Road safety group draws ire after advising cyclists to “stop and allow drivers to overtake”

The advise provided by the Warwickshire body isn't common sensical because it's incomplete. The same could be said about HC 66, because these spell out in black and white (i.e. to give way to motorists when it is 'safe to do so') a situation that is far, far too nuanced (i.e. when is it safe? What if it's easier to keep going? Is this going to result in motorists getting a sense of entitlement?). I feel very strongly that a maneouvre as complex and dangerous as an overtake should never be allowed unless on a clear, open road with good sight lines. In fact, it shouldn't even be presented as an option.

If we consider what others have said in reply to your comment, these roads are also too narrow to make decent progress anyway and the use of passing places is incorrect - they are ostensibly meant for oncoming traffic to ease into.

I know that a lot of this advice comes from common sense and courtesy etc. etc., though it does always baffle me why said courtesy too often seems to involve vulnerable road users giving way to motorists, and not the other way round.

Interestingly there is a country where they have actually banned overtaking entirely in many places (especially country roads).  And actually physically blocked this sometimes.  But this has nothing to do with cyclists - they're accomodated on their own track.  It's because allowing motorists to overtake into the path of an oncoming vehicle is seen as a clear safety hazard, given human nature.

I think lots of the "debate" around "entitlement" / "courtesy" / "common sense" is framed by our limited and local nature of what we observe and what's most salient, isn't it?  "A cyclist nearly killed me once!" / "I get close-passed every other time I ride!" / "at every red light a couple of cyclists will just ride through past me".  After that - just generalise and rationalise e.g. "The cyclist didn't move over within a couple of seconds *because* they want to make a point - like they all do!" / "The driver close-passed me *because* many drivers are out to run cyclists off the road!".  The latter is maybe more often a mix of ignorance, lack of competence and / or ordinary human impatience - although that doesn't make it right or reduce the danger.

I missed the chance to, but probably should've said that common sense isn't all that common. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

"The cyclist didn't move over within a couple of seconds *because* they want to make a point - like they all do!" / "The driver close-passed me *because* many drivers are out to run cyclists off the road!".  The latter is maybe more often a mix of ignorance, lack of competence and / or ordinary human impatience - although that doesn't make it right or reduce the danger.

This is a nice take on the 'red mist' arguments we hear all too often; however, the difference is that the red mist in motorists is borne out of the anger at being delayed a tiny bit, whereas the red mist in cyclists is borne out of the fear at nearly being killed n times a day. 

Doesn't really make it more acceptable in the latter but, in my opinion, less harmful.

vthejk wrote:

I missed the chance to, but probably should've said that common sense isn't all that common.

Amen.  In both senses e.g. both "it was a moment of madness..." and also "common to which group?"

Returning to the point: I probably make way for people when on a bike in a similar manner as I would when in a car.  As in - I probably will if it's not a major inconvenience for me and little benefit to them (e.g. we're both coming up to a red light).  The main difference on bike is I'm probably more conscious of safety.  On a bike that also covers "will this person just run into me / squeeze past when it's not safe?"

My take on this is that cyclists tend to get a bit pissed when organisations which purport to have an interest in promoting road safety are doing nothing of the sort. In this instance they are suggesting that getting out of the way and not being an inconvenience is what cyclists need to do in order to earn the respect of their car driving superiors.

Edit: Mulling this over a bit more. I think that cyclists who are also drivers get irked about this whole unsubstantiated myth of cyclists even being a significant cause of delay or somehow difficult to navigate around in the first place. My personal experience is that in nearly 40 years of driving the total time I have been delayed by cyclists must be measurable in terms of minutes. Compared to time spent in traffic jams on the M25 alone (no cyclist involved) must stretch to days. Even driving around the notoriously cycle infested roads of Cambridge, cyclists are way down the list of delays, somewhere south of badly parked delivery vans, drivers waiting to turn right across the flow of traffic and several orders of magnitude less than traffic lights and the Foxton level crossing.

Recent anecdote. Driving to Wiltshire with some friends, we agreed to meet up at a National Trust location (yes we are that demographic). Wives went in one car and got to the meeting point about 15 minutes before us. Being questioned as to our tardiness, my friend explained that we had been held up by cyclists. Followed by much muttering by wives about having the same problem. But the truth was we were behind a group of 8 for about 30 seconds at 20mph through a 30mph village and overtook several others out on country B roads on a Saturday morning without really having to make any particular effort. Total delay in the order of several seconds. The actual reason for our 15 minute difference was because we stopped for donuts and I had to fill up with fuel.

And with no mention that it up to the cyclist to decide when it is safe to move over. If they decide it isn't safe, they aren't being inconsiderate by staying in primary.

In my experience on this site especially with near miss of the day, there is a strong correlation between the use of the word primary and avoidable incidents taking place.

Ooh I know!  Is it "it should have been no surprise the motorist was inconsiderate - you didn't take primary position and so they thought they'd just squeeze past"?

Hello again

"yes Clem I can hear you!"

From the leafy lanes of Essex?

perce wrote:

From the leafy lanes of Essex?

No Scotland.

McFrancis wrote:

perce wrote:

From the leafy lanes of Essex?

No Scotland.

...as any child knows

McFrancis wrote:

In my experience on this site especially with near miss of the day, there is a strong correlation between the use of the word primary and avoidable incidents taking place.

Are you saying that you don't know how cyclists should use the road safely and other road users treat them with respect?

Or are you just trolling? Virtually all of us are drivers, we know how to drive properly. From what you've written, I'm not sure you do.

Definitely not a troll, my comments are very much about the animosity created by these sorts of comments page, it is all "them and us".
It's fascinating that we all know how to drive properly and are better riders than average as well, but these bicycle/car incidents continue to happen. Perhaps we humans are not perfect and a bit of humility would go along way.

Hello Nigel. Let's see when you'll be banned this time around.

marmotte27 wrote:

Hello Nigel. Let's see when you'll be banned this time around.

No I'm afraid I'm not Nigel, but do you have anything valid to add on the subject of "them and us" which was after all the question posed.

McFrancis wrote:

I don't understand these articles, it is always described as them (car users) and us (cyclists). In reality most people who are reading this are both.
The whole point of the rules of the road are to be a considerate road user, and that means there are rules both written and unwritten. Who goes first at a road narrowing for because of parked cars for example, in town quite often it depends on what else is going on.
When on a piece of road where overtaking is difficult, at an opportune moment/location the front road user should let the faster user behind past, whether the front person is on a bicycle, driving a tractor or a car.
If anyone thinks that the only rules of the road are those in the highway code and that following them at the expense of being considerate is the way to go, frankly should not be on the road as they are too immature.

I've seen tractors and cyclists pull over to let cars past. Strangely, though, I've never seen a car do it ( unless you count the time I was on holiday in Canada, where they have special lanes, for this purpose).

Make your own mind up about where the inconsiderate behaviour can be found.

Cyclists are more likely to experience car drivers being deliberately obstructive to stop someone on a bike getting in front of them in traffic.

Even though I've paid my Road Tax, 10x that in Council Tax, 100x that in Income Tax, have 2x 3rd party insurances, 1x fully comprehensive insurance, passed my Cycling Proficiency aged 4 before I rode on a road to school, have a full licence for cars, unrestricted motorcycle licence, 7.5tonne LGV, passed my IAM test and had many subsequent driving assessments. But hey, I'm only a cyclist..........

My favourite bugbear from motorists to cyclists is the lack of any acknowledgment when stopping and letting a car coming from the opposite direction through parked cars etc...if you're in a car they can't thank you enough....on a bike, zilch...  I've taken to giving them a sarcastic thanks as they go passed.

If you have never seen a car let another pass, you might want to reflect on why that might be.

belugabob wrote:

McFrancis wrote:

I don't understand these articles, it is always described as them (car users) and us (cyclists). In reality most people who are reading this are both. The whole point of the rules of the road are to be a considerate road user, and that means there are rules both written and unwritten. Who goes first at a road narrowing for because of parked cars for example, in town quite often it depends on what else is going on. When on a piece of road where overtaking is difficult, at an opportune moment/location the front road user should let the faster user behind past, whether the front person is on a bicycle, driving a tractor or a car. If anyone thinks that the only rules of the road are those in the highway code and that following them at the expense of being considerate is the way to go, frankly should not be on the road as they are too immature.

I've seen tractors and cyclists pull over to let cars past. Strangely, though, I've never seen a car do it ( unless you count the time I was on holiday in Canada, where they have special lanes, for this purpose). Make your own mind up about where the inconsiderate behaviour can be found.

Much of what occurs in momentary road relationships depends on the local cultural zeitgeist in which they occur. When I lived in and cycled through big towns or urban sprawls in England, there were many more rude and inconsiderate road users of all ilks & tittles, including pedestrians and cyclists albeit mosty motorists. In rural West Wales folk are generally far more considerate in their road behaviours (and elsewhere).

Being human, we tend to take on the attitudes of those around us that impinge upon us with the greatest "force". Even a lovely nice fellow like me can get very arsey if every other road user acts the prat! 

In West Wales, I have become nicer to others on the road, as they're nicer to me, largely.

Cugel wrote:

In West Wales, I have become nicer to others on the road, as they're nicer to me, largely.

Obv's, that's becuase people from West Wales are just nicer 

Gimpl wrote:

Cugel wrote:

In West Wales, I have become nicer to others on the road, as they're nicer to me, largely.

Obv's, that's becuase people from West Wales are just nicer 

And so many lanes in Pembrokeshire are practically holloways - you have to learn to negotiate.

This is a tabloid website that is struggling to survive so is pumping out increasingly sensational articles. Us versus them attitudes like the ones in the article guarantee clicks.

Exactly, a few weeks back I rode my usual route home from the station, something was going on on Reading's IDR, nose to tail on an urban dual carriageway, I'm filtering down the middle and it's like the parting of the Red Sea, because, of course, I'm the far faster vehicle.

As if...!

ktache wrote:

Exactly, a few weeks back I rode my usual route home from the station, something was going on on Reading's IDR, nose to tail on an urban dual carriageway, I'm filtering down the middle and it's like the parting of the Red Sea, because, of course, I'm the far faster vehicle.

As if...!

More like the closing of the red sea in my experience!

ktache wrote:

nose to tail on an urban dual carriageway, I'm filtering down the middle and it's like the parting of the Red Sea, because, of course, I'm the far faster vehicle.

As if...!

Round the M25 rush hour car park on my 1000cc V4 with stock pipe is an hilarious parting of the seas mainly because they can hear you and don't want their paint scratched..

Obviously the loud pipes save lives idea is ludicrous given the look but not see human behaviour but can be funny anyway.

In reality a high risk game that demands both attention, experience and intuition about what happens next..

McFrancis wrote:

I don't understand these articles, it is always described as them (car users) and us (cyclists). In reality most people who are reading this are both. The whole point of the rules of the road are to be a considerate road user, ...

Many - if not all - current adult UK cyclists also drive.  Most UK drivers do not cycle and almost never for transport.  So in a way there are indeed two tribes.

There's another way in which this makes sense and you've put your finger on it - human psychology.  It's just a human psychology thing that the majority expect the minority - particularly if they're easily identifiable - to defer to them.  If the minority stand up for the same rights as the majority some of those will feel some strong emotions including anger.

However the law doesn't recognise this.  Or rather it doesn't on paper but does in practice since the police and courts are reluctant to take issue with drivers.

In my experience on the roads most people are reasonable.  Of course when cycling, given the number of drivers I interact with vastly outnumber cyclists I'm mostly going to meet far more inconsiderate and aggressive drivers, rather than the same on bicycles.  And being in a car around an idiot on a bike is vastly preferable to the opposite situation.

I think our whole transport system is a bit immature to be honest, but I think we're slowly growing up.  Here's what it looks like when we apply a more mature approach to road safety.