Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a cyclist riding side-by-side getting a close pass from a particularly aggressive driver who leans on the horn during the overtake. The incidents were filmed on Saturday by road.cc reader Rob, who said they struck him as particularly relevant given the recent focus by some parts of the media about cyclists riding two abreast.
> Fleet Street fury over campaigners’ calls to clarify ‘two abreast’ cycling rule
“My first ride out with for a while with a friend and we were having a good ride on country lanes. The first incident was a Volvo and they couldn’t wait 10 seconds for an oncoming cyclist to pass before they tried to overtake.
“You can see they hesitated for a split second but then promptly drove through a tight gap giving little space to both us and the oncoming cyclist. It must have been worse for them. At least this pass wasn’t at speed and we weren’t riding two abreast.
“The second incident was very scary. I had literally just cycled up next to my friend to chat; throughout the ride we often rode two abreast aware of cars coming from behind or up front; we would move back into single file quickly once aware of a car.
“However, with this car there was no warning as they did not slow down at all and drove past at considerable speed (in excess of 40, probably 50 mph) and so close.
“You can see from the video that the car passed at speed within 50cm of me., probably nearer 30cm. To make matters worse they beeped the horn as if we were doing something wrong or to just intimidate us.
“I’ve had a quite a few bad experiences and this is probably one of the worst. This idiot needs to know they can’t drive like this and put people’s lives in danger so I have submitted to Surrey Police in the hope that they take action…….this is my first submission so fingers crossed.
“I’ve read the ’Near Miss of the Day’ reports on road cc for while and I thought this last miss was topical given the discussion around riding two abreast. I’m pretty sure that had we been riding single file the driver would have probably given us more room, although unlikely that they would have slowed down.
“The fact they beeped the horn makes it appear that they thought we were doing something wrong by riding two abreast which supports the fact that the Highway Code is not clear or that most drivers have their own version of what the Highway Code is/should be or they simply don’t care.”
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
81 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 493: Aggressive close pass on cyclists riding two abreast”
Looks like Hesiers Road and
Looks like Hesiers Road and Beech Farm Road, Warlingham. Bit of a race track through there.
Ahh the “that’s a dangerous
Ahh the “that’s a dangerous/fast road” line. Your point is?
in other news “look at me, I’m the fearless enforcer in my half tonne of speeding metal, putting my life on the line to enforce (my version of ) the law.”
David9694 wrote:
Just an observation over many years, like the occasional burnt out car or the one that didnt make it round the bend from Skidd Lane.
Now get lost.
Why are you trying to abuse
Why are you trying to abuse me?
squidgy]
Nothing like rational discussion of an issue to get to a consensus view that we can all support. Never let it be said that all cyclists are nice people.
eburtthebike]
he’s in good company:
Royston smith MP says cyclists should ‘stick to cycle lanes’ after rider dies in crash with lorry
…says his comments were “misinterpreted” by cycling campaigners.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/mp-says-cyclists-stick-cycle-lanes-rider-dies-crash-lorry-363973/amp
made me smile…
made me smile…
David9694 wrote:
The point was fairly clear – that it’s locally known as a nasty road. Not sure why you are trying to score points from that – there was no suggestion that that was an acceptable state of affairs.
I think that’s exactly what
I think that’s exactly what it is : unintended perhaps, but it’s all about normalising “danger”, “dangerous roads”, “look out, if you don’t, it will be your fault.”
If you think about it, it’s an appalling state of affairs that we’ve all come blindly to accept, from dual carriageways to residential cul de sacs.
Spot on. squidgy Been down
Spot on. squidgy Been down that way only a couple of times and havent had this issue before. I have previously turned down Beddlestead Lane coming from Hesiers rather than carry on to Beech Farm.
Looks like I won’t find out if there is any action taken as Surrey Police have come back and stated ‘We are not in a position to give individual updates and any decision reached is not subject to review.’
“or that most drivers have
“or that most drivers have their own version of what the Highway Code is”
I don’t think any actual changes to the Highway Code are going to stop that from being the case.
Has ANYONE achieved an actual
Has ANYONE achieved an actual prosecution for non-contact close-passing? This is the important indicator of what the police actually think (which is that close passing doesn’t exist) as opposed to what they claim to believe (which is that all road users are treated equally and fairly). Lancashire claims to be prosecuting an offence from 30.9.19- no date set, and they’re clearly assigning a zero priority to the case until they think they can get away with dropping it altogether.
Tbf I think of the last 6
Tbf I think of the last 6 close passes I’;ve reported to the Met, all hav ebeen sent NIPs – but then the met is the gold standard it seems
Yes, lots of them. Norfolk
Yes, lots of them. Norfolk constabulary are pretty good and have a web portal for reporting traffic offences. The process is a bit clunky and it take some time to make the statement and edit the video submission, but it works.
So out of 115 complaints submitted:-
62 notices of intended prosecution issued
1 trip to court, which resulted in a conviction
8 warning letters sent
2 no further actions
the remaining 42 I wasn’t informed of the result, which either means nothing was done with them or I just didn’t get informed of the result.
When the reporting portal first opened I was being told of the results for about 70% of the submissions made. Then there was slight hiatus where the complaints were being delt with by Suffolk Constabulary (this is where the no further actions came from – I wasn’t hit, so what’s the problem…) Then it went back to being dealt with by Norfolk Constabulary and they have been really good in keeping me informed about what action is being taken.
What I have noticed is that it does have to be pretty close < 40cm or there needs to be other agrivating factors to get a NIP. A close pass at > 40cm will probably only result in a warning letter or no further action
Norfolk & Suffolk have a
Norfolk & Suffolk have a combined single roads unit,so where whoever deals with your submission is based shouldn’t make a difference to how its processed, though it’s still a subjective assessment at the end of the day. I’ve reported 6 and had 5 NIPs, 1 warning letter in total.
I wouldnt have said all those were within 40cms, some had aggravating factors for sure,but because of the process & the statement writing I tend to only submit ones I label imminent peril, so only the really worse ones ever get submitted,I’d be submitting every ride if I just went for ‘that was a close pass’.
Weirdly havent submitted any this year yet,not because there havent been any to report,but Ive lost the zeal to do it during Covid,i can avoid the worst roads for close passing at the moment,plus I dont feel like it’s making any difference submitting them anymore.
I didn’t think the Volvo was
I didn’t think the Volvo was that bad, then the cyclist going in the other direction appeared; driver should be prosecuted. Then the second, which was just as bad. Well done for reporting this, and I hope these drivers aren’t given a slap on the wrist, as either case could have resulted in injury or death.
That’s what gets me about things like this; the only reason the cyclist doesn’t end up in hospital or the mortuary is their experience and blind luck. One gust of wind, a pothole, a stone in the road and they’re dead. These aren’t victimless crimes, they’re crimes which threaten the lives of cyclists, a fact ignored by our laughingly named justice system.
If this is a route used by cyclists regularly, ask the council to put in a 30mph speed limit, or designate it a “quiet lane” with priority for pedestrians and cyclists.
I can’t see from the video
I can’t see from the video but why were the cyclists two abreast? I cycle allot and usually get one close pass per ride however I see cyclists two abreast just chatting and think there is no need for them to be two abreast. One of the clubs I occassionaly cylce with are very good and always shout car back so people can adopt single file where it makes sense.
No need for them to be on the
No need for them to be on the road cycling.
?
?
If you are going to object to
If you are going to object to them cycling side by side, why stop there ?
Do you even cycle or drive?
Do you even cycle or drive? if they are cycling two abreast just to have chat then be more considerate when there are cars around – it’s not hard & good clubs encourage this already.
Nobody has to justify how
Nobody has to justify how they legally ride to you.
In addition, it’s very clear that the second vehicle had no intention to wait to see if they would move. It blasted through with a close pass and abused the horn as well. The driver clearly believed that two abreast is illegal and decided to take the law into his own hands.
I never said they did. I am
I never said they did. I am not condoning close passes which are unacceptable in any circumstance.
Do you think it’s acceptable to cycle side by side just to have a chat when there are several cars around?
When the car driver has the
When the car driver has the simple option of merely deviating their overtake line by an extra metre or so to move completely into the opposite lane (as they should do anyway regardless of one cyclist or two side by side) then not only is it entirely legal but also within the spirit of the highway code and therefore completely acceptable.
The only danger here is that caused by the incompetence / ignorance / attitude of the driver. Remember, it is not just cyclists who end up on the wrong side of these people, almost 100% of road traffic collisions, injuries and fatalities are caused by driver error.
Asking the motorist to turn
Asking the motorist to turn their steering wheel bya few degrees??? – are you quite mad, sir?
Do you think it’s acceptable
Do you think it’s acceptable to cycle side by side just to have a chat when there are several cars around? I don’t but I sense many here do. Agree to differ.
AndyIT wrote:
Sorry, I thought I was crystal clear. Yes. In most circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to cycle 2 abreast for whatever reason the cyclists like, including having a chat, when sharing the road with traffic. Reason being that it is utterly irrelevant how much of a lane the cyclists occupy when the overtaking driver has access to using another lane, either dual carriageway wise or by crossing completely to the other side of the road.
You should be focussing your energies on educating the drivers who find it hard to operate their vehicles safely around other road users.
It’s legal for now but I don
It’s legal for now but I don’t think it’s generally considerate just to cycle two abreast just to have a chat if there are a number of cars around & you wonder why cyclists are not sometimes liked.
AndyIT wrote:
Driving close to people and sounding your horn whilst doing so in order to intimidate them is not only inconsiderate but is also currently illegal, and you wonder why some car drivers are not liked?
Agree but should not car
Agree but should not car drivers and cyclists aim to get along? or are both simply happy to take the them & us apporach…. why can’t car drivers and cyclists aim to be considerate?
AndyIT wrote:
When I’m on my bike, I’ll accept drivers driving within the highway code and not trying to kill me.
When in my car I don’t need anything from riders – they can’t hurt me, and I’m capable of driving safely around them
A badger of few needs, me….
AndyIT wrote:
In the above video the cyclists were being considerate. The first driver passed them close and also put an oncoming cyclist in danger when they were cycling single file. Indeed it would probably have been better had they taken the lane and actively blocked such a stupid overtake.
In the second situation they were cycling side by side when there was no traffic around until a speeding motorist approaches fast from behind, appears to make not the slightest attempt to slow or any effort at a decent pass putting the cyclists in danger without even giving them the option of singling out. Given that there were 2 bicycle users and 1 car driver one has to ask the question who was inconveniencing who?
I’m not defending the behaviour of all people whilst riding a bicycle in all situations, however if you think that the drivers such as those featured in the video accompanying this particular NMOTD or the vast majority of the others in this particular long running series would be placated into not driving like arseholes because “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice to each other” then you need to sit yourself down and give your head a bit of a wobble. The cyclists, horse riders, disability scooterists, runners, dog walkers, pedestrians and other people who use the public highway under the classification of vulnerable road users are overwhelmingly not the problem. Aggressive, incompetent, ignorant arsehats with a God given right to bully anyone who has the temerity to temporarily impede their progress off the road due to holding a driving licence are a problem. Your attempt at equivalence between legal, normal use of the road and illegal, dangerous, aggressive behaviour is non-sensical in any world view that does not come down to “might is right”. Your characterisation of cyclists and car drivers as “Us and Them” is also non-sensical given that a higher proportion of regular road cyclists also regularly drive than in the general population.
AndyIT wrote:
do you think it is safe to overtake cyclists riding single file, if there is oncoming traffic in the other lane? I don’t, but it seems you think singling out provides some benefit to drivers.
Generally when I overtake cyclists I cross the line fully as if I were overtaking a car or a horse. When I do this I don’t really care if they are riidng single or double.
On the vast majority of UK roads riding single file makes dangerous (squeeze past) overtakes easier and safe (crossing the white line) overtakes harder. Whic sort of overtake do you want to encourage and facilitate? It doesn’t take too much searching to find reports and videos af cyclists riding single file being taken out by a driver who would not cross the white line to overtake.
I ride about 8000 miles a year and drive slightly more. I have never had a problem with cyclists when I drive, I wish I could say the same about drivers when I am cycling. If all drivershad to cycle before being allowed to drive they would probably improve their traffic awareness and they would certainly realise the danger and fear of a close pass. Close passes which in many cases achieve nothing as the cyclists catch the car in the next traffic queue.
AndyIT wrote:
I don’t like Man United fans but it’s not considered acceptable to drive my car at them!
Also, yep I can cycle 2 abrest if I want a chat, or are you suggesting cars shouldn’t have 4 seats unless all 4 are occupied or that the passenger should sit behind the driver and cars be halved in width…
As a driver, I have no one
As a driver, I have not one iota of objection to riders 2 (or more) abreast. it makes no difference to me at all.
Seriously, if a driver cannot deal with this safely, they are incompetent and need to surrender their licence
Mungecrundle wrote:
I think this road is too narrow for that, which is probably why there is no centre line.
Yep.
NEXT!
Yep.
NEXT!
AndyIT wrote:
gaslighting, two cyclists occupy less space than a car, the majority of cars are being occupied by a single person. 2 cyclists require less space than a single motorist.
How do you reach the conclusion the cyclists are being unreasonable and hogging road space?
The driver is always two abreast, often with his invisible buddy in the passenger seat, no one complains. Being two abreast at all times is something drivers chose when selecting their vehicle. But the onus is placed on others to accomodate this.
In this case the driver comes round the bend, sees the cylists two abreast, doesn’t consider slowing down, just goes straight past. They do not have time to single out, which they may, or may not have done if the driver slows and lets them react. So the driver has not been inconvenienced, the toot cannot be a warning as he gives them no response time.
To say be more considerate whne cars are around suggests they knew he was there when moving to side by side, clearly not the case. And in fact the video shows they are not habitually side by side.
No, I just post on here for
No, I just post on here for shits and giggles.
I see others have brought up the main points of the video so I don’t need to go into detail in refuting your claim.
hirsute wrote:
Looks like you’re not the only one….
AndyIT wrote:
If they were *just* having a chat that could be classed as inconsiderate – though perfectly within their legal rights. However, odds are that they are also preventing car drivers making a dangerous close pass on them if they were singled out and, if the road is wide enough, making it easier for cars to pass as they only have to stay in the opposite lane for one bike length’s worth of pass, not two or three. The fact that they are having a chat at the same time is not really relevant.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think you and I are largely on the same page, however, I’d also dispute this point.
When cycling with my daughter I often ride beside her. One reason is to fend off idiots who don’t know how to overtake safely, but another is to coach her in roadcraft. For example approaching a roundabout, it really helps to be beside the person you are explaining things to. Guess what , 2 abreast “just” to have a chat..
I get all the points about
I get all the points about bad car drivers and dangerous passes (no excuse for that) & I am not excusing in any way the drivers in the video. I wanted to bring up a more general point on cycling two abreast.
I get that most posters here consider it fine at any time in any amount of traffic to cycle two abreast as it’s legal. I don’t share the same view point in terms of being considerate (and a club I have been to does’nt either but maybe I have been lucky and been to one of the better ones) so agree to disagree. Enjoy your cyling & stay safe.
Some posters have suggested I have made claims I have’nt (e.g How do you reach the conclusion the cyclists are being unreasonable and hogging road space?). Either you have misunderstood my comments or not read them properly.
I do wonder if many posters just hate car drivers period.
Good example re cycling with your daughter as I can see cycling two abreast in that situation provides some protection & no doubt helps her confidence.
Having a motorbike with a loud exhaust drive up close behind you then whack open the throttle to overtake (leaving plenty of room) but creating loads of noise is perfectly legal I suspect but I would’nt call it considerate driving.
AndyIT wrote:
Good, because it is. It is what the rider feels appropriate, not the person in the car that counts (unless you’re Poophole Freeman of course…)
See my other post, and you might understand why. However, most posters here are drivers. There’d be a lot of self hate going on – not something you could accuse me of some would say
Thanks, not restricted to daughters though. Adults are sometimes inexperienced and need coaching too – How would a driver be able to tell, and so bring their righteous anger about being held up for a second or two to bear?
Maybe, maybe not – you’re not supposed to alarm or intimidate other road users. This is hardly comparable to riding 2 abreast, which is causes no alarm or intimidation.
I’d view considerate road use as to whether someone causes risk or harm. People side by side on bikes do not, and it is certainly not for us drivers to sit in judgment on people riding legally.
But let’s look at the other way. As drivers can we say we do no harm? we damage roads, pollute, and risk others’ lives every time we venture out. Before asking “do those riders need to be side by side”, have we answered the question “did I need to use my car?”
Unless we happen to be driving more than, say, 5 miles, or have a wardrobe, fridge, plumbers tools, or battalion’s ammunition in the back, can we actually even be considerate drivers?
No mate, he’s only just
Deleted
AndyIT wrote:
I’m confused. Clearly there was a need for them to ride side-by-side. You’ve stated it: they wanted to chat.
(Pretty sure that was still legal when the video was filmed, or did I miss a memo?)
I don’t think it’s
I don’t think it’s generally considerate just to cycle two abreast just to have a chat if there are a number of cars around & you wonder why cyclists are not sometimes liked.
Why is it inconsiderate? It’s
Why is it inconsiderate? It’s easier for cars to overtake two cyclists abreast rather than one behind the other if they’re overtaking correctly.
Is it inconsiderate for a solo motorist to take up the same amount of room as two cyclists riding abreast? I would certainly consider so, and you wonder why motorists are not sometimes liked.
AndyIT wrote:
Anyone who rides (Do you? Actually?) is well aware that they “are not sometimes liked”. This dislike is manifested in:
Are you are honestly trying to make out that the above are rational considered responses by safe drivers to people going about their everyday lawful business?
Because the riders saw it as
Because the riders saw it as appropriate at the time. Why else?
Now the real questions. How can the drivers justify dangerous agressive o/taking, and why are you victim blaming?
Which club are you with that
Which club are you with that encourages cyclists to single out whenever a car is behind?
A considerate one. It does
A considerate one. It does depend as well on the situation but you already know that. From your comment most clubs don’t promote this behaviour then? or is it more the hardcore clubs that don’t?
AndyIT wrote:
I wonder how considerate it is singling out and therefore increasing the distance/time I need to spend in the opposite lane while passing. This reduces the opportunities I have to overtake. Please, remain bunched up.
You don’t want to handle
You don’t want to handle nuance at all; all or nothiing. No big suprise from your comments. Glad I have’nt met anyone like you (& some of the other posters) whilst cycling.
AndyIT wrote:
What nuance are you interested in? The nuance of when it’s acceptable to intimidate vulnerable road users? No, I don’t want that. It is indeed all or nothing. You either look after the vulnerable or you don’t – you don’t get to judge who to bully based on what you subjectively think is “reasonable” or “considerate”.
Maybe you don’t want to meet me. Maybe you’d sooner meet the drivers like those we saw in the vid. Good luck. If we do meet though, I’ll still be taking care of you.
The nuance is that sometimes
The nuance is that sometimes (agree re shelding vulnerable/less experienced) it’s inconsiderate to cycle two abreast (two experienced cyclists needing to shelter each other?). Suspect you know this but won’t admit it. Your comment it’s all or nothing makes no sense. My comments keep being misinterpreted; bonkers to think that anyone sensible would have an issue with shelding vulnerable/inexperienced cyclists; I never said this. I did’nt mention bullying. You almost seem to hate drivers of all vehicles.
I meet drivers similar to the ones in the videos all the time (roughly one too close pass per ride); can’t avoid them, but does’nt stop me trying to be a considerate cyclist and will avoid those that are’nt. Good evening.
AndyIT wrote:
I think you’ve completely missed the point.
The driver is in no position to make any value judgement about riders’ decision to double up. Therefore the sensible position as a driver ( the one that I take) is to wait for a safe place to pass, or for the riders and myself to part company. And that’s it. I suspect you know this but won’t admit it.
Your comments have not been misinterpreted, but they have been challenged, and you don’t appear to be able to respond effectively – this is not my fault.
As I have said, I am a driver. At no point have I suggested that I hate drivers – why would I? This seems a particularly odd accusation coming from one who whines about misrepresentation. It’s about as silly as suggesting that you hate all cyclists.
What I do believe in is the hierarchy of responsibility – eg those with the capacity to do most harm have a greater responsibility than those that do least. In addition, when driving I really can’t be arsed to pop a vein about slower traffic in front. As I have said on more than one post, it does me no harm, and I’m confident enough to deal with it calmly and safely. When on my bike my priority is our safety above your convenience I’m afraid, and I would expect nothing different from any other rider I encountered
I’m always here for a good old chinwag, however, should you choose not to hang around, have a good evening yourself.
Toodlepip old thing
You have made your views on
You have made your views on considerate cycling clear; you won’t bother with it as long as what you are doing is legal. I don’t agree. Everyone has their own view.
AndyIT wrote:
It seems what you don’t agree with is my view that riders do not inconvenience drivers, and therefore I have no reason to demand that they get out of my way. I am perfectly willing to accommodate them on the road (as per the direction of the HWC).
You still have done nothing to identify what you mean by considerate riding, other than, by implication, *get out of my way!*, so we have no hope of coming to a consensus there.
I’ll hazard that we can agree that dangerous driving, bullying, intimidation and endangering lives is never acceptable, or excusable (even when inconvenienced), which was what we saw in the vid, and that riding side by side pales into insignificance by comparison
We have also covered the “nuance” that, yes riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable in many if not all circumstances. Hopefully, you also accept that as a driver we have no reliable way of identifying the reasons in each particular case, but amongst others there are:
With the above in mind how can we as drivers ever come to the conclusion that in this case our righteous anger is justified, these riders are inconsiderate (if perfectly legal and safe) and so should *GET OUT OF MY BLOODY WAY!*? Especially when o/taking riders is fully explained by the HWC, and easy to do in a safe manner?
I’m aware you don’t agree. In spite of being a cyclist it seems that you still have a driver-centric point of view re ownership of the roads. Perhaps you cycle only for fun, and that colours your view. But that, I believe, is the root of our difference of opinion.
I see the roads as belonging to all to use as they see fit within the HWC, however, there is no “right” to go fast, to demand an empty way, to expect other people to accede to your wishes. As long as all accept that, there is no cause for conflict.
“We have also covered the
“We have also covered the “nuance” that, yes riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable in many if not all circumstances.” that is the only point I was making.
“You still have done nothing to identify what you mean by considerate riding, other than, by implication, *get out of my way!*, so we have no hope of coming to a consensus there.” you seem to get off on misinterpreting comments; it’s not helpful. I have never said that nor sought to imply it.
“In spite of being a cyclist it seems that you still have a driver-centric point of view re ownership of the roads. Perhaps you cycle only for fun, and that colours your view. But that, I believe, is the root of our difference of opinion.” You seem to have a bip chip on your shoulder re vehicle drivers. I don’t have a driver centric viewpoint.
Yes I cycle for Fun/Fitness/to get from A to B; you? What’s the issue with with cycling for fun? is it not real cycling?
“I’ll hazard that we can agree that dangerous driving, bullying, intimidation and endangering lives is never acceptable, or excusable”; completely agree all road users should be considerate and not endanger other road users.
I believe in being considerate when on the roads whether in a car or bike; you are happy to do anything as long as its legal; surely that is the difference.
Have a good day…..
AndyIT wrote:
In which case I don’t understand your objection to it.
You have implied that getting out of your way is a key component to cycling considerately. You have offered no other concrete definition
No chip here – for risk of repeating myself, I’m a driver, who (covid not withstanding) clocks up many more miles on 4 wheels than 2.
Again you misrepresent. I merely try to understand why you seem to believe that cyclists are lower on the hierarchy than car drivers. My view on how and why anyone chooses to use the road is covered by the first line in my last paragraph – “belonging to all to use as they see fit within the HWC“
Great stuff
Again you make this assumption which has more than a hint of strawman about it. I’m happy to ride or drive in a safe manner. I expect other road users to do likewise. Especially when we drive, as this is when we have more capacity for harm.
You too.
“You have implied that
“You have implied that getting out of your way is a key component to cycling considerately. You have offered no other concrete definition”.
“I merely try to understand why you seem to believe that cyclists are lower on the hierarchy than car drivers.
You are at it again; you are mis-interpreting what I have said (in line with your agenda maybe?). Sometimes allowing other road users to more easily pass is considerate. You disagree. There is nothing more to be said.
Surely there is no need for a road hierarchy all can share safely & considerately. I don’t think cyclists are ‘lower’ than vehicle drivers.
AndyIT wrote:
No misrepresentation, I have stated the implications of what you have said and how it came across. It would be hard to misrepresent when no clear point is being made.
Agenda? Really?? I have been clear that
As a driver, I take this very seriously. And well I should, as the risk and harm to others is immeasurably higher when behind the wheel than when on two. Waffling about 2 abreast being inconsiderate simply does not compare.
I have not disagreed, because that was not the point you made. Where I disagree is that there can be an expectation from drivers for riders to do this. It is utterly at the discretion of the rider, who will need to consider a myriad of safety-related issues before worrying whether continuing will delay a driver from getting to the end of the next queue by a few seconds.
In which case why the expectation that they should yield?
To sum up we saw a video of bullying, aggressive, dangerous driving around 2 riders who were cycling legally and safely.
Your take away that the riders were inconsiderate, in my view, is nonsensical. As a driver of 25 years, including driving professionally, I have yet to be inconvenienced or put at risk by someone on a bike, and that certainly wasn’t the case on this vid.
I don’t give two hoots that
I don’t give two hoots that you don’t agree with me; I do care however when you keep mis-interpreting my statements as others on this forum will read them.
“Your take away that the riders were inconsiderate, in my view, is nonsensical”
My point was in general not specifically related to the video. The video showed good riding; had there been a queue of cars then considerate riders would have maybe gone to single file (though it idepends on road width if that would make a difference). I know, know they don’t have to and no you would never ever ever ever consider doing this; I get it. belive me I get your viewpoint.
So in summary I don’t hate cyclists (well only the ones that cycle dangerously near pedestrians/children etc) nor do I think cyclists are some how beneath vehicle drivers; they are’nt!.
Let’s park it. life is to short.
AndyIT wrote:
That I haven’t done – maybe you need to be clearer in what you say?
Here is your first post
“I can’t see from the video but why were the cyclists two abreast? I cycle allot and usually get one close pass per ride however I see cyclists two abreast just chatting and think there is no need for them to be two abreast”
Your point was very definitely specific to riders in the vid.
The video showed good riding; had there been a queue of cars then considerate riders would have maybe gone to single file
— AndyIT
Perhaps, but that would be at their discretion.
I know, know they don’t have to
— AndyIT
Good
and no you would never ever ever ever consider doing this; I get it. belive me I get your viewpoint.
— AndyIT
I’m sure that you will be able to point out where I have said that. Again you shout a lot about misrepresentation whilst dishing it out liberally yourself. What I was clear on is that it is at the discretion of the rider, not the imagined convenience of the driver
At no point did I suggest that you did
nor do I think cyclists are somehow beneath vehicle drivers; they are’nt!.
— AndyIT
Good
Like I said. I’m always here for a good old chin wag
Chin Chin
“The video showed good riding
“The video showed good riding; had there been a queue of cars then considerate riders would have maybe gone to single file
Perhaps, but that would be at their discretion.”
and we’re there; that was my point. I could have made it a little clearer.
If a cyclist does this yes it will help the convience of the driver(s); that would be the idea behind it. and yes a cyclist who does this would be considerate.
AndyIT wrote:
That was a lot of arguing for you to agree that it’s at the riders discretion….
Have a great weekend dude
Never said otherwise. ditto
Never said otherwise. ditto re the weekend
Why are you being evasive
Why are you being evasive with your answer? You and the club think it’s an appropriate way to manage a group ride, so why not just tell us the name.?
I’m not being evasive it’s
I’m not being evasive it’s none of your business. I assume you are happy with the way your club runs group rides so it does’nt matter to you surely? are you annoyed a club is prompting considerate cycling in a situation that you don’t agree with? How many clubs don’t promote considerate cycling? I thought they all should/would.
Why do you keeping mis quoting what I have said; just because I have said sometimes it’s not considerate to ride 2 abreast you have assumed that means always? ie. it’s all or nothing bizzare atitude.
In the second case – clearly
In the second case – clearly the driver was WAY over aggressive
He blew his horn – which is will probably claim was to warn you – but more to order you to get out of his way
Which raises a question
If someone comes up behind a cyclist – or pair of cyclists – who do not seem to be aware that the car is there
or a car is passing a long group of cyclists and wants to warn the people at the front that they are passing – on the far side of the road – but the front may not be aware
What should the driver do. A toot on the horn can be a polite “I’m here’ – but could easily be interpreted as “Get out of my way you morons”
Any opinions???
Actually happned to me onece – I tootled along behind a large group – round several corners – turned right at a junction etc etc
Then we came to a long straight section wide which was way wide enough so I accelerated and passed on the far side – loads or clearance
gave 2 quick toots on the horn to warn them
people at the back gave me friendly waves and several thumbs up – they knew I had been behind for some time and had hung back
When I got to the front some yelled “F**** off you C***” – they clearly didn’t know I had been there – and interpreted the horn toots as aggression – exactly the opposite to the people at the back
Personally I don’t sound the
Personally I don’t sound the horn when approaching riders from behind. I hang back to allow a safe stopping distance and overtake when safe to do so, ensuring that I would give the riders no cause to deviate from their path. If I can’t be sure of that I have no business o/taking. Rules 162-9 HWC if followed correctly should enable this.
Think of it like this, under what other circumstances would you sound your horn prior to o/taking? Caravans? Tractors? Horses? I suspect the answer would be none of the above. Why then for people on bikes?
Use of the horn is to make
Use of the horn is to make other road users aware of your presence and I usually interpret it in this way and occasionally use it myself, though from a good distance behind and holding same speed as the cyclist(s) to be clear that it is not intimidatory. It is the same as calling out to horse riders or pedestrians up ahead to make sure they are aware of your presence and putting them in control of facilitating an overtake if it is safe for them.
Personally I appreciate a courtesy beep as I cannot always hear a car behind and maybe don’t look back as often as I should. Being aware of the vehicle is one thing, what you do or don’t do about it is quite another, but even just indicating to the other road user that you are aware of their presence can be helpful.
Mungecrundle wrote:
That sounds like you’re all lovely, but what it really means is you’re telling them to get out of your way, something they have no obligation to do. If you hang back and do not overtake until it is safe to do so then you don’t need to warn them of your presence.
This is why cars need bells,
This is why cars need bells, preferably nice sonorous ones like trams. And cows (cos their horns don’t work).
I’ll get my coat.
TheBillder wrote:
Pull the udder one…
So the result of submitting
So the result of submitting to Surrey Police is that each driver will receive a written warning. Was hoping for more but that is better than nothing and if it makes them think twice in future then that can only be good news. (big IF though).
OK. Here’s my opinion.
OK. Here’s my opinion.
You should ride two abreast on narrow country roads unless approaching a bend. When a car comes up behind single out to let it past WHEN YOU THINK IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. Say thank you as the car passes. In the first example if I had seen the cyclist coming the other way and I was on the outside I would have stayed two abreast until the cyclist had passed. Sometimes you need to help drivers make the right decision. Some, most, of them don’t like it though so be warned.
In the second example the car should have slowed down to the cyclist’s speed, done a “polite beep” to let the riders know he was there if they didn’t start to single out, and then waited for them to single out when THEY considered it safe. What is the difference between a polite beep and an aggressive beep? Hard to describe but I think we can all tell the difference 99% of the time.
If a car is coming the other way wait until it slows down and then single out and say thank you. Be warned about this strategy as well as I have had quite a few close encounters at speed when they don’t. Haven’t actually been hit yet but most of my friends think I will soon.
I agree with everyhing you
I agree with everyhing you say Bungle (not a phrase I thought I would type as I was growing up, and I really disliked zipppy)
That diffference in the use of he horn does confuse me, I agree we can normally tell the difference, and I believe it to be the case if I use the horn when driving as well, but how do we do it when in is siply a tone operated by a switch, ther is no volume or tone adjustment simply nd on off swich
Because the highway code
Because the highway code (Rule 112) is quite expicit about use of the horn being used only to warn other road users of your presence and specifically never to use it aggressively.
Probably best to default to that understanding, bit like indicators. For the most part they get used for the purpose intended and experience teaches you when to be suspicious that they are not being used when they should be or are being used incorrectly.
I almost invariably ride solo
I almost invariably ride solo, but I would be reluctant to ride 2 abreast in the narrow back roads of North Lancashire out of self-protection. It’s no consolation to go down thinking ‘at least the b******d will be severely punished‘ because in Lancashire, he won’t.