Dumbass cyclist morons who overtake traffic on the left

[Herbsman.]

F*cking muppets

Their idiotic left-hand side overtakement means that motorists usually pull over to the right to let them past - that is, IF they see them coming. Which means us sensible right-hand side overtakers have no room to safely overtake, no, we have to move into the oncoming traffic, risk getting mashed up just cos some divvy doesn't know how to ride a bike in traffic properly!

Not only do they put themselves and other cyclists in more danger than necessary, they make it harder for motorists to spot them.

 

[rich!]

F*cking muppets

Their idiotic left-hand side overtakement means that motorists usually pull over to the right to let them past - that is, IF they see them coming. Which means us sensible right-hand side overtakers have no room to safely overtake, no, we have to move into the oncoming traffic, risk getting mashed up just cos some divvy doesn't know how to ride a bike in traffic properly!

Not only do they put themselves and other cyclists in more danger than necessary, they make it harder for motorists to spot them.

'S all right in the balance though: their life expectancy is "till the next lorry decides to turn left next to railings"...

 

[Crispy]

Safest place relative to a bus/lorry

Behind
Infront
To the right
To the left

Most dangerous place relative to a bus/lorry

Unless traffic is stationary (and you can guaruntee it being so while you navigate the dangerous part)

 

[Chow Yun-Fat]

Take a knife and kill them all. Or just let it go maybe: lots of cyclists aren't confident enough to go up the middle, or just too slow and shopperish. I take your point but it's not going to change.

I think it's questionable whether it's correct to cycle up the middle past stationary traffic - motorbikes won't thank you for it, for sure. My view was that it was ok if you're getting on with it, but not at 5mph.

I dunno. If cyclists did anything consistently it would be an improvement. (I'm an ex-cycle courier and driver, scooterist and cyclist by the way, so no anti-bike agenda)

 

[Herbsman.]

I think it's questionable whether it's correct to cycle up the middle past stationary traffic - motorbikes won't thank you for it, for sure. My view was that it was ok if you're getting on with it, but not at 5mph.

That's why you're supposed to keep checking behind you. I do that all the time when I'm overtaking (or doing whatever other manouvre), and always move in to the left to let a motorbike come past if one is coming.

To be honest though it's usually the other way around, motorcycles usually stop me from overtaking stationary traffic on my bike, because they're too wide to fit through the gap between two lanes.

 

[Crispy]

That's why you're supposed to keep checking behind you. I do that all the time when I'm overtaking (or doing whatever other manouvre), and always move in to the left to let a motorbike come past if one is coming.

To be honest though it's usually the other way around, motorcycles usually stop me from overtaking stationary traffic on my bike, because they're too wide to fit through the gap between two lanes.

A pet peeve of mine too.
"You're not going to fit through that gap, so why ride right up to it and block it??!!? Aaargh!"

 

[Herbsman.]

Innit!

 

[gentlegreen]

Hear hear.

I won't even do it to get to the cyclists advance box with the lights safely on red.

Then you get the twats who cycle the wrong side of bollards.

.

 

[Chow Yun-Fat]

Cos they're twats - I find that's usually true of everyone on the road except me. The strange thing is that everyone else says that too.

To be fair, you're talking about London traffic riding, which isn't really representative of most roads.

But fair play to any cyclist who looks around regularly.

 

[Herbsman.]

Cos they're twats - I find that's usually true of everyone on the road except me. The strange thing is that everyone else says that too.

To be fair, you're talking about London traffic riding, which isn't really representative of most roads.

But fair play to any cyclist who looks around regularly.

Others may be talking about London, but I'm talking about Birmin'am...

I must admit I do do some twattish things on my bike sometimes, I don't always ride like the perfect bike rider that's drawn in the Highway Code book, but... he's not even real. I have a whole load of excuses, but you don't wanna hear them and I can't be arsed to go into them.

 

[Chow Yun-Fat]

We all have excuses... that was my point really. No idea what Brum roads are like mind you.

 

[Wide Eyed Angel]

I don't mind cyclists undertaking me on the left [as long as they don't scratch my car!], I'd rather half expect to seem them riding up on the left than suddenly lurch out to overtake and probably not fast enough once traffic starts moving regularly again so they have to shifty over to the left.

 

[likesfish]

most of my commute in brighton is along a big cycle lane on the left hand side when its not blocked by a skip double parking twat or road works

 

[swampy]

F*cking muppets

Their idiotic left-hand side overtakement means that motorists usually pull over to the right to let them past - that is, IF they see them coming. Which means us sensible right-hand side overtakers have no room to safely overtake, no, we have to move into the oncoming traffic, risk getting mashed up just cos some divvy doesn't know how to ride a bike in traffic properly!

Not only do they put themselves and other cyclists in more danger than necessary, they make it harder for motorists to spot them.

I always overtake on the left (except for busses)

Don't see the problem really. Motorists never pull over to the right to give me more room either, if anything they gently glide to the left a little to cut me off.

 

[Maggot]

F*cking muppets

Their idiotic left-hand side overtakement means that motorists usually pull over to the right to let them past - that is, IF they see them coming. Which means us sensible right-hand side overtakers have no room to safely overtake, no, we have to move into the oncoming traffic, risk getting mashed up just cos some divvy doesn't know how to ride a bike in traffic properly!

Overtaking on a bike, on the right is not sensible. When the traffic starts moving again, you're stuck in the middle of the road and the cars then have to ovcertake you on the left.

Plus what Wide Eyed Angel says.

 

[gentlegreen]

I have two words for you :-

blind spot.

I hope you have very bright lights on your bike if you do it at night.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5282321&postcount=16

(this is my setup and I don't undertake.)

 

[gentlegreen]

Overtaking on a bike, on the right is not sensible. When the traffic starts moving again, you're stuck in the middle of the road and the cars then have to ovcertake you on the left.

Plus what Wide Eyed Angel says.

Are you 90 years old ??

 

[Maggot]

No, Why?

 

[gentlegreen]

Maybe it's because I learned my road craft on a motorcycle.

I would guess I actually overtake a lot less .. or rather my overtaking is almost exclusively of long queues of very static cars. I don't proceed unless I'm certain there's some point to it.

(I also don't jump red lights or use the pavement)

 

[scifisam]

I don't get it. You're supposed to cycle down the right hand side of cars? Even when there will be cars coming in the other direction in the lane that you're cycling down? Sounds suicidal. You'd be cycling against traffic. Plus, you'd also have to completely ignore cycle lanes.

I think I usually do overtake on the left, but I almost always ride in either practically no traffic or crawling traffic. When there's practically no traffic, I don't overtake at all; when there's crawling traffic, I overtake where it's possible to do so. which is on the left. How else am I supposed to do it?

 

[mauvais]

When in a stopped queue, I do both, and sometimes neither.

I think Maggot's right. When I think the lights are about to change, I stay behind, because I don't want to be stranded in the middle - there's an implication I'm going to turn right instead of move back across the traffic. It's not a question of speed or acceleration - more the risk of a driver setting off and not noticing what I'm going to do.

If I can make it on time on the right, I'll try to overtake and end up back on the left somehow.

If I can't do that, I will undertake on the left, until traffic starts moving again. I keep an eye out for who's indicating or likely to turn in. I don't undertake buses, more for fear of them opening the doors and me colliding with someone - plus there's little point as they'll have to overtake me again.

I don't think there's a particular correct thing to do - there are dangers everywhere, and ways to make yourself safer whatever you do.

 

[gentlegreen]

You don't do anything unless you're certain you have their attention.
(or at least are pretty certain of it)

Anyway it's your lives, Darwin rules OK.

 

[Maggot]

Maybe it's because I learned my road craft on a motorcycle.

I would guess I actually overtake a lot less .. or rather my overtaking is almost exclusively of long queues of very static cars. I don't proceed unless I'm certain there's some point to it.

What do you do when they start moving again?

 

[Herbsman.]

Overtaking on a bike, on the right is not sensible. When the traffic starts moving again, you're stuck in the middle of the road and the cars then have to ovcertake you on the left.

No. Once the trafic starts moving again, you signal to move left, back into the traffic.

I don't get it. You're supposed to cycle down the right hand side of cars?

Yes. Do you get it now?

Even when there will be cars coming in the other direction in the lane that you're cycling down? Sounds suicidal. You'd be cycling against traffic.

You're supposed overtake on the right. You're only supposed to overtake when it's safe to do so, otherwise you don't overtake at all.

If you're on a road with just one lane on each side, and the traffic is very slow in both directions, then it's no more dangerous to overtake on the right than it is on the left. If traffic is coming at normal speed towards you, at least you're visible to the cars that are coming towards you. If you overtake on the left, you're not very noticeable to drivers. Any one of them could pull over to the left without noticing you, sending you into the kerb... Have you ever driven a car by the way? If you have then surely you must realise how much more difficult it is to spot people trying to undertake you than it is to spot people trying to overtake you.

Plus, you'd also have to completely ignore cycle lanes.

Why? How do cycle lanes come into this? If there's a cycle lane on a road then you don't need to 'overtake' cars, because it's a seperate lane, that there are (hopefully) no cars in.

How else am I supposed to do it?

On the right, or not at all.

 

[nick1181]

I don't have any numbers on this, but from experience, I bet there are a lot more fatalities from cyclists overtaking in the middle of the road, into oncoming traffic than on the left - where (if they're overtaking) the traffic isn't actually going fast enough to kill them.

Overtaking on the right is a fuck of a lot more dangerous than overtaking on the left. I get the distinct impression that the reason motorists get angry is that they're frustrated by the fact that they have to queue up at lights etc whereas cyclists can go straight to the front. Driving in big cities is a stressful wind-up - and it's not because of cyclists, it's because there are too many cars.

re: OP - if a cyclist is overtaking on the left, you don't have to pull out to the right. Don't be daft. By the time a cyclist has decided to overtake, they've already judged that they can get through the gap - and it isn't dangerous because they're going fairly slowly relative to you.

 

[gentlegreen]

The other thing is that sometimes it's appropriate for cyclists to get in the way of cars. They don't own the road.

Survival is mostly about being noticed.

Ideally you need to see the whites of their eyes.

 

[gentlegreen]

Myth 3:

Cyclists should ride between the traffic and the pavement, even when there’s no cycle lane Undertaking is illegal by any vehicle. But it is a grey area: cycle lanes encourage cyclists to do it. If a car is in its lane, it doesn’t have to indicate if it starts drifting towards the kerb. Some would argue cars cannot be relied on to indicate when pulling or turning left, even when the cycle lane is clearly marked.

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/1704/3.html

 

[gentlegreen]

I don't have any numbers on this, but from experience, I bet there are a lot more fatalities from cyclists overtaking in the middle of the road, into oncoming traffic than on the left - where (if they're overtaking) the traffic isn't actually going fast enough to kill them..

Exactly ....

 

[Wolveryeti]

An interesting stance the OP has taken. I *always* hug the left hand side of the road, because that's where I feen safer. It makes sense to me because i'm only exposed to one lane of traffic instead of two (and an oncoming lane) if I were to overtake on the right.

 

[pk]

The other thing is that sometimes it's appropriate for cyclists to get in the way of cars. They don't own the road.

Survival is mostly about being noticed.

Ideally you need to see the whites of their eyes.

Yup, absolutely.

I'm of the firm belief that as a cyclist, in the city I actually have more right to the road than a car driver.... cycles were around way before the car.

The only time I'd give cars priority is on a motorway, they can have them - but the city is for pedestrians and bikes.