding..........

In reply to tatty112:

Bull. You cannot pass cyclists 3 abreast on a country lane in a car.

In reply to tatty112: who's crying?
tell me what i did wrong then?

so what if you have to pass cyclists.they have just as much right as you to be on that country road.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to suggest cyclists are blameless, however I do believe that they have just as much right to be on the road as cars.

There are situations where cyclists should not stick to riding two abreast, for example most single track roads (or country lanes, if that is what you wish to call them). Riding two abreast here would be stupid, all it takes is one driver coming round a corner too fast to stop and you leave him with nowhere to go.

Elsewhere, I'll think you'll find the majority of cyclists will happily move over if there is not otherwise space to pass.

Cars do not have a divine right to be on the road, nor do they have increased rights over other road users. I am not suggesting that cyclists should deliberately impede the way of other road users, but respect needs to go both ways.

In reply to thebrookster: Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The statement was made that cyclists should ride two abreast to stop cars overtaking where it would be dangerous. All I was saying was this compounds the problem. Dangerous drivers will drive dangerously however you ride. It's not down to cyclists or drivers to act like policemen.

I suspect that "blues and twos" training is aimed at a certain group of drivers and the advanced driving course will have caveats.

In reply to mark s:

who's crying?
tell me what i did wrong then?

so what if you have to pass cyclists.they have just as much right as you to be on that country road.


You do seem to be taking the whole situation to heart.

You asked for advice, and plenty of people have gave you advice. You haven't accepted any advice at all. All you have done is defend your own view. That being a very angry distorted view.

As said, everyone knows accidents between bikes and cars will always happen. So what's the point in argueing about something that you can't change.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Unfortunately you're totally wrong in your assumption that car drivers will only overtake when it is safe. I think anybody who's spent a bit of time riding on country roads will verify this! I cringe when I see (presumably) inexperienced cyclists creeping aroung the inside of blind corners 6" from the verge as it really is inviting trouble.

In reply to thebrookster:

Of course but as much right, not more. Routinely riding two abreast prevents lots of perfectly safe overtaking as well as the odd idiot. It is disproporionate and discourteous.

In reply to GPN:

and I cringe when I see presumably experienced cyclists riding two abreast around the same corner.

In reply to mark s:

Lets get back on topic. You've had a full day to mull it over. What is your plan to resolve and move on?

In reply to A Game of Chance: i was in town today so went past his shop but its closed on mondays.
a couple of mates say they would go and see what he has to say.

In reply to xplorer: why you trying to paint me as some militant cyclist yob who wants to go starting fights?

In reply to mark s:

You have done a pretty good job a painting your own picture.

Why do people ask advice on something that needs to be thought about and dealt with on their own. Use your own judgement, if you want to go round then go. Why do you need our advice, you don't listen.

Do what you think is right!

Lifes to short to be holding grudges and worrying about silly little accidents. He didn't hit you at the end of the day. The guy could be completely innocent. You know a genuine mistake. Plenty of people pull out in their cars infront of other people while driving, and you don't see them chasing people, knocking on doors, and ringing the police.

Grow up

In reply to mark s:

They're all rock apes in Leek. Leave it, you'll come off worst

In reply to xplorer: you really seem to have a problem with me.
what is the problem?
is it cyclists blocking your road
or people questioning very bad driving?
come on ,tell me where im appearing to be threatening or a yob

whats with the grow up? am i being childish?
i dont think been shaken up by a van doing 60 18 inch from your shoulder is something to laugh about
i have listened and taken i what people have said.

In reply to mark s:

I half agree with him that you're being childish.
Why ask other people?
There's nothing hard in this deicsion and you were the one there, no one else.

In your own mind you will have a pretty good idea of whether what he did was totally deliberate, him having a bit of a luagh at your expense..... in which case, why not go round and see if he's as clever face to face.

However, the fact that he looked in his mirror means bugger all. If you think it's possible that he just saw you too late for whatever reason, got a bit close and checked his mirrors to see if he'd clipped you....... well in that case, going round to have it out with him is at best a bit obsessive and silly and at worst, just being a bit of a tw*t and a bully.

But I wasn't there. You were.

In reply to mark s:

Your not the only one this has happend to you know.

Near accidents happen every day. Its a risk you take using any type of transport on the roads.

And just so you know, I don't drive, I can't, I have vision problems. So I've used a bike as transport for the last 10 years. I've had plenty of near misses with cars, and I can honestly say none of them have been my fault. I was angry at the time but ten minutes later I had forgotton about it.

I didn't come on a forum asking for permission to go vent my anger at somone who let's face it, probably made a mistake.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Hmm. Cyclists riding 2 abreast is mildly inconvenient as a car driver. A cyclist being flattened by somebody trying to save 30 seconds off their journey is slightly different.

In reply to mark s:

There's been quite a lot of heavy breathing on this thread, which appears a little pointless. My twopennyworth.

If you go around I'd say there's a 50/50 liklihood that you'll end up in a fight. You'll be angry (if not initially, what happens when he starts laughing at you and taking the p1ss?), he'll be angry, defensive, take the p1ss, or whatever.

The one thing you can be sure is that the cosy chat where you calmly state your case and he admits he was at fault and apologises will not happen.

If things get physical, or even threatening, and someone calls the police, then you're potentially up on an assault or threatening behaviour charge. The police will not give two hoots about an accident which only "nearly" happened, and will happy prosecute you for a dead-cert conviction and an increase in their average clear-up rate.

If you don't mind potentially getting an assault (or worse) conviction, go round and confront him. OK, the probability is, I'd guess, less than 20% (probably less than 50% fisticuffs probability then less than 50% him calling the police), but its a helluva risk to take.

Don't do it - accept that some people are knobs and move on. I know you don't want to - I wouldn't in your shoes - but its probably most sensible. I know you probably dodn't feel like being sensible either, and I wouldn't either. Doesn't change the fact its the best thing to do.

In reply to GPN:

It isn't 30 seconds though.
I have no issue having my journey slowed by a cyclist acting reasonably and resposnbily. But I've been held up quite a few minutes in rush hour traffic behind some cyclists who think it's fine to ride two abreast in rush hour when you've no chance of overtaking.

If you meet several such pairs you can be quite late because of it.

You talk about car drivers being selfish.

How about just 'some road users are selfish'?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I was talking about the consequences of peoples actions really rather than the relative selfishness of car drivers versus cyclists. To compare the irritation of being held up for a few seconds (minutes even) by inconsiderate cyclists to the experience of nearly being wiped out by an impatient cretin in a car/van is frankly moronic.

In reply to GPN:

No, it's moronic to think that because you are more vulnerable, other people's needs no longer matter.

I could say 'because there is a child starving in Africa, it's wrong to have an extra biscuit at tea break'

One thing has no direct link with the other.

I dislike dickheads, whatever their mode of transport.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I quite agree that it is not up to cyclists or drivers to act like policemen, and I likewise agree that "blues and twos" is aimed at a particular group of drivers.

The point I was putting across was that riding two abreast was a form of influencing other road users to ensure their own safety. I used the "blues and twos/AM" as two examples of a more extreme form of this.

I think we are going to continue disagreeing on this point, because I firmly believe that we should be teaching these skills as part of the school proficiency training.

Like it or lump it, where you place your bike on the road affects what other road users do, so as a single cyclist you should be roughly 2-3 foot from the side, or if more riding two abreast. This is to prevent cars etc from overtaking stupidly and, exactly like you would with another car, try and make you overtake in a safe manner. This is about enhancing the safety of vulnerable road users, and if that annoys other road users so be it.
Maybe I am odd, but I would rather have an annoyed person behind me than a fool side-swiping me off my bike.

Incidentally, one of the greatest dangers to the average cyclist is not the angry driver who cares not a whit about anyone else but himself on the road, rather it is the vast majority of drivers who are incapable of judging speed properly, have little or no idea what the size of their car is or where it is on the road. These are the people who will knock you flying of your bike by either passing too close, or by pulling in front prematurely, and will probably not even notice they have hit you.

So I am sorry if this upsets people, but I WILL take the necessary steps to enhance my safety on the road. Let us not forget, had the gentleman who created this thread fallen of his bike at the wrong moment, he would most probably be dead. And with the state of the roads right now (as has been shown in another thread on here very recently), impromptu spills happen very easily.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I'm afraid you're wrong. As a cyclist your position on the road directly influences your safety. The rest of your argument is a classic straw man with no relevance to what I said.

As pointed out above it's not really about dickheads on the road, it's the significant proportion of drivers who can't judge speed/distance and have no consideration of why passing a cyclist is different to passing a lamp post!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The official guidance for teaching school kids to ride safely in the UK, is to teach them to dominate their lane, to ensure cars have to overtake them correctly and to increase their visibility to road users from other directions at junctions, etc.

It's staggering the number of people who get upset when you follow that training, but whether you like it or not, it's what we're supposed to do.

In reply to thebrookster: Yes. Your positioning in the road directly affects your safety. Ride slowly in the middle of the road on a blind bend and a driver driving too fast is going to hit you. He has no choice and nowhere to swerve. Ride into the left and he has the whole road to swerve round you.

IF there is a car coming in the other direction THEN there MIGHT be an accident. If you are riding into the left and IF the driver misjudges his width, then you MIGHT get knocked off your bike. I don't see how riding two abreast is any safer.

It's all a case of IF and might and I would suggest that most cyclists FEEL a lot more vulnerable than they actually are, which leads them (like the OP) to make irrational assumptions about car drivers making bad descisions.

I've never been hit by a car while out running or cycling. There are positions in the road that, as a car driving cyclist/runner, I know are more likely to get me killed. The middle of the road on the exit of a blind bend being one of them.

I also know as a driver that if you try to control other people's actions they get more annoyed and overtake in stupid positions. ie if someone tailgates me, I slow down. If there is nowhere IMO to stop safely to let them pass, they'll get past by overtaking on a blind bend if necessary. You just have to accept that some drivers are idiots and your actions will only make them do more idiotic things.

In reply to Ciro:

It probably doesn't help that a lot of people remember "30cm from the kerb" as being the right distance and assume that anyone further out is being selfish. I'm pretty sure that's the number I was told when I did cycling proficiency at primary school 20 years ago - I wonder how much effect a fairly simple and cheap campaign to explain to people who aren't regular cyclists that more than 30cm out is now seen as being correct would have...

In reply to Ramblin dave: I was told a door width from parked cars and extend that to the curb. If the traffic is heavy and I'm sure the cars know I'm there, I'll pull in closer to the curb to allow easy passing.

In reply to xplorer:

"But come on, I see cyclist's taking up most if not all the road everytime I go through the peak district or lakes. Making car users slow down, just so you can all have a conversation with eachother."

So you were talking about cyclists in single file in the middle of the road, chatting to each other...that's nice and clear then.

Anyhow, I think John Hat's comment to the OP again is giving sensible advice. Mark, you have nothing to gain from pursuing it in person, except perhaps drop to the van driver's level.

In reply to Ciro:


All the guidance I have read suggests dominating a lane at critical points, not routinely. Certainly in heavy traffic or at other critical points, being in the centre of a lane is entirely sensible and reasonable. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. The difficulties start when that is extended to routinely taking up an entire lane, perhaps two abreast or in a peleton and refusing to let other road users past.

In reply to mark s: tsk https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

Highway Code rule 163. Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders AT LEAST as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

If people actually remembered what they were taught and obeyed by that, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
The fact is there are lots of people that are either inconsiderate or downright dangerous to others or themselves. There are those that walk slowly across busy roads, cyclists that don't consider other road users if there is a massive queue of traffic behind them and then motorists who speed, use phones put make up on etc etc.
The pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists are the most vulnerable here due to the fact the do not have a big metal box protecting them.
Unfortunately people do not plan their journeys to take into consideration hold ups, be it road maintenance, cyclists, weather etc.
If you take the above rule into consideration if you can't safely pass two cyclists you can't pass one as your not giving them the room they should be given if you obide by rule 163!

In reply to sleavesley:
if you can't safely pass two cyclists you can't pass one as your not giving them the room they should be given if you obide by rule 163!

How do arrive at that conclusion? The second cyclist will take up at least 1.5m of road, so passing a single cyclist will require that much less width. There will be many more opportunities.

In reply to sleavesley:

Surely "room" is the clear space between you and the other road user?

In reply to timjones & MG:

Good and valid points. How many people give room to one cyclist anyway!
Most drivers fail to give the same amount of room to mopeds, horses and cyclists is the main point here.

In reply to timjones:

Yes. How much room do you think it's appropriate to give a car/horse/bike when overtaking? As a cyclist, I'd expect at least a metre from my handlebar end, ideally more. I'm sure you'd give that to a car, and probably a lot more than that to a horse.

What's not acceptable in my view is giving a couple of feet or less while squeezing past against oncoming traffic. Riding in the gutter makes this more tempting for a driver behind, which is why ideally cyclists should ride at least a couple of feet out. On narrow lanes I'll always try to pull in a bit more to make the pass easier, but only when I consider it's safe to do so.

In reply to MHutch:


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that approach, or that drivers should leave plenty of room.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Presumably you refer to a driver traveling in the same direction as the cyclist, in which case they do have a choice. The driver can slow down to a speed at which they can stop in the distance they can see. The driver has no idea what is round the bend, it could be a slow moving farm vehicle, a flock of sheep, half a ton of turnips, a massive great puddle or indeed a cyclist in the correct position on the road. Swerving is never a safe thing to do.


If you ride towards the centre of the lane, or even further towards the centre of the road you have a much better view round a left hand bend as you enter it, more time to assess, react and can then take the appropriate action to remain safe taking account of any hazards. That action may involve moving left.

For a right hander then the best view through the bend is staying towards the left side of your lane on entry to the corner.

In both cases the positioning also improves your visibility to other road users and gives a greater radius to the turn. Of course the correct track through the bend would see you back in the correct lane position once passed the apex.

In reply to mark s:

I think in the last 10 years I can remember just two "clippings" but I'm in France where the law is 1m in Urban areas and 1.5m everywhere else.

E

In reply to Horse: Indeed the theory is all well and good. In practice though, you will get inexperienced, dangerous, or drivers just caught out by a momentary lapse in concentration. It's called an accident for a reason.

As above taking the dominant position in the road at CRITICAL points is the crucial point. Being dominant on a blind bend or series of bends might not be the best approach. All situations are different. As I cyclist I look at where a car coming up behind me travelling too fast to stop would go.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Taking more road in the run up to a blind bend is often a good plan - it dissuades people from overtaking and putting themselves, you and the car coming the other way at risk. Obviously you do a life-saver check and if someone is hurtling towards you from behind you don't just pull out in front of him - and taking more road doesn't mean taking the centre line, just perhaps another metre or so.

In reply to Enty: I am happy with a 1m - 1.5m from the tip of my handlebar. But I always also ride out of the gridline, I think riding in the grid line by some cyclists, then swerving away from the kerb to avoid them is what causes a lot of incidents.

In reply to Ciro:


I hear this message loud and clear. But my experience is that if you dominate your lane, drivers will still try to overtake even when it is not safe to do so and since you are dominating the lane and therefore taking up even more of the car's margin, as a cyclist you are even more likely to be hit.

I am therefore quite happy by the kerb thank you very much, especially on very busy narrow suburban streets. I feel very fortunate to have never been hit or even had a near miss, but the only time I feel threatened and vulnerable as a cyclist is if I am dominating my lane because the cars are passing so much closer to me than if I was tucked into the kerb.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Accidents happen and always will, as a vulnerable road user if you put the theory into practice you minimise the risks. The "rules" are dynamic not fixed and require constant attention to what is going on around you.

In reply to annieman: Exactly!!!

In reply to mark s:

My response it to put this on a biking forum, not a climbing forum. I thought this was ukclimbing.com not ukbiking.com

In reply to gildor:

Do keep up.

In reply to mark s: I'm genuinely intrigued at what makes drivers in the UK so often impatient and aggressive. Over the last year I've cycled in France, Belgium and Spain (well the Canaries), and compared to over here it is such a relaxing and enlightening experience.

Drivers elsewhere invariably sit back, slow down if needs be, often give the whole width of the road for an overtake, or at least a couple of metres, allow you to move out, and so no aggression on roundabouts or junctions, even if mistakes are made. This was in both busy cities and narrow twisty country roads. It's just such a different culture and attitude, but I wonder why so it is so different over here.

In reply to EeeByGum:
I really don't get why SOME cyclists think it's reasonable to slow all traffic down to their speed. Cycling is your choice and I respect it, and respect cyclists on the road.
I think 'militant' cycling only alienates more motorists.


The flipside is, as a car driver I give cyclists room and never deliberately put them in danger, and actively look out for them.
The fact there are some dickhead motorists and some dickhead cyclists, shouldn't interfere with this REASONABLE, thoughtful behaviour on both sides.



Again, as a motorist, I really dislike surprises. Few things are more surprising than a cyclist surging three feet into the carriageway because of a grate. I used to cycle close to the kerb, but now leave a couple of feet to avoid the worst of the potholes and road furniture.

In reply to Liam M:

In my experience they are in the minority - most drivers I encounter are totally courteous. At the risk of stereotyping (hell, its UKC, why not) the worst offenders to me are Audi driving executives who don't seem to give a toss about anyone else and Yummy mummies in 4x4s who clearly haven't a clue how big their tractor actuall is. Most people are fine though.

In reply to mark s:

Your right they do have just as much right. But when they're hogging half the road by riding in an inconsiderate manner theres no excuse.
Cyclists are great at pointing the finger at car drivers but not so good at looking at what they're doing. (Pretty similar to the way other countryside users like to take the moral high ground over 4 by 4 users)

In reply to tatty112:
>[...]

The other half of the road is presumably free for you to overtake on?

In reply to gildor:

I suspect if you posted on a biking forum you would only get obsessive cyclists replying and queueing up behind the OP with iron bars. By posting here hopefully he gets a balanced reply from all road users.

BUT you're right, he probably just wanted support for a course of action he had already decided on.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Agreed. The problem is that you only need one dickhead motorist to play a risky hand and it is game over regardless of the rights and wrongs.

In reply to EeeByGum:

See, this is the bit I don't get.
So a cyclist is more vulnerable.......... so what?

When I drive, I try to avoid ALL accidents.

It puts me in mind of those 'baby on board' stickers. Oh, well, if there's a baby on board that's different. I WAS going to crash into you out of pure spite and fury, but since you've a BABY ON BOARD!!! I won't.

I'll concede that on the day I am faced with the choice of hitting a cyclist or a car, I'll choose to hit the car to cause less damamge.

Probably. Unless I've visited one of these holier than thou cyclist threads on the day, then I may just not bother :/

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


I am not concerned about you. I am concerned about the a-hole in the car behind you. The one who must overtake me before the standing queue of traffic 100 yards further on. The one who must overtake me before the central reservation 20 years further on... and so on.

Happens every day. And as a cyclist, if you choose to dominate your lane, you are only making it harder for the driver who is going to overtake regardless. This is why I don't get the argument that dominating your lane as a cyclist is safer.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Becuase you stop those who might try and squueze past because 'there just mightbe enough room'. You can't do much about those who are going to do it anyway.

I saw a driver try and squeeze past a cyclist rather than wait and then clipped the cyclist as she did it. On some roads it's better to be more in the middle.

In reply to paulcarey:

Exactly, and when you do get those who are determined to pass, come what may, at least you've got somewhere to go.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

If you ride a bicycle or a motorbike (I do both) you are more vulnerable and therefore need to develop a riding method that minimises your risk. You cannot rely on any other road user to do so.

Taking up a position in the middle of a lane is not just about being overatken, it is also about having a better view of hazards, being more visible and gives more options for dealing with those hazards if necessary.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Cycling in the gutter is just daft imho. All the grit and crap from the roads tends to end up there leaving you at increased risk of punctures. On top of that you've got drain covers and yellow lines to contend with, and they can be lethal when wet. Hit any one of those obstructions badly and you could easily find yourself wobbling out in front of anyone coming up behind you.

I'll also take the whole lane when at junctions and coming on to roundabouts.

I'm sure I've read somewhere (CTC perhaps?) that if you cycle in the gutter traffic will actually leave you less room than if you were further out. That would seem to be borne out by my own experience but that's purely anecdotal

In reply to Toby S: When I say cycle in the gutter, I mean outside drains and yellow lines, but certainly not 1m or more from the kerb as some people seem to be suggesting. Why put yourself nearer the idiots who will overtake regardless?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Except they're not there for that reason.
They're there to
1. warn you that the driver is likely to be distracted.
2. warn the fire brigade that there may be a small child trapped in the wreckage and to search the car fully.

In reply to Horse: ive just got back from an hour on mixed roads,country and busy main.
i changed my road position to a good meter from the curb and cars definatly waited until it was safer to pass rather than nip through a gap.
i had no one shout or pap their horns at me.
certainly made people think a bit ore without slowing their journey time at all.i had my flashing light and flou top just to be sure.

i didnt go around and see the cnut in the van as i know what id do if he got abbusive with me

In reply to mark s:

Good man. Just sign him up for some junkmail as Mr I Cantdrive.

In reply to nniff:

Indeed, this is probably one of the most important points - my default behaviour on a fast country A-road would be to sit reasonably well out in the lane, and then if it's safe to do so move in a bit as I hear a car about to come past me.

My initial position will make them think about getting past me rather than just barrelling on through (so not going to pass if there's traffic coming the other way), and they'll already be assuming a road position to miss my bars by (hopefully) at least a foot or so, meaning when I move in two feet, I get the yard of space that I want.

Of course, if it's a busy road and there's a car behind me who's slowed to wait for a gap I'll move over to let them through - it's not about deliberately holding people up it's about ensuring nobody goes through at 90mph inches from my bars.

In reply to EeeByGum:

One advantage is that you have room to move left if required because someone is overtaking or you want to let them pass. Riding too close to the left removes that option.

In reply to mark s:

Recently, whenever I’ve been in a near miss situation or been exposed to careless, aggressive and/or dangerous driving I’ve at least reported it to the Stop SMIDSY (sorry mate i didn’t see you) campaign ( http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/ ) run by the CTC. It’s also important to report incidents such as this to the police too.

The fact is, whether this was a deliberately aggressive manoeuvre or simply a careless moment for the driver, the vast majority of these situations go unreported. Whatever happened to you could happen to someone else, but with more serious consequences.

It’s important that the extent of this problem is accurately recorded. These statistics are used to inform critical decisions that impact the safety of cyclists and all road users, from the local to national level. With a more accurate picture of the problem on record comes the pressure to change infrastructure, laws and, importantly, attitudes, to everyone’s benefit.

Incidentally, the CTC does recommend contacting the driver or the boss and politely explaining how you found their driving unacceptable. I can’t see how this can hurt, sure this driver could be a douche, but it could also change their attitude for the better.

In reply to chrishambidge: Strange how according to that cyclists are at fault in 0% of accidents ...

In reply to chrishambidge: cheers for that.filled it in

In reply to MG:

Where did you get that from? The statistics section refers to a number of cyclists being at fault in smidsy incidents.

In reply to Liam M:

Oh come on!!
A site completely dedicated to cyclists reporting incidents with other traffic........
Those stats are pretty meaningless.
In addition to this.... these are NOT prosecutions, these are cyclists reporting who is at fault.

Why, it's hardly biased at all!

In reply to EeeByGum:

Well for the reasons I mentioned earlier in regards to how much clearance they give you and Horse also made a good point:

'Taking up a position in the middle of a lane is not just about being overatken, it is also about having a better view of hazards, being more visible and gives more options for dealing with those hazards if necessary.'

In reply to Wonko The Sane: I'm not claiming there isn't a bias. I'm trying to establish where the assertion the site claims cyclists are never at fault comes from, as I can see no evidence to corroborate it, but can find evidence to refute it.

In reply to Liam M: From my first hit on Google:

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets. The TRL published a separate DfT-commissioned report today in which it was estimated that the universal use of helmets could save between 10 and 15 lives a year, a conclusion disputed by the CTC.


So....... cyclists to blame for 17-25% of the time (adjusted from the 50/50 reported when child cyclists are involved)


CTC site reports 4%

I'd say that was to all intents and purposes saying cyclists are never at fault (sorry, 4% of the time )

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Err, no. The data is that reported by those involved in incidents which is not the same as the CTC reporting anything.

In reply to nniff:

Like this evening for example.

Apparently, I was a legitimate target because I wasn't in the cycle lane (because it was 10 yards long, filled with gravel and just spat you back out into the traffic directly in front of nutters like her). She managed to stay 50 yards in front for a bit, but then stopped to let a car pull in from the right. Up to that point, I could cope with the 'I'm in a tearing hurry' argument but then it was quite clear that I was a bastard cyclist in her way.

Anyway, when I pulled up next to her at the lights and suggested she calm down before she killed someone, she went nuts. Still, she got to wait in the traffic for a while and I didn't see her again.

I'd love to know how timid she was out of her car, but maybe she was a cage fighter or something. I doubt it.

Other than that, a very benign ride into town today

In reply to nniff: Or this morning riding in to work; passing parked cars on a narrow two way street so was minding my own business riding along the middle of the lane. Then a tw*t in a BMW decides to honk his horn and squeeze past shouting "pick a fckng lane!" as he drives by. Its times like this I yearn for a can of mace.

In reply to Liam M:

OK, I was looking at the "blame" category. Apparently cyclists are always blameless.

In reply to MG:

From a sample of cyclists who are sufficiently inflamed to report their accident to a website which aims to improve driving standards...and you think this is representative of cyclists generally?

In reply to MG:

It is the base data as reported by those involved in the incident that they were not to blame, which is unsurprising but equally not objective.

In reply to Jamming Dodger:

Or just a mace. ;O)

In reply to deepsoup:

A chunky D-lock makes a handy substitute...

It was good to see a cyclist taking up a dominant position in the road during rush hour this morning.

Unfortunately it was the A13 three lane dual carriageway with speed limit of 50mph. One of the busiest main routes into London. Give him his due he was probably doing 25-30mph. There is a separate cycle path that runs the entire length.

In my opinion he's lucky to be alive, a cyclist was killed on the A13 last week. Although that was further out where there are no cycle lanes or paths.

http://tinyurl.com/bw9dfdx

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You've answered your own point.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultat...

This is an archived version of the 'code of conduct for cyclists using shared cycle lanes'. I'm presuming you're talking about the Newham Way section of the A13, in which case it's definitely a shared lane.

This says you should be using the road if you're travelling more than 18mph.

In reply to mark s:
For lots of different reasons (environmental, cost of driving, public health, political will), we are going to see a lot more bikes on the roads and motorists will need to modify their attitudes to shared road-usage more than the cyclists.
Is it in France where the responsibility for collisions lie with the motorist unless they can prove the cyclist negligent? I don't honestly know if this works, but the idea seems to make an awful lot of sense.

In reply to FrankBooth:

Denmark, I think has a similar policy.