Near Miss of the Day 193: Close pass driver forces cyclists riding two abreast to switch to single file

PRSboy wrote:

I am a keen driver as well as cyclist, and I just don't get why other drivers find it such a difficult concept to grasp that if its not possible to pass a pair of riders two abreast, then it would most likely not be safe enough to pass two riders single file.

I often wonder if these people would walk up behind couples strolling along on pavements and yell 'walk in single file!' before barging past.  No, because they'd get a punch in the face, and rightly so.

You've clearly never done a walk to school on narrow pavements. More jockeying for position and elbows out than a Crit race. Need a decent leadout man (buggies quite useful)

I know people are busy and its stressful getting Tarquin & Mimsy to school but it's the post-dropoff behaviour I find bizarre. I have a regular route past one of the local schools (single carriageway, no centre line, very rural but perfectly wide enough for 2 Range Rovers to pass each other at a reasonable speed) and the driving standards are appalling - to the point that I'll time the ride to pass by around 5 mins after the bell has gone.

Shades wrote:

Nothing surprises me anymore ref c*ck motorists.  28km return from work today; all on bike paths apart from the last 3km.  5 near-misses/aggressive actions in that 3km; quite depressing.

Same in my neck of the woods. The last couple of km of my daily route has a crap cycle path, which is usually full of rubbish bags, pedestrians and cars, so I don't ride in it.  It's also largely flat/downhill, so easy to maintain 35+km/h.  Every single day, I get some prick tooting their horn and shouting abuse out of their window. "We spent 20 million quid on this bike lane for you lot", "Get in the bloody cycle lane, it was built for you" etc... of course all are livid that they have probably been made to slow down by, I dunno, 5 or 10km/h for a short distance before reaching the next set of lights.

I've no idea how these hair-trigger angry twats deal with the real inconveniences that life throws at them.

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

Why should they have singled out when there was a car behind? 
1) the default road position for a cyclist is to take the lane (i.e. where the outside position is when riding two abreast)
2) it's easier and safer for all concerned if the riders remain in a 2 abreast pattern, as it reduces the overtaking duration. 

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

I'm not sure how four riders aren't supposed to take up the space of four riders but well done on your first post.

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

Love the logical post there. By the way, you might like to check the Highway Code section 163 which has a beautiful picture clearly illustrating where the Range Rover should have been positioned during the overtake.

Clear yet?

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Love the logical post there. By the way, you might like to check the Highway Code section 163 which has a beautiful picture clearly illustrating where the Range Rover should have been positioned during the overtake.

 

Ah hello Highway Code Rule 163 my old friend 

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

1 (ignorant) post, seems legit.

Should they have been riding like this?

s/double post//

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

Any reason why they should have done that, besides protecting the Range Rover driver’s fragile ego?

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

If anything this video demonstrates very nicely why riding 2 abreast as a small group is safer. By yielding primary the car driver has simply taken the opportunity to squeeze up alongside adding to the risk for the cyclists.

It really is not difficult. On a road such as this, if it is not safe and clear to overtake 2 cyclists abreast then it is not safe and clear to squeeze past a longer single file of cyclists.

HTH

Mungecrundle wrote:

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

 

If anything this video demonstrates very nicely why riding 2 abreast as a small group is safer. By yielding primary the car driver has simply taken the opportunity to squeeze up alongside adding to the risk for the cyclists.

It really is not difficult. On a road such as this, if it is not safe and clear to overtake 2 cyclists abreast then it is not safe and clear to squeeze past a longer single file of cyclists.

 

HTH

Exactly (Mungecrundle)...before the roundabout even in single file the road is too narrow to safely pass without a vehicle moving completely across the centre line - passing in the roundabout was a no-no,  driver had no idea what line the cyclists would take was too close and then ended up beside 2 of them and could only pass the two in front after a car coming the other way stops so the  driver can finish what was an ill thought out and dangerous  manoevre (see the cyclist signal thank you to the now stationary  on comingcar) - at this point braking and waiting was the only safe option for the Range Rover driver (safe for others that is)  but I guess the hospital was short of a brain surgeon and somone had to get there in a hurry

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

Please, get back to the Daily Mail. You'll just make a fool of yourself here.

Philatlondon wrote:

When they say riding two abreast is safer, it doesn't mean wobbling all over the road and taking up the space of four riders. The group should have singled out anyway once they were aware of the car.

dassie wrote:

The way that the driver maintained close proximity alongside the cyclists merited reporting to the police IMO.  Whether the police would have done anything...  What I tend to do is separate to single file but then keep pretty much the same road position, as if riding on the outside of a two abreast formation, to reduce the chance of a close pass. Had an overtaking motorist hoot us on a totally clear, and straight B-road when we were two abreast.

That's called riding in primary position (i guess where the second outside rider would be), or colloquially taking the lane. It's the default road position for a cyclist

dassie wrote:

The way that the driver maintained close proximity alongside the cyclists merited reporting to the police IMO.  Whether the police would have done anything...  What I tend to do is separate to single file but then keep pretty much the same road position, as if riding on the outside of a two abreast formation, to reduce the chance of a close pass. Had an overtaking motorist hoot us on a totally clear, and straight B-road when we were two abreast.

Police won't do shit, I got pulled out on at a roundabout yesterday and then the driver starting shouting abuse out the window, I caught sight of a police car not 5 seconds later at the junction from where the (closed) station is located, pointed at the van and said he'd just missed me by inches and had started swearing and shouting abuse which is a public order offence. The van was two cars ahead, she pulled off in that direction but I noticed didn't follow, instead she pulled into the petrol station (not for fuel) and thought I hadn't seen her just park up and absolved herself of her sworn oath to keep the peace.

I was going to approach her to ask why she refused to speak to the dangerous driver in the white van but just slowly passed and shook my head, I doubt she even took it on board that she is part of the problem!

This is what it has come to, people just don't bother because the police don't give a fuck for the most part. I bet if I was a women on foot and said he'd just swung a sledgehammer near my head and then started searing at me she'd have the blues and two's on straight away.