Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Wendy on 01 August, 2011, 05:17:36 pm
-
Article from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane
-
How about "Is it a vehicle operator's right to take the lane?" Of course it is, makes no difference as to the vehicle in question. Shame that point wasn't driven home in the article.
-
An interesting USAnian perspective:
(http://www.baufl.org/images/bauflfinal.jpg)
http://www.baufl.org/
-
Sometimes I get the feeling the grainiad bike blog is running out of stuff to carry, the last one I noticed was about dangerous dogs- never been a major safety danger to me..
-
Astonished that the question is being asked.
Oh, it's August.
No news season.
-
An interesting USAnian perspective:
(http://www.baufl.org/images/bauflfinal.jpg)
http://www.baufl.org/
Of course cars, vans, buses and lorries use the full lane all the time. But they never take the lane or adopt primary, they use that width as a consequence of their own. We don't. Therein I think lies the problem. Compounded by speed differentials, it is too easily read as selfishness by many drivers, who are mostly not antagonistic towards cyclists but simply ignorant.
Personally I'm in favour of give and take, cooperation on the roads, whatever mode of transport I'm using. I'll ride in primary when passing parked cars on a narrow road then move over as far as I can to let following cars overtake me. When walking I'll wander down the middle of the quiet dead-ends we have round us but hop on the pavement if a car does come along and there's no room for it. Mostly drivers return the consideration.
-
Like this, you mean?
http://youtu.be/S9bqDtdINoI
-
Like this, you mean?
http://youtu.be/S9bqDtdINoI
There's a difficulty of interpretation in the use of hazard lights to acknowledge someone: you hope they are saying, "thanks", but they may be being chippy and trying to tell me I'm a hazard.
-
to answer the OP no it isn't;
No it isn't? Hmm, I don't think so.
-
to answer the OP no it isn't;
No it isn't? Hmm, I don't think so.
Cyclist's right to take the lane?
Yep - it is. Court said as much in R. v Cadden and a number of other cases.
-
I'd say it's a right. Doesn't mean I have to enforce it at all times, nor that it can't be infringed by bastard motorists.
-
to answer the OP no it isn't;
We all have the right to be safe on the roads. Very often, taking the lane is the best way to achieve this. My safety (when I am a vulnerable road user) trumps any small delays I may suffer when driving lethal machinery.
it's the driver's responsibility (but not requirement) to pass the cyclist giving as much room as if passing any motorised vehicle;
All road users are required to overtake safely. Or not overtake at all.
Do you think motorists are sometimes exempt from this?
-
I won't compromise my safety for a genuine delay of a few seconds, if such a delay actually existed.
We all know that in an urban environment it is illusory, the product of the Brontosauraus sized brain of your average motorist.
-
I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose. Riding purposefully, especially in traffic, also seems to help.
-
I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose.
That's often not enough to prevent overtaking, though, and not a bold and clear enough signal that you don't want to be overtaken. Anything less is virtually encouraging overtaking.
I only ride in the middle of the lane when it's not safe to be overtaken on that lane, and pull in every now and then if I'm holding someone up for a long time.
-
I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose.
That's often not enough to prevent overtaking, though, and not a bold and clear enough signal that you don't want to be overtaken. Anything less is virtually encouraging overtaking.
I only ride in the middle of the lane when it's not safe to be overtaken on that lane, and pull in every now and then if I'm holding someone up for a long time.
+1 to Biggsy. Give an inch, and some drivers will take 3 feet.
-
Here's a good example of riding a little to the left. The real problem is the driver pushing through, but this rider didn't take the lane properly and rode through the door zone. It's not the rider's fault of course, but taking the lane properly would have prevented the driver, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwJntJWtCm8
-
Here's a good example of riding a little to the left...
Though not an example I would emulate. I think I did say "mostly", by which I meant, applied with intelligence.
-
I don't agree that riding roughly in the left wheel-track mostly serves the same purpose as riding in the middle of the lane. Riding in the middle prevents a lot more overtakes, IME.
(I'll repeat again that I don't ride in that position all the time because I'd hate for anyone to think I was a permanent lane hogger).
-
to answer the OP no it isn't;
No it isn't? Hmm, I don't think so.
Cyclist's right to take the lane?
Yep - it is. Court said as much in R. v Cadden and a number of other cases.
yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right; perhaps you'd like to come down to my Manor and see what I mean. And I'm not even going to bother answering the other post...
-
yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right.
But taking the lane at times will keep you alive when allowing just enough room for a motor to squeeze by may kill you. It's just a question of saving it for the right times and places. Keep a decent speed up and the motorists won't be too wound up. When you can't go fast, just pull over every so often to let them pass before they boil over.
-
yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right.
But taking the lane at times will keep you alive when allowing just enough room for a motor to squeeze by may kill you. It's just a question of saving it for the right times and places. Keep a decent speed up and the motorists won't be too wound up. When you can't go fast, just pull over every so often to let them pass before they boil over.
as I said; come down to my Manor and give me a lesson on any of the local B roads as I obviously know nothing (having not read Franklin)
-
I've cycled on the B roads near East Grinstead and it's no different in terms of this subject than cycling on the B roads anywhere else in the south east of England. Taking the lane at times will help you to stay alive. It doesn't have to be much of the time. Just where most needed.
-
I've cycled on the B roads near East Grinstead and it's no different in terms of this subject than cycling on the B roads anywhere else in the south east of England. Taking the lane at times will help you to stay alive. It doesn't have to be much of the time. Just where most needed.
as I said I know nothing
-
Handbags! ;D
There's a tree 'o' responsibility that my driving instructor taught me ages back. In order, as a road user, I should care about:
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience
Taking the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking hits the top mark while only vexing the lowest. It's a no brainer. And moving in to allow people to pass when safe doesn't compromise my safety or convenience, and enhances yours. And to wrap it up, sitting in the gutter would sacrifice both my safety and convenience for yours, so screw you (no doormats please!).
-
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience
Nice and clear. Now how do we tell everyone else on the road?
-
very good in theory Andy;
I'll stick to mine;
most drivers are arseholes
a lot of them are in a hurry
a lot of them are talking on their phones
their vehicles are a lot faster (and heavier) than me
been using that premise for 30 years without someone having to write a book telling me how to interact with them and I'm still here :)
-
Most drivers are just ordinary people. Ordinary people and arseholes need to be disuaded from overtaking at times.
I didn't learn it from a book. I learnt from nearly getting killed. Too many people do get killed by allowing overtakes at dangerous places, particularly at junctions.
Good luck with still being here next year.
-
I don't like to be subservient in life so I'm unlikely to be that on the road either.
I'll not be creeping along in the gutter because of some imagined Mr Toad threat.
-
I'll stick to mine;
most drivers are arseholes
a lot of them are in a hurry
a lot of them are talking on their phones
their vehicles are a lot faster (and heavier) than me
I don't disagree with the above. HOWEVER ...
hardly anyone - including arseholes - will deliberately drive into you from behind. But if they think they can squeeze past, they will - and if there isn't really room, they might kill you without meaning you any harm whatsoever.
Please think about this - the logical conclusion is to take an assertive position much of the time.
-
I don't like to be subservient in life so I'm unlikely to be that on the road either.
...
Except when you're paying for it, eh.... ;) ;D
-
You promised you'd never tell!
-
I am getting the impression (no statistics, unfortunately) that there is an increasing number of cyclists hit from behind, with serious or fatal consequences. Whilst I doubt many are deliberate, my work with CDF suggests justice is not done in a significant number of cases. Taking the lane might not be all it's cracked to be.
-
Sort the symptom or the cause.
Chase cyclists into the gutter or punish drivers properly.
You choose.
-
I am getting the impression (no statistics, unfortunately) that there is an increasing number of cyclists hit from behind, with serious or fatal consequences. Whilst I doubt many are deliberate, my work with CDF suggests justice is not done in a significant number of cases. Taking the lane might not be all it's cracked to be.
But most cyclists hit from behind could have been riding near the left side of the road, for all we know without stats. That's what I would expect.
What I'm most concerned about is cyclists not disuading overtaking at tricky junctions where they could easily get cut up. While I am not blaming the victims (cyclists have the right to ride how they like as long as it's legal), I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.
-
I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.
they also might be alive if they rode defensively and heeded those warning signs on the back of HGV's
I find your suggestion that my alternative attitude to "taking the lane" (which as you've never even met me or seen me ride a bike) is likely to affect my survival over the next year downright crass
-
I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.
they also might be alive if they rode defensively and heeded those warning signs on the back of HGV's
I find your suggestion that my alternative attitude to "taking the lane" (which as you've never even met me or seen me ride a bike) is likely to affect my survival over the next year downright crass
Oh get off your high horse. Biggsy wasn't taking a dig you or anyone in particular. He was making a valid point, even if its one I don;t personally agree with in its entirety.
-
it's not a high horse; it's a fundamental beleif that riding in the middle of the road (call it what you will) is at times highly dangerous and generally just pisses off the very motons we should not piss off any more than we have to
-
it's not a high horse; it's a fundamental beleif that riding in the middle of the road (call it what you will) is at times highly dangerous and generally just pisses off the very motons we should not piss off any more than we have to
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that.
-
I don't think anyone's having a dig at you Martin. Perhaps Biggsy meant something like the video of the cyclist undertaking the lorry at Vauxhall?
http://youtu.be/12fMTAQyXTI
From what little I remember of your riding, Martin, I thought was really rather good, and perhaps not that far from Cyclecraft. Every one of us rides whilst making the occasional mistake, and most of the time we manage to compensate for those mistakes well with experience.
-
Hmm. Been watching this thread develop. I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.
However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening. It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.
But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).
-
Handbags! ;D
There's a tree 'o' responsibility that my driving instructor taught me ages back. In order, as a road user, I should care about:
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience
Taking the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking hits the top mark while only vexing the lowest. It's a no brainer. And moving in to allow people to pass when safe doesn't compromise my safety or convenience, and enhances yours. And to wrap it up, sitting in the gutter would sacrifice both my safety and convenience for yours, so screw you (no doormats please!).
I can't help feeling we've been here before.
My version of this (FWIW) is : -
my safety
your safety
the law
the Highway Code
my convenience
your convenience
Depending on how I'm feeling, I might swap the bottom two.
And before anyone leaps in, following the HC does not always = 'my safety'.
-
I would defend anyone's right to cycle how ever they like, as long as it's legal and reasonable for others. I'm just genuinely worried that too many cyclists are allowing themselves to be overtaken when it's not safe.
Part of riding defensively, in my opinion, is to sometimes take the lane. Part of a football defender's job is to prevent the progress of a striker. There's another crass statemet. :)
And I hope EVERYONE here is still here next year. Good moaning morning. :)
-
.......... I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.
Absolutely we do if it makes us safer. Example - there are a couple of bends on my commute where drivers regularly overtake blind - sometimes resulting in much locking of wheels and honking of horns when they meet someone coming the other way. I've found that "taking the lane" on the approach to these bends discourages (but does not eliminate) much of the overtaking - dramatically improving my safety. I reserve that right!!!
-
I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.
So if a motorist is doing 25mph in a 30 zone and a queue of cars builds up behind him, do you expect him to pull over and let them pass? (Has this ever happened in the history of motoring?) If not, why would you expect a cyclist to do so? Anyway, it's not a deliberate obstruction, we're just trying to make our way in the safest possible way.
-
However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening. It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.
It's my role to keep myself safe. I'm not playing policeman. I'm "obstructing" the lane for my benefit for a while - usually only a short while. It's give and take. I "give" a lot to motorists by keeping out of their way as much as I reckon is reasonable. Then I "take" a bit at other times. Cyclists are sharing the road with motorists - sometimes bike and car side-by-side, sometimes one in front of the other.
The irony for me is that I probably use the primary position less often than a lot of other YACFers, but I'm going on about it because I think it's immensely valuable to use for some of the time.
-
I'm probably similar to Biggsy in that I rarely use primary.
I use it in situation where I need it, such when I know that I'm about to change lane - and if I don't end up taking primary, I'll end up with with cars on both sides, and unable to swap lanes when needed.
-
Hmm. Been watching this thread develop. I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.
However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening. It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.
But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).
I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. It is wholly the responsibility of the person carrying out the (often pointless) overtake to do so safely. It is not incumbent on vulnerable road users to facilitate the manoeuvre, particularly if so doing compromises their safety. 'Stuck' behind a cyclist? Just bloody well wait a few seconds. I drive a van all day and it hasn't caused me a coronary yet.
-
We're not doing any obstructing when we take as much lane as we need for ourselves, and give over to let people past as soon as reasonably possible.
-
Hmm. Been watching this thread develop. I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.
However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening. It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.
But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).
I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. It is wholly the responsibility of the person carrying out the (often pointless) overtake to do so safely. It is not incumbent on vulnerable road users to facilitate the manoeuvre, particularly if so doing compromises their safety. 'Stuck' behind a cyclist? Just bloody well wait a few seconds. I drive a van all day and it hasn't caused me a coronary yet.
I'd agree with Phil in that there's no need to cause unnecessary obstructions - if you've got adequate road skills you should be confident about letting heavy traffic past with narrow tolerances. Eg I've often seen cyclists take "the whole lane" when moving out in 2- or 3-lane roads, when they need to be on the white line and let traffic pass in the same lane.
I always try to move out on the approach to roundabouts, but drivers usually hate it. Recently I did this and 'forced' a car onto the wrong side of the road before it popped back in front of me. I was able to follow it to its home destination and waited, on my bent, for the driver to get out, which took rather a long time. It turned out to be a gorgeous teenage girl - I told her she was a bl00dy lousy driver and she was most apologetic, explaining she'd only just passed her test and lacked experience!
-
the last very close overtake I had was on Ditchling Beacon; I was hardly taking the lane there as it's unreasonable to expect a car to wait 15mins while I grind up the bastard so I was in my usual 1m from the edge. Did that stop some tw@t overtaking me on a bend and nearly going head on into a car coming downhill in the opposite direction? this literally happends all the time locally; it seems to me that they are going to sail past you whatever so you might as well be out of harms way (with enough room to escape when they come really close which they also do)
sorry rights and wrongs is one thing but I lost the will to do battle with these twunts years ago. The biggest offenders are 4x4s and those stupid Nissan half pick-ups; I assume because a) they steer like a cow b) it costs them 50p a time in go juice to decelerate to safe overtaking spped and then floor it.
-
the last very close overtake I had was on Ditchling Beacon; I was hardly taking the lane there as it's unreasonable to expect a car to wait 15mins while I grind up the bastard so I was in my usual 1m from the edge. Did that stop some tw@t overtaking me on a bend and nearly going head on into a car coming downhill in the opposite direction? this literally happends all the time locally; it seems to me that they are going to sail past you whatever so you might as well be out of harms way (with enough room to escape when they come really close which they also do)
sorry rights and wrongs is one thing but I lost the will to do battle with these twunts years ago. The biggest offenders are 4x4s and those stupid Nissan half pick-ups; I assume because a) they steer like a cow b) it costs them 50p a time in go juice to decelerate to safe overtaking spped and then floor it.
Did you realise that 1m in some situations is taking up more of the lane than Cyclecraft recommends? I imagine your judgement of 1m from the edge is probably spot on there, it's been a while since I've been up that hill.
My point again - your riding is IMO very good, and largely top quality cyclecraft from the little I saw of it. I've noticed before that sometimes people get very down on Cyclecraft, when it's not much different from what most experienced cyclists do most of the time. It seems to be more of a perception issue than anything else, IMO.
-
I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.
So if a motorist is doing 25mph in a 30 zone and a queue of cars builds up behind him, do you expect him to pull over and let them pass? (Has this ever happened in the history of motoring?) If not, why would you expect a cyclist to do so? Anyway, it's not a deliberate obstruction, we're just trying to make our way in the safest possible way.
This is precisely what I was instructed to do when I was taking my motorcycle test. In fact, the example given was that even if you're doing 30 in a 30 zone and someone comes up doing 50, you should let them pass when safe to do so, even though their speed is illegal. I think the advice has changed since then, and as to whether anyone put it into practice other than when taking a test, I don't know.
-
Every weekday morning, when I cycle into work, I go over a bloody great big hill. It's a narrow carriageway and on the brow of the hill, the road bends to the left. It is quite possibly the worst place that you could attempt to overtake a cyclist for miles around. As I climb this hill, I keep my position just under a metre from the near side of the road. I'm not going fast because I'm going up a hill, so traffic often overtakes me.
But when I get within sight of the top of the hill, I move out to a commanding position in the road. I do this not to piss off the people driving vehicles behind me, but because if I don't, my own safety is about to be massively compromised.
On the occasions I've stayed closer to the side of the road, vehicles have almost always attempted to overtake me, despite needing to move out into the path of oncoming traffic which can't be seen until it's too late. I've been in the position of having an overtaking vehicle swinging back towards me when they realise that they're about to colide with an oncoming car and it's terrifying.
So now, I accept that I'm not going to be able to account for idiots who chose to an attempt an unsafe overtake and I ride wide. This isn't delaying anyone's journey any more than if I rode closer to the nearside of the road and the cars behind me drove safely and didn't overtake.
So if someone thinks I'm unnecessarily delaying their journey for a minute or so, my general feeling about the matter is as follows: Fuck'em.
-
Thank you Charlotte for saying what I felt like saying.
Pound to a pinch of sh1t you overtake them further up the road anyway, be it at the next set of lights, queue or whatever.
-
I am getting the impression (no statistics, unfortunately) that there is an increasing number of cyclists hit from behind, with serious or fatal consequences. Whilst I doubt many are deliberate, my work with CDF suggests justice is not done in a significant number of cases. Taking the lane might not be all it's cracked to be.
But most cyclists hit from behind could have been riding near the left side of the road, for all we know without stats. That's what I would expect.
In every case I've read, the driver claimed 'SMIDSY!' . So I would suggest that making ourselves more prominent is validated by Helly's vague observation.
How many people do we know that would choose to kill a complete stranger with their car? Sure, they exist, but this is like worrying about axe murderers, or the next bird flu. Or the next terrorist attack.
-
So if someone thinks I'm unnecessarily delaying their journey for a minute or so, my general feeling about the matter is as follows: Fuck'em.
Yes agreed - my safety vs their convenience: no contest.
This is all about negotiating road position. Negotiations, like changing road position, can be subtle or, er, not. Depends on the circumstances. A shoulder check and a slight drift outwards is sometimes enough of a clue for cars on your back wheel. Not always though ...
I usually give a thumbs up and beckon cars past if they've hung back and behaved themselves. Sometimes I even point at the pothole I'm trying to avoid to explain what I'm doing, and sometimes it works!
-
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience
wouldn't the road be a better/safer place if it was
your safety
my safety
your convenience
my convenience
-
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience
wouldn't the road be a better/safer place if it was
your safety
my safety
your convenience
my convenience
I suspect not. Most people have a pretty good mechanism that keeps them safe regardless. If I were to wander the roads looking out for everyone else's safety, there wouldn't be any bugger at all looking after mine with, most likely, some rather unpleasant consequences for me.
-
If
your convenience
was our priority - car driver OR cyclist - we would simply stay off the roads!
-
I wouldn't cycle if it was not possible to check following traffic using my position in the road - that's how fundamental I think it is.
I suppose the retort would be, "well, you shouldn't cycle then" - tough :P
-
I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.
So if a motorist is doing 25mph in a 30 zone and a queue of cars builds up behind him, do you expect him to pull over and let them pass? (Has this ever happened in the history of motoring?) If not, why would you expect a cyclist to do so? Anyway, it's not a deliberate obstruction, we're just trying to make our way in the safest possible way.
This is precisely what I was instructed to do when I was taking my motorcycle test. In fact, the example given was that even if you're doing 30 in a 30 zone and someone comes up doing 50, you should let them pass when safe to do so, even though their speed is illegal. I think the advice has changed since then, and as to whether anyone put it into practice other than when taking a test, I don't know.
There are signs on the single track lanes, that are A roads in the far north west of Scotland, which say that you should pull in to allow other vehicles to overtake.
I think it is correct to say that everyone is obliged not to hold up any other traffic and at the very least, it's inconsiderate to hinder people unnecessarily.
But yes, cyclists, just like any other road users, have the right to use whichever bit of the road is appropriate. I ride on every part of the left hand side of the road, from on the dotted white centre line, to the left of the solid line right in the gutter. Where I ride all depends on different things. I couldn't tell anyone which bit of the road is best for them to ride on. Every situation is different.
I do try to have a presence on the road (Great big panniers seem to help). I often ride very wide, but move in if someone is coming up to overtake, so most of the time, I'm riding wherever I like on the road. It all depends though. I wouldn't ride in the centre of the left hand lane of the A303 in the rush hour. In fact, I avoid that road in the daytime. But at night, I'd generally ride in the middle of the left hand lane until something comes up to overtake. So even the same road at the same speeds can be very different.
On a very busy, but very wide road, like the A17, I ride well into the gutter. It's a single carriageway road, but is easilyas wide as a dual carriageway. Most of the cars, trucks and motorbikes stay almost in the middle of the lane, which means that they pass me with plenty of room without even having to steer around me.
-
So now, I accept that I'm not going to be able to account for idiots who chose to an attempt an unsafe overtake and I ride wide. This isn't delaying anyone's journey any more than if I rode closer to the nearside of the road and the cars behind me drove safely and didn't overtake.
So if someone thinks I'm unnecessarily delaying their journey for a minute or so, my general feeling about the matter is as follows: Fuck'em.
I agree with this in general, and practice it. However, I can think of many instances when I've taken the lane deliberately and assertively (after checking behind to see what's behind), only to be almost mown down by an idiot who thinks he can scare me out of the way.
9 times out of 10, it works and nobody gets wound up, but one of these days I'm going to be run over by someone who thinks bikes shouldn't be on the road.
-
@Rhys: we've done this already:
How many people do we know that would choose to kill a complete stranger with their car? Sure, they exist, but this is like worrying about axe murderers, or the next bird flu. Or the next terrorist attack.
You're far more at risk from the dope that hits you by accident cos he thought there was room to squeeze past.
-
I'm sure it would be super-rare for a driver to deliberately hit you from behind without a warning first. When you hear the horn, you can make a judgement and decide whether to continue taking the lane or give in and pull over. Base the decision on the speed and surroundings, any other signs of aggression, what the driver and car looks like, and just your intuition. Of course don't be too bloody minded because you've got no chance if he/she really does want to get you.
Personally so far I've just always continued, after making a flat-palm gesture, but so far I haven't had to continue for more than a few tens of seconds like this anyway. If it goes on for more than a minute then you better get out of the way. Lose the argument but save your life.
-
The danger of being hit from behind while taking the lane comes from a driver underestimating the speed difference, overestimating their braking or assuming that you will jump to the verge at the last second. It is a danger that exists but it's probably less than that of, say, having your bars hooked by someone's mirrors, and it's not homicidal maniacs.
-
The danger of being hit from behind while taking the lane comes from a driver underestimating the speed difference, overestimating their braking or assuming that you will jump to the verge at the last second. It is a danger that exists ...
Scaremongering bollox. Do you have any evidence?
Collisions occur at junctions, then occasionally when vehicles overtake each other. You're imagining a risk that is practically zero.
-
^ I would have thought that's very rare too. Not something I worry about.
However, braking hard suddenly can get you hit from behind - and this has happened to me - but it can happen regardless of your position on the lane.
-
The danger of being hit from behind while taking the lane comes from a driver underestimating the speed difference, overestimating their braking or assuming that you will jump to the verge at the last second. It is a danger that exists ...
Scaremongering bollox. Do you have any evidence?
Collisions occur at junctions, then occasionally when vehicles overtake each other. You're imagining a risk that is practically zero.
Did I say it was common? I was pointing out that if it happens, it's by accident not by intention.
but it's probably less than that of, say, having your bars hooked by someone's mirrors, and it's not homicidal maniacs.
-
It's so uncommon that there is NO POINT mentioning it. Except to generate fear.
... unseen potholes, bee stings, urine icicles, stray dogs running out, badly driven emergency vehicles ...
oh my god we're all going to die, get off the roads, or buy a Humvee !!!
-
I agree with you Matt, but take a chill pill, mate. :)
-
Blimey, this is getting a bit heated.
Being run down from behind is a bit rare, but yes it happens. That army chap, run down by a lorry comes to mind. ISTR a TT rider being run down. There have been others.
It's not something I particularly worry about tho'.
-
This is a pretty amazing video of a cyclist in the US getting the horn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG3MFebtemM
-
It's so uncommon that there is NO POINT mentioning it. Except to generate fear.
... unseen potholes, bee stings, urine icicles, stray dogs running out, badly driven emergency vehicles ...
oh my god we're all going to die, get off the roads, or buy a Humvee !!!
Time for second breakfast?
-
I agree with you Matt, but take a chill pill, mate. :)
no I won't. There are real threats to our lives everywhere. To ignore them is to risk really nasty death.
... swine flu, nuclear war, cancer of organ X, earthquakes, banging your head in the bathroom, cancer of organ Y, falling down the stairs when noone else is home, zombie hordes ...
Why aren't you all panicking?!? You could die any minute !!!
-
Every time a cyclists behaves subserviently and alters their riding prematurely to let a car through there is a reinforcement that cyclists should give way.
So thank you Charlotte and others for standing up for cyclists' rights on the road.
-
As TG mentioned, in NW Scotland some of the A roads are single lane with passing places. Drivers tend to be much more courteous towards cyclists. I've just ridden a couple of hundred miles up there and vehicles coming in the opposite direction, more often than not, waited for me at passing places. Similarly, I'd allow overtaking by moving into passing places. In one case I recall, I had a heavy lorry behind me and the next passing place was on my right. I signalled to him that I was moving into it so that he could overtake on my left. That allowed him to do so without steering round me or slowing down quite so much as he would have had to do had I waited on the left and made him use the passing place. He showed suitable appreciation.
But fundamentally, I find that the biggest risk to me as a cyclist comes from drivers who misjudge and take risks with overtaking. I ride under the possible misapprehension that no-one is a homicidal maniac and that, even if they are, my riding style won't stop them from killing me if they are determined to do so. Taking the lane at the right time is a vital piece of the armoury of safe riding. Last Wednesday, at around 8.30 a.m., I had just turned right into the Grays Inn Road from Holborn. There were parked vehicles both sides and to have kept one metre from the kerb would have boxed me in. I took the lane. The taxi driver behind hooted and shouted that I was in the middle of the road. After passing a parked vehicle, I moved in and allowed him to overtake. When I caught up at the next lights I couldn't resist leaning into his open window and commenting "You don't know a lot about driving, do you, mate?" which elicited the expected response. The point is, though, he wasn't a homicidal maniac but he was an inconsiderate arsehole. Taking the lane at the right time prevented overtaking, which for him wasn't about speeding up his journey, but about status.
-
The danger of being hit from behind while taking the lane comes from a driver underestimating the speed difference, overestimating their braking or assuming that you will jump to the verge at the last second. It is a danger that exists ...
Scaremongering bollox. Do you have any evidence?
I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.
It happens all the time.
-
I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit.
I don't see what this proves. He would have hit you if you were in the LH-lane, surely?
Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.
The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.
This just demonstrates the point that I've been making. They thought there was room to overtake, so they did, DESPITE IT BEING DANGEROUS.
It happens all the time.
I remain to be convinced.
-
You guys are talking at cross purposes.
I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.
It happens all the time.
That's not what Cudzo and Matt are discussing - accidental hits from misjudging speed or direction when the cyclist is in the middle of the lane.
-
I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.
I've always had a warning before any bad dangerous behaviour in the form of a beep or shout, when in the middle of the lane. Then you can judge what to do.
-
Actually I think we're talking about 2 things at the same time. :P
IN THEORY one might get hit from behind if:
- a driver misjudges your position/speed, or a SMIDSY because he can only see motor-vehicles slap bang in the middle of his/her line of sight, not cyclists. Or:
- a driver is so enraged by the assertive road position that he/she mows you down deliberately.
[of course it would be hard to know for sure which had put you in ICU]
For different reasons, I view both scenarios as so unlikely as to not worry about, unless there is something very unusual about the road conditions that contributes (and I cannot think of an example right now). I cannot know that they never occur - but see earlier posts about stray dogs, lightning strikes, inoperable cancer, urine icicles ...
-
Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.
No. Left-hooks are caused by drivers too impatient to wait a couple more seconds to get to their turning.
-
Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.
No. Left-hooks are caused by drivers too impatient to wait a couple more seconds to get to their turning.
Oh good; so it wasn't caused by the rider Taking The Lane. :thumbsup:
-
Mattc, left hooks happen even when you don't take the lane. More often, in fact.
-
I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit.
I don't see what this proves. He would have hit you if you were in the LH-lane, surely?
A few seconds before I entered the roundabout, I checked back and saw a car a fair distance behind. I was going straight across, so to make it clear that I wasn't turning left and discourage a dangerous overtake, I took the lane. Driver ignored this, as I was going across he appeared at my right and turned immediately left - I suffered a glancing blow but it would have been a lot worse if I hadn't instinctively turned left to try and stay on his inside. Despite me moving out from the left of the lane to the middle, he had decided I was turning left and it would be safe for him to turn left as well. This guy was just plain stupid, but I've experienced other situations when I've taken the primary position (to avoid hazards, parked cars, because I need to switch to the RH lane soon etc) and been almost knocked off because the driver thinks he can scare me into the gutter.
What it proves is that taking the middle of the lane works fine most of the time, but every now and again I find a driver behind puts me in more danger than if I'd stayed far left.
-
Stats say that being hit up the arse is rare: something like 5% of hits. You will not get shunted for the same reason drivers don't crash into bollards and each other and deer and kittens: because when there is something in front of a moving car, the driver slows, stops or avoids.
The selection pressure against drivers just plowing into things is immense. There's even some sort of test they have to do.
Being plowed into from behind is a common fear, but not a common source of pain. Up there with spiders, heights, and commitment.
-
Stats say that being hit up the arse is rare: something like 5% of hits. You will not get shunted for the same reason drivers don't crash into bollards and each other and deer and kittens: because when there is something in front of a moving car, the driver slows, stops or avoids.
The selection pressure against drivers just plowing into things is immense. There's even some sort of test they have to do.
Being plowed into from behind is a common fear, but not a common source of pain. Up there with spiders, heights, and commitment.
I'm not sure if that 5% figure is right, there have been a few rear-collisions that have killed cyclists, the coach that killed two brothers, last weekend's Clapham tragedy, Zak Carr. In collisions between a cyclist and a vehicle travelling in the same direction it's usually a rear-end collision.
ETA-some sources have rear-end collisions making up 30% of accidents.
-
Clearly we need some figures.
Statto!
-
<anecdata> The only time I've been struck by a car while cycling was from behind. That's 100% ;) </anecdata>
Meta-analysis is called for: Statto, send for R ...
(My shunt was at a junction - driver was watching car approaching from right and not the vehicle {in this case = bike} in front. Low speed, no harm done except to nerves ...)
-
http://www.borealisoutdoor.com/content/can-bike/crash3.htm has some figures with a reasonably decent breakdown... (but no direct link to his source which is rather dated (1993) (sigh))
In a nutshell:
"Turning and crossing" maneuvers account for 85% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps.
Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 0.3% of all cycling mishaps.
Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 10% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps. (30% rural, 7% urban)
-
the Rule of it is yes a cyclist has the right of 1 lane when i am in the local cycle club we do take a lane as it is the UK law
-
The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.
from The Guardian 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
-
...
Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 10% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps. (30% rural, 7% urban)
OK, good, that supports my ethos - I don't worry much about being hit, so 10% of not worrying much = feck all. :thumbsup:
2ndly, this is no evidence of how many drivers have hit cyclists deliberately. What we have been saying is that the main risk is careless overtakes, NOT deliberate ramming. This 10% figure could be entirely made up of negligent mistakes.
And some of those could have been prevented by more assertive positioning. I rest my case, M'lud!
-
The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.
from The Guardian 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
A quarter of deaths does not mean a quarter of motorist-cyclist crashes. It could be that rear-ending is more likely to kill you than being hit from the side or left-hooked, because it happens at higher speed (full motoring speed). Or maybe not, we don't know.
Moreover for this thread, we don't know where on the road those collisions happened - how many rear-ended cyclists were in the middle of the lane (and why were they there - turning right, etc?), how many in the gutter, how many in the left wheel track, etc.
As matt points out, we don't know and probably never will how many of those rear-endings were deliberate (if any).
Finally, we don't even know what counts as being hit from behind. If a motorist going the same direction as a cyclist hits a pannier or handlebar, perhaps with a door mirror or other projection, does that count as being hit from behind seeing as the vehicles were actually alongside each other at the time?
-
It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.
This might not be a common crash scenario but the severity is significant.
-
It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.
This might not be a common crash scenario but the severity is significant.
OK.
But:
- dozey drivers drift about, so have quite a good chance of hitting a gutter-hugger too.
- The more visible you are, the less likely a SMIDSY is (can anyone dispute this?!?). So assertive positioning will help you out.
Although neither of us can quantfy these two effects, your unverified view doesn't make me think that centre-of-lane is any more dangerous than gutter-hugging.
If other readers want to conclude it IS more dangerous, well ... I can't really stop you. Fear isn't always rational.
Why aren't we recommending our loved ones DRIVE in the gutter; it can't be very healthy being SMIDSYed even inside a cage. Can it?
-
It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.
It's my view that they're even more likely to accidentally hit a cyclist in the secondary position from behind. Drivers very often need to steer right a bit to overtake a cyclist in the secondary position, so they would hit them if they didn't see them. A cyclist in the primary position is more visable, so is more likely to be noticed in the first place.
-
To clarify: the secondary position is not in the gutter. It's at least a bit right of the gutter. This position on a lot of roads - most roads in some areas - is not left of where cars normally ocupy in the inside lane. Its about in line with the car's left headlight.
I don't think anyone here is advocating riding literally in the gutter to minimise the chance of getting hit. To do that it'd be better to get up on the pavement, or preferably stay at home.
No, we've got to take some risk to cycle on the roads at all. I reckon the risk of getting hit accidentally is greater in secondary, and the risk of getting hit deliberately is greater in primary if you do it too much. So it's a matter of balancing these risks according to each situation.
-
Severity vs likelihood. When 100 dopey drivers pass you:
In gutter, nothing happens. You then go over the bars when your front wheel gets swallowed in a drain.
In secondary, 50 steer round you successfully, 50 graze you with their mirrors, making you wobble and fall.
In primary, 99 slow down and wait, 1 ploughs into you at 60mph.
we're faced with this type of choice all the time, not just on the roads.
-
In secondary, 50 steer round you successfully, 50 graze you with their mirrors, making you wobble and fall.
WRONG. You seem to be assuming that secondary is never in line with anything right of the wing mirror. Please see Reply #98.
-
Eh? If you're riding in line with a car's left headlight, why can't some steer round you and some fail to do so?
Ok, I see what you're thinking. I guess what I wrote was slightly ambiguous. The key word is "successfully". They all steer, but some are so dozy they only notice you too late to steer enough.
-
Watch cars in front of you in a typical inside lane (ie not especially wide). Where are they usually driving? Where you will be in a few seconds when you're in SECONDARY position. Where you will be seriously injured or killed if they don't see you when they're doing 30mph, let alone 60.
-
For the record, in line with cars' kerb-side wheel tracks is my usual riding position, certainly in Poland - it's especially obvious there due to the indentations often caused by soft tar and overloaded lorries.
-
Just to finish clarifying my point (in case anyone else doesn't get it):
The only reasons I don't use primary all the time is because I don't want to be selfish all the time, and because it may encourage someone to hit me deliberately if I carry on for too long. Otherwise I would use it all the time.
-
Severity vs likelihood. When 100 dopey drivers pass you:
In gutter, nothing happens. You then go over the bars when your front wheel gets swallowed in a drain.
In secondary, 50 steer round you successfully, 50 graze you with their mirrors, making you wobble and fall. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 will graze your arm with a mirror.
In primary, 99 slow down and wait, 1 ploughs into you at 60mph. More like 1 in 10,000,000 might plough into you.
we're faced with this type of choice all the time, not just on the roads.
-
The only reasons I don't use primary all the time is because I don't want to be selfish all the time, and because it may encourage someone to hit me deliberately if I carry on for too long. Otherwise I would use it all the time.
For myself, my default position is to ride just to the right of the middle of the lane, around the right tyre track. In the ideal world I would do this 100% of the time.
In reality I modify this position based on a variety of factors. For instance, if I see a vehicle behind me and I'm on a normal sort of two lane road, I move left to the point that it still isn't possible to overtake without using the oncoming lane. This 'shows willing' (although it doesn't actually help the motorist to pass). On a road with steady traffic the implication is that I ride here almost all of the time, which is true.
If there is a solid stream of oncoming traffic such that I'm going to be blocking the car(s) behind for too long (a subjective judgement based on how long I think their patience with being safe and responsible will last) I then look for a place to pull over to let them past. I see this is a good exchange for blocking them when I'm moving.
I think 1:10,000 and 1:10,000,000 are still gross exaggerations BTW. I'm sure that on a long audax something like a thousand vehicles must overtake me (so between a field of 30, that's 30,000 passes). I've never been on an audax where someone was clipped by a car.
-
If there is a solid stream of oncoming traffic such that I'm going to be blocking the car(s) behind for too long (a subjective judgement based on how long I think their patience with being safe and responsible will last) I then look for a place to pull over to let them past. I see this is a good exchange for blocking them when I'm moving.
Sounds entirely sensible to me. It's pretty much what caravanners are expected to do.
Motorists don't moan about how caravanistes should drive in the gutter, allowing motor vehicles to overtake without slowing down.
-
Motorists don't moan about how caravanistes should drive in the gutter, allowing motor vehicles to overtake without slowing down.
Is this sarcasm? ;D
-
Motorists don't moan about how caravanistes should drive in the gutter, allowing motor vehicles to overtake without slowing down.
Is this sarcasm? ;D
I hope so.
-
Motorists don't moan about how caravanistes should drive in the gutter, allowing motor vehicles to overtake without slowing down.
Is this sarcasm? ;D
Well motorists don't expect them to drive in the gutter, do they?
(I'm not sure sarcasm is the right word - like 'irony', people seem to apply many different meanings. )
-
Motorists don't moan about how caravanistes should drive in the gutter, allowing motor vehicles to overtake without slowing down.
Indeed they don't.
They just prefer that caravanistes aren't on the road, full stop. ;)
-
Here's one very good reason for taking the lane, even the bus lane:
http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=50481.0
-
A friend and member of our club commitee was in the papers this week, knocked off by a bus. Grazes/bruises only, but could have been much worse.
The bus caught the end of his flat-bars while overtaking on a narrow road (barely 2-lane), having waited behind for about 1/4 mile.
Clearly the driver was attempting to overtake without contact, but misjudged it. Had Jon ridden further out, I very much doubt he would have been injured.
-
he could have stopped and let the bus past;
I do the same on very narrow lanes where drivers have patiently waited behind me for a few hundred yeards
-
he could have stopped and let the bus past;
I do the same on very narrow lanes where drivers have patiently waited behind me for a few hundred yeards
He could have. Personally I think the world would be a better place if all cyclists took the lane at all times. Then we wouldn't be living in a society that believes faster always takes priority and all others must get out of the way.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
-
And conversely, next time a cyclist meekly lets the more powerful members of society bulldoze past, think of the next cyclist he meets after that subservient, cap-doffing behaviour.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
I would tend to agree. If it's a bus and it's been stuck behind me for a while, then I tend to let them past. I like to encourage people on public transport.
If it's somebody on their own in their WankPanzer then sod 'em... :demon:
-
he could have stopped and let the bus past;
I do the same on very narrow lanes where drivers have patiently waited behind me for a few hundred yeards
Not knowing the specific situation mattc refers to, I can only comment generally. Pulling in to make it easy for a driver to pass is considered excellent Cyclecraft in the appropriate situation. Here's an example - and it's the sort of thing I imagine the majority of yacfers would do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYBiB6oCSY
Taking the lane when needed, and also pulling left to allow traffic past when appropriate and safe is all good riding. Still so against Cyclecraft, Martin?
-
And conversely, next time a cyclist meekly lets the more powerful members of society bulldoze past, think of the next cyclist he meets after that subservient, cap-doffing behaviour.
That's a fair point. I think that perhaps being assertive where necessary, and yet making it easy for drivers to pass when it's safe to do so, should negate this. I'm thinking about situations where it's obvious you're taking the lane, and then also obvious that once the hazard is passed you're also taking the driver's wishes into consideration. What do you think?
-
he could have stopped and let the bus past;
I do the same on very narrow lanes where drivers have patiently waited behind me for a few hundred yeards
Not knowing the specific situation mattc refers to, I can only comment generally. Pulling in to make it easy for a driver to pass is considered excellent Cyclecraft in the appropriate situation.
Yes - and the appropriate situation was 100m further down the road, exiting the village; where the road widens considerably and becomes national speed limit!
I've driven through that village - it's very rare to manage 30mph safely except with no other traffic/pedestrians about.
Nevertheless, I find it educational that the driver did not deliberately attack the rider with his bus, despite his immense frustration at this selfish slow road-user.
[Aside; I'm much more generous to buses than Wankpanzers etc too - but that doesn't equate to leaping onto the pavement as soon as they approach.]
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
-
The only way I can imagine it to be safe NEVER to take the lane (on a typical mixture of roads) is to often pull over to stop and wait for a safe opportunity to continue in the 'secondary' position. That would be selfless to an unreasonable extent. That would be all give rather than give and take.
If you never do that, and never take the lane, then you are risking your life. As already mentioned many times, you have to find a balance between being assertive and defensive. You can judge the risks as you do it.
-
And conversely, next time a cyclist meekly lets the more powerful members of society bulldoze past, think of the next cyclist he meets after that subservient, cap-doffing behaviour.
That's a fair point. I think that perhaps being assertive where necessary, and yet making it easy for drivers to pass when it's safe to do so, should negate this. I'm thinking about situations where it's obvious you're taking the lane, and then also obvious that once the hazard is passed you're also taking the driver's wishes into consideration. What do you think?
Yes, that's what I think. Then a cheery wave to say thanks for waiting. Just like a passing place road.
-
Cyclists right to take the lane? I think it's the cyclists responsibility to take the lane (where necessary).
Many people find driving quite difficult. Especially in unusual situations - unfortunately, in most of the country nowadays, sharing the road with a cyclist is an unusual situation. Any help you can give them is greatly appreciated. If they are unsure whether they can pass they will have to think and make a decision (and with the pressure not to dither, they will usually make the wrong decision). If you make eye contact, signal clearly, move into a blocking position, you have made their decision for them. They don't have to think. They don't have the pressure from behind - look it's not my fault there's a cyclist clearly in the way.
And they love it. They really do.
When I pull back in, I give a clear "thanks" signal as they pass. They love the praise of their driving skills, the acknowlegement of their good deed, or something. Whatever it is, they lap it up, they wave thanks, the passengers too, flash lights, alternate indicators, thumbs up, and all smiles. And this is from drivers I'm certain would have tried to squeeze past if they'd been given the choice.
The signalling is so important. Without that you are a "crazy cyclist all over the road". You are a bloody-minded cyclist who doesn't give a toss about holding up the cars. With it you have made a deliberate move, for a purpose. You have shown you know you are holding them up briefly, and that you appreciate it.
Case in point. After reading some of the comments on this thread I wondered if my riding style is inconsiderate, pig-headed perhaps. On the way home I rode like most other cyclists. The first roundabout I got to there was a car approaching from behind - I'm well out from the gutter, but I didn't signal or try to control the driver behind. Sure enough they overtook entering the roundabout (there are two lanes in so easy to do). But as anyone here knows, a car has to slow on the roundabout, so they are still alongside at the exit, where they promptly pass inches from the kerb. I know it's coming, so a bit of hard braking but no harm done. But why the fuck should I have to? I was in front so why should I have to slam on my brakes for someone who isn't capable of working out how to go round another, moving, road user? If they'd slowed slightly on seeing me, and followed me on to the roundabout, they'd have exited a fraction of a second later, doing the same speed. Then next morning I have a lorry driver going to overtake when there's less than a trailer length between me an the pinch point. He then goes apeshit at me for being in the way! If I'd done the usual indicate, take the dead centre, move back and thank, he'd have lapped it up.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
out of interest; who pays for that road? (yes I know the RFL was abolished in 1936 but I also don't believe all that resurfacing is done purely for the benefit of cyclists)
if we set oursleves up as confronting motorists rather than making ourselves visible and vulnerable and also treating motorists with the respect we'd like to have reciprocated respect then it's just increasing the hostility that exists towards us in many circles.
I'm rapidly losing the will to live with this thread; it seems the only thing some of us share in common is the number of wheels on our steeds (mostly)
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
out of interest; who pays for that road?
Are you a Top Gear cager trolling the forum? Did you seriously just say that? Everyone pays for the roads, regardless of whether they own cars, bicycles, or whatever.
-
I don't want to make myself vulnerable. Taking the lane is an effective way of making yourself visible, and does not cause hostility to any reasonable driver when used sparingly. If you worry about a speck of hostility from bastards then don't cycle on the roads at all because they don't even like you riding in the gutter. "Get off the road, you bloody cyclist. You don't pay road tax. Fuck off".
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
-
I'm sorry to say I had 'that' conversation (I didn't bring it up :hand:) with people at work last week.
All the usual "I hate it when cyclists don't stay in the cycle lane" followed by "You don't pay road tax", all the cliches came out.
Later the guy that sits behind me proudly announced that when he encouters cyclists riding two abreast he intentionally passes as close as he can because if they hit him (!) it's them that will get hurt and it'll be their own fault.
I had to turn round and get on with my work in silence as I was starting to worry I might do something to jeopardise my job.
I need to clock this sort of conversation as it is forming and go get a cup of tea or something. I really go off people as soon as this conversation comes up and I never realise in time to put a cap on my temper and end up not reacting the way I wished I had in retrospect. It's hard not to take it personally.
:-X
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
out of interest; who pays for that road? (yes I know the RFL was abolished in 1936 but I also don't believe all that resurfacing is done purely for the benefit of cyclists)
Well, let's look at the options:
the drivers of VED-exempt vehicles, or
the 10% of drivers who evade VED/insurance/MOTs.
Or perhaps it's the pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers who pay their taxes.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
if we set oursleves up as confronting motorists rather than making ourselves visible and vulnerable and also treating motorists with the respect we'd like to have reciprocated respect then it's just increasing the hostility that exists towards us in many circles.
I'm rapidly losing the will to live with this thread; it seems the only thing some of us share in common is the number of wheels on our steeds (mostly)
On this one I completely agree with you. It's totally out of order to unnecessarily hold someone up by asserting the "right" to take the lane. It's give and take - I expect drivers to have to wait a little rather than plough through regardless, and in return I will let them past as soon as possible. For the former, most drivers can't work it out for themselves so you have to take the lane. Eventually they will learn. For the latter, just how much of a problem is it?
I remember the first ever audax ride I went on - and almost the last having witnessed the behaviour of many of the "experienced" riders. On a single-track road when a car came up behind, I carried on to the next passing point and pulled in. The experienced audaxers carried on down the middle of the road. FCOL, it was a nine hour ride, what's the problem of a couple of seconds to let someone past?
-
I remember the first ever audax ride I went on - and almost the last having witnessed the behaviour of many of the "experienced" riders. On a single-track road when a car came up behind, I carried on to the next passing point and pulled in. The experienced audaxers carried on down the middle of the road. FCOL, it was a nine hour ride, what's the problem of a couple of seconds to let someone past?
This is rather like letting a car pass so it can join a queue 100m ahead of you.
Alternatively, you might consider how often motorists stop to allow faster cars past.
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
And income tax etc.
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
Actually, most roads are paid for out of central taxation, albeit that the money may be given to local authorities to spend. The income from council tax would only pay for a fraction of the local road network - and local councils have more than just roads to pay for with their income from council tax.
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
Actually, most roads are paid for out of central taxation, albeit that the money may be given to local authorities to spend. The income from council tax would only pay for a fraction of the local road network - and local councils have more than just roads to pay for with their income from council tax.
the point I was making; the income from cyclists would be a similar drop in the ocean compared to that from motorists via their fuel and VED duty.
anyone who thinks roads are primarily maintained for other than high volume motorised traffic needs to change their glasses from rose-tinted. Everyone who uses them needs to be treated with respect irrespective of how much they pay. When I'm out on my bike I'm not driving one of my 2 cars that I pay rather a lot of tax to run; I fully acknowledge the right of any road user to that road irrespective of how much tax they pay; vehicle use - derived or not.
-
the point I was making; the income from cyclists would be a similar drop in the ocean compared to that from motorists via their fuel and VED duty.
Many motorists pay a lot less of the above than the average non-car driver pays in taxation. Should we treat them differently?
How about the cost to the NHS of all those road deaths and injuries?
anyone who thinks roads are primarily maintained for other than high volume motorised traffic needs to change their glasses from rose-tinted.
Of course roads were first tarmacced for cyclists. And wear-and-tear due to cyclists is about a zillionth of that caused by cars. So you should probably get some figures together before following this gambit through.
Everyone who uses them needs to be treated with respect irrespective of how much they pay.
How many posters on this thread have said otherwise? I'm not out to inconvenience motorists - merely to cover as many miles as them between fatal injuries.
-
I remember the first ever audax ride I went on - and almost the last having witnessed the behaviour of many of the "experienced" riders. On a single-track road when a car came up behind, I carried on to the next passing point and pulled in. The experienced audaxers carried on down the middle of the road. FCOL, it was a nine hour ride, what's the problem of a couple of seconds to let someone past?
This is rather like letting a car pass so it can join a queue 100m ahead of you.
Alternatively, you might consider how often motorists stop to allow faster cars past.
That is more of an urban setting though Matt, if it was in the countryside and I was on a pootle (group or non-group) then I would pull in. Like Jake I would not want to unnecessarily hold them up. A lot of people that are driving around there are just going about their business whereas I'm just having a pootle. I've seen plenty of occasions where cars and other vehicles have stopped to let a group of us pass. It is courteous :)
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
I do. It's my own, personal road.
At least, it used to be. The house I grew up in was on an 'unadopted' road. Each of the twelve households along it was responsible for maintaining the stretch of road along the width of their property to its midpoint.
As for all this cap-doffing and inconveniencing - it's all bollocks. Give and take. Let faster traffic past when it is safe and does not unduly inconvenience you. They should make way for you when they are held up in traffic, or whatever. Many do not, but whose standards do you want to ride by?
-
...
I remember the first ever audax ride I went on - and almost the last having witnessed the behaviour of many of the "experienced" riders.
That is more of an urban setting though Matt, if it was in the countryside and I was on a pootle (group or non-group) then I would pull in. Like Jake I would not want to unnecessarily hold them up. A lot of people that are driving around there are just going about their business whereas I'm just having a pootle. I've seen plenty of occasions where cars and other vehicles have stopped to let a group of us pass. It is courteous :)
Oh sure, I do pull in when it will benefit someone else more than the cost to me.
But think about Jake's scenario - he would need to make sure that everyone in the group was happy to pull in, or there is no point. Each rider that lets the car by will probably then just get stuck behind the car. From his wording, more cyclists would be delayed than car users.
And if it was a narrow lane, the driver might:
- not be able to make much speed anyway, or
- have to stop for oncoming motorised traffic soon enough.
It's also a brave assumption that an impatient driver is undertaking an important journey.
So there are many variables; I think Jake is having an unjustified pot at that particular group of riders, for no good reason.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
out of interest; who pays for that road?
Are you a Top Gear cager trolling the forum? Did you seriously just say that? Everyone pays for the roads, regardless of whether they own cars, bicycles, or whatever.
Not only that, but most roads were Tarmac'd at the insistence of cyclists (at that time mostly middle class or aristocratic) in the late 19th century.
-
I'm sorry to say I had 'that' conversation (I didn't bring it up :hand:) with people at work last week.
All the usual "I hate it when cyclists don't stay in the cycle lane" followed by "You don't pay road tax", all the cliches came out.
Later the guy that sits behind me proudly announced that when he encouters cyclists riding two abreast he intentionally passes as close as he can because if they hit him (!) it's them that will get hurt and it'll be their own fault.
I had to turn round and get on with my work in silence as I was starting to worry I might do something to jeopardise my job.
I need to clock this sort of conversation as it is forming and go get a cup of tea or something. I really go off people as soon as this conversation comes up and I never realise in time to put a cap on my temper and end up not reacting the way I wished I had in retrospect. It's hard not to take it personally.
:-X
Just leave a copy of the Highway code on his desk.
Or arrange for him to receive spam and junk mail from driving schools.
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
Actually, most roads are paid for out of central taxation, albeit that the money may be given to local authorities to spend. The income from council tax would only pay for a fraction of the local road network - and local councils have more than just roads to pay for with their income from council tax.
the point I was making; the income from cyclists would be a similar drop in the ocean compared to that from motorists via their fuel and VED duty.
anyone who thinks roads are primarily maintained for other than high volume motorised traffic needs to change their glasses from rose-tinted.
Does all this also apply to drivers of VED-exempt vehicles - electric, hybrid or just low-emission ICE'd vehicles? Should they give way to clapped-out white vans trailing a plume of unburnt diesel?
-
Let's get on the pavements to minimise inconvenience to motorists and abuse of their "road tax".
-
out of interest; who pays for that road?
We all do.
I don't!
Apart from motorways and some trunk roads, the roads are paid for out of council tax.
Actually, most roads are paid for out of central taxation, albeit that the money may be given to local authorities to spend. The income from council tax would only pay for a fraction of the local road network - and local councils have more than just roads to pay for with their income from council tax.
the point I was making; the income from cyclists would be a similar drop in the ocean compared to that from motorists via their fuel and VED duty.
anyone who thinks roads are primarily maintained for other than high volume motorised traffic needs to change their glasses from rose-tinted.
Does all this also apply to drivers of VED-exempt vehicles - electric, hybrid or just low-emission ICE'd vehicles? Should they give way to clapped-out white vans trailing a plume of unburnt diesel?
Well yes of course, because your WVM, unlike us sponging non 'road tax' paying cyclists is paying VAT and income tax and is using his road for commercial use.
-
Let's get on the pavements to minimise inconvenience to motorists and abuse of their "road tax".
show me some pavements around here and I will
-
Ah, you mustn't cycle at all then. You will be annoying motorists at times even when riding at the far left side of the road.
That too silly? So is NEVER taking the lane, in my opinion.
-
Let's get on the pavements to minimise inconvenience to motorists and abuse of their "road tax".
show me some pavements around here and I will
Did you see my comments about your suggested riding being very good Cyclecraft? Is that fair comment?
-
Ah, you mustn't cycle at all then
aw you got me sussed; I am as was suggested just a Top Gear troll..
Did you see my comments about your suggested riding being very good Cyclecraft? Is that fair comment?
Mikey; my suggested riding might well be good Cyclecraft; it also might be just common sense and experience. I confess I'm not a book person and have never read Cyclecraft; I've just had it rammed down my throat by several years of cycle forums. But when I read something that sounds like bollocks (ie riding in the same position in the road as the driver of a RHD car unless I've got it wrong) I reserve the right to call it bollocks; that's all.
-
I don't; it's about sharing the road and avoiding unneccessary conflict. Next time you take the lane and wind up a driver who would like to be able to drive at more than cycling speed (espcially uphill) spare athought for the next cyclist he meets...
Kow-towing to cars is not 'sharing' the road. It's giving up the road.
out of interest; who pays for that road?
Are you a Top Gear cager trolling the forum? Did you seriously just say that? Everyone pays for the roads, regardless of whether they own cars, bicycles, or whatever.
Not only that, but most roads were Tarmac'd at the insistence of cyclists (at that time mostly middle class or aristocratic) in the late 19th century.
Actually cyclists were probably happy without tarred roads. The existing system of MacAdamised roads still works well enought on the Channel Island of Sark, which has no cars.
Tarring was introduced because car users were causing a problem for others due to the dust clouds they created. That was a 20th century issue. The excise duty that was then levied on cars was simply to pay for the work needed to tar the highways to stop a serious nuisance that the car drivers caused.
I wish we could find some equally appropriate solutions to the other nuisances that car usage causes in the 21st century.
-
Mikey; my suggested riding might well be good Cyclecraft; it also might be just common sense and experience. I confess I'm not a book person and have never read Cyclecraft; I've just had it rammed down my throat by several years of cycle forums. But when I read something that sounds like bollocks (ie riding in the same position in the road as the driver of a RHD car unless I've got it wrong) I reserve the right to call it bollocks; that's all.
Phew, I was beginning to think I'd annoyed you and you put me on your ignore list. If you've not read cyclecraft, then it's easy to get the wrong perception. Cyclecraft is acknowledged by all the experts, published by the govt. stationery office and recommended by RoSPA.
So a different question - do you never take the lane, or occasionally? What about when turning right? Do you wait for a space at the nearside before crossing the road?
-
when turning right I use what was taught me in my Cycling Proficiency 40 years ago; look behind, wait for a safe gap in the the traffic and move assertively and with good hand signals into the right hand side of the lane and hold the position until you turn. It's probably the best cycling training I ever had (ie saying "here I am" not "fuck you")
one thing I never agreed with in my CP was the need to wave your L arm up and down when slowing down (especially as that was also your front brake arm)
-
Ah, so you do take the lane sometimes, and hold it against traffic behind.
I thought it was waving your right arm up and down for slowing down? Cyclecraft/Bikeability agrees with you - nowadays they teach just to signal left if you're pulling in to stop at the kerb.
-
Ah, so you do take the lane sometimes, and hold it against traffic behind.
I thought it was waving your right arm up and down for slowing down? Cyclecraft/Bikeability agrees with you - nowadays they teach just to signal left if you're pulling in to stop at the kerb.
It was definititely wave right arm up and down to indicate "I am slowing down" when I did my cycling proficiency 25+ years ago. Can't remember whether signalling left was taught just for turning and/or pulling in to stop, but the "lifesaver" look behind was drilled in big time.
-
Mikey; my suggested riding might well be good Cyclecraft; it also might be just common sense and experience. I confess I'm not a book person and have never read Cyclecraft; I've just had it rammed down my throat by several years of cycle forums. But when I read something that sounds like bollocks (ie riding in the same position in the road as the driver of a RHD car unless I've got it wrong) I reserve the right to call it bollocks; that's all.
Yes, you got it wrong. It's riding in the middle of the lane for SOME of the time. Only SOME of the time, for certain situations.
The name "primary position" does cause confusion. The author's purpose for the term is that this should be the default position unless it's safe to ride at the left of the lane, the "secondary" position. It's a bit misleading, but the idea is to encourage cyclists to be confident.
-
Ah, so you do take the lane sometimes, and hold it against traffic behind.
I thought it was waving your right arm up and down for slowing down? Cyclecraft/Bikeability agrees with you - nowadays they teach just to signal left if you're pulling in to stop at the kerb.
It was definititely wave right arm up and down to indicate "I am slowing down" when I did my cycling proficiency 25+ years ago. Can't remember whether signalling left was taught just for turning and/or pulling in to stop, but the "lifesaver" look behind was drilled in big time.
Extending and moving the right arm up and down means 'slowing or turning left'. This used to be taught to drivers as well as cyclists. The reason for it is that if you indicate left with the left arm on a bicycle then you only have a hand on the right brake lever. The reason in a car is that people will see your arm out of the off-side window but they probably won't see you point left with your left arm.
-
I thought for drivers that slowing down was up and down and turning left was arm moved in a circle.
-
I thought for drivers that slowing down was up and down and turning left was arm moved in a circle.
Correct.
1972 Highway Code shows car driver making a circular movement for turning left or moving in to the left, and an up and down movement to indicate slowing down or stopping. Up and down also applies to cyclists. The right arm is used in each case.
-
On the super-rare occasion that the up-and-down signal might have been useful for me whilst cycling, I simply haven't bothered because I bet 99% of other road users won't know what on earth I'm doing, despite drivers supposedly knowing the Highway Code.
Normally I just signal left (when wanting to stop), like buses do for a bus stop, which I'm happy to do with my left arm.
(Edit in purple)
-
What about when turning right? Do you wait for a space at the nearside before crossing the road?
Props for a genuinely cunning question. This is a good way to separate people who genuinely don't believe in assertive positioning from those who do, but may not realise they do (or just don't like to be told they're obeying a cycling manual).
One thing which amuses me is that sometimes you'll meet someone on the road who trashes Cyclecraft, but the next minute they do a textbook Cyclecraft manouvre ("oh, that's just common sense, not cyclecraft" ::-) )
-
On the super-rare occasion that the up-and-down signal might have been useful for me whilst cycling, I simply haven't bothered because I bet 99% of other road users won't know what on earth I'm doing, despite drivers supposedly knowing the Highway Code.
I found that a few weeks ago when I signalled to indicate to a car behind that we should both slow for a horse ahead. He drew alongside me and made a face like he was about to produce a foot wide turd, then sped off and braked suddenly when he finally saw the horse.
-
One thing which amuses me is that sometimes you'll meet someone on the road who trashes Cyclecraft, but the next minute they do a textbook Cyclecraft manouvre ("oh, that's just common sense, not cyclecraft"
I read Cyclecraft about 15 years ago by which time I'd already been club riding etc for 30 years. I remember thinking in many places "that is just what I already do". Much of it really is the common sense brought on by experience. I also remember the thought provoking parts such as how it is as important to be perceived as a pedal cycle as it is to be seen. i.e single headlight.
-
What about when turning right? Do you wait for a space at the nearside before crossing the road?
Props for a genuinely cunning question. This is a good way to separate people who genuinely don't believe in assertive positioning from those who do, but may not realise they do (or just don't like to be told they're obeying a cycling manual).
One thing which amuses me is that sometimes you'll meet someone on the road who trashes Cyclecraft, but the next minute they do a textbook Cyclecraft manouvre ("oh, that's just common sense, not cyclecraft" ::-) )
re-arrange these words into a well known phrase:
Eggs
Suck
Grandmother
Teach
Sensible cycle training was around decades before Cyclecraft,
FWIW AIUI the right turning was about getting into a safe position to maneouvre; quite often drivers will pass me on the left as I'm doing it; that's not holding the lane is being in a safe position in the road. If the driver is doing 30 or more when I intend to turn I'll think twice before putting myself in that part of the road
-
Thanks, EF, but I wasn't trying to sucker Martin. He's a great rider and a great person, and that's why I find it all the more surprising that he has such a chip on his shoulder about Cyclecraft. Unjustified, IMO.
-
Sensible cycle training was around decades before Cyclecraft
Martin, we're agreeing with that. We're just referring to Cycraft because it handily saves a lot of words. Please read the following.....
I remember thinking in many places "that is just what I already do". Much of it really is the common sense brought on by experience.
Same for me too. I only read the book a very few years ago. It's almost exactly what I do already - but I didn't start like that. It took some years for me to develop good technique, via learning from mistakes and near misses. Cyclecraft should be good for beginners so that they don't have to learn the hard way.
I'm not completely happy with the "primary" term though (despite using it myself on this forum because most of us here know what it means). It's giving those who haven't read the book the wrong impression.
I fully support any cyclist in doing things their own way (within reason) - but that doesn't stop me worrying about them, hence the encouragement to use primary for SOME of the time, and not just when turning right.
-
On the super-rare occasion that the up-and-down signal might have been useful for me whilst cycling, I simply haven't bothered because I bet 99% of other road users won't know what on earth I'm doing, despite drivers supposedly knowing the Highway Code.
Normally I just signal left, like buses do for a bus stop, which I'm happy to do with my left arm.
I find it's readily understood. I make it not with an even waggle but a repeated pushing-down motion. Generally it's useful on steep downhills where I'm in primary, and want the vehicle behind to keep its distance as I slow---perhaps because I'm coming up on a slow vehicle which I wouldn't be able to keep ahead of on the next uphill. Or if there's a hazard that the car behind can't yet see (a queue just after a hairpin, most recently). Signing left would give exactly the wrong message. In a car you'd use right indicator + brakes, or hazards.
-
Sensible cycle training was around decades before Cyclecraft,
Yes, of course it was, but don't you think it's a good idea that someone has taken the the trouble to put all that collected wisdom into an easily readable book? Not everyone has access to grizzled old cycle campaigners.
-
Signing left would give exactly the wrong message.
Yes, sorry, I was purely thinking of when slowing down and stopping when I mentioned signalling left. I don't signal left when I'm carrying on. I don't signal then at all. I just slow down.
-
The 'slowing down' wave, used with the left arm, is useful when in a group of cyclists. It's probably redundant/obsolete otherwise.
-
On the super-rare occasion that the up-and-down signal might have been useful for me whilst cycling, I simply haven't bothered because I bet 99% of other road users won't know what on earth I'm doing, despite drivers supposedly knowing the Highway Code.
I found that a few weeks ago when I signalled to indicate to a car behind that we should both slow for a horse ahead. He drew alongside me and made a face like he was about to produce a foot wide turd, then sped off and braked suddenly when he finally saw the horse.
A signal that people do usually understand is to hold your arm out the window, palm back.
That could save the next horse a scare.
Hand signals, just like other road signs, are pretty useless unless they are intuitive.
-
The 'slowing down' wave, used with the left arm, is useful when in a group of cyclists. It's probably redundant/obsolete otherwise.
I'd completely forgotten about it until my son took his CP; I of course meant left arm as that would be very silly for me as that's what operates my front brake!
-
One other aspect of this occurred to me today - potholes. Not only do they tend to be most numerous nearer the edge, but if you are say 50cm out and one is in your line that is too big to go over, you have no option but to divert outwards, whereas if you are say 1m out you have a choice of going round on either side.