The compulsion to overtake. Why?

[Crispy]

I don't verbalise it. I just ride round in front and stop right in front of the car, look the driver in the eyes, look at the ASL, then look back at the driver, and then wait for the lights to go fully green before gently setting off.

 

[Pingu]

is it bad i want to fit spikes and scythes to my car now?

 

[ICB]

Round here cyclists can be seen two abreast on winding country lanes with 60mph limits, no traffic lights and light traffic. My guess is these are evangelistic city-dwelling cyclists who think they're making the same sort of point as the one made earlier on the thread, i.e. that they can decide whether or not they should be overtaken by riding two abreast.

Now I don't condone driving round these bends at 60mph but people do it all the time which is why I don't ride my bike on them at all.

It doesn't take a genius to work out what happens if two cars coming in opposite directions on narrow lanes coincide with a couple of cyclists riding two abreast around a bend.

Messy.

Defensive cycling is always in order, doesn't make much sense ending up dead to make a point.

 

[cybertect]

you've still got some idiot right up your backside who will do anything to get past you just so they can shoot on up to the traffic lights, stop, only to see you cycle by again as you catch up and go to the front of the queue.

An alternate theory:

The motorist is actually being considerate - not overtaking and driving behind a bicycle could be quite intimidating to a cyclist (it can me nervous if it happens when I'm on a bike). By passing you, he's avoiding that and allowing you to proceed at your own pace.

Does all depend on the particular circumstances, though.

 

[Herbsman.]

An alternate theory:

The motorist is actually being considerate - not overtaking and driving behind a bicycle could be quite intimidating to a cyclist (it can me nervous if it happens when I'm on a bike). By passing you, he's avoiding that and allowing you to proceed at your own pace.

Does all depend on the particular circumstances, though.

Interesting. I think you're right, from my experiences. I think it does help if someone overtakes me and then leaves room for me to pass, rather than hanging back and waiting behind me and making me feel like I'm holding them up. It just helps everything flow a bit more smoothly. As long as it's not done aggressively because of impatience then it's fine by me.

 

[gaijingirl]

An alternate theory:

The motorist is actually being considerate - not overtaking and driving behind a bicycle could be quite intimidating to a cyclist (it can me nervous if it happens when I'm on a bike). By passing you, he's avoiding that and allowing you to proceed at your own pace.

Does all depend on the particular circumstances, though.

I see what you're getting at and it's a good point but, it's usually quite easy to know though whether someone is being aggressive in their actions or helpful. Someone sitting right on your rear wheel, persistently making moves to try and overtake in unsuitable places, perhaps honking their horn or revving their engines is miles away from the considerate driver who has actually read the road ahead, realises he's heading towards a queue at a red light and sits well back and allows you to proceed at your own pace in the knowledge that it will make no difference to his own progress.

 

[MikeMcc]

It's not so much overtaking cyclists, but if space is limited then you MUSN'T do it at any great speed difference. I admit that I have overtaken cyclists in (relatively) tight spaces, but have kept my speed down. There's no excuse for not being able to react to a situation.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Defensive cycling is always in order, doesn't make much sense ending up dead to make a point.

Assertive cycling is more my bag. We don't block the traffic, we are the traffic. The sooner that users of other vehicles realise such a simple truth, is the day that we might all get on a bit better.

 

[Cobbles]

We don't block the traffic, we are a teeny weeny proportion of the traffic.

Corrected.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Corrected.

nurse nurse, my sides....

 

[pembrokestephen]

Oh no!!! Cyclists having the temerity not to ride in the gutter but actually alongside each other, enjoying each other's company!!! The dirty bastards....

To be fair, assuming a clear road, speed limit >20mph, etc., two cyclists (top speed 15-20mph) riding abreast in such a way as to make the possibility of a motorist (top speed 60+mph) being able to overtake significantly more difficult or dangerous is, at the very least, churlish. It's also putting them at some risk, especially since they have no idea what kind of person's driving the car that is now (as far as it's concerned) crawling along behind them.

In that situation, on my bike, I'd consider it both courteous and wise to move over, let the car overtake, then carry on.

 

[pembrokestephen]

You can easily turn this logic around in order to dismis this argument.

By deciding to take a car in the first place you are chosing to take up at least six foot to get anywhere and thus always blocking things. Surely its selfish and inconsiderate to take up that much space when you don't need to?

Would it be any different to weld my bike to another side by side so I could have a passenger?

I also find that often the most safe way to cycle to take up a whole lane. This avoids the problems raised by this post.

Ah, yes. I've encountered cyclists like you. You're even more annoying to encounter when I'm on a bike. Quite apart from the fact that this kind of militancy just gets up every other road user's nose and makes it even more fucking awkward for anyone else on a bicycle.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Defensive cycling is always in order, doesn't make much sense ending up dead to make a point.

True.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

To be fair, assuming a clear road, speed limit >20mph, etc., two cyclists (top speed 15-20mph) riding abreast in such a way as to make the possibility of a motorist (top speed 60+mph) being able to overtake significantly more difficult or dangerous is, at the very least, churlish. It's also putting them at some risk, especially since they have no idea what kind of person's driving the car that is now (as far as it's concerned) crawling along behind them.

In that situation, on my bike, I'd consider it both courteous and wise to move over, let the car overtake, then carry on.

So, generally, would i and most other reasonable minded cyclists - as i made clear in my earlier response tho, i do get annoyed that the presumption is that cyclists should stick to the gutter on a clear road per se.

Roads are for all road users and having been swerved at and verbally abused on many occasions for daring to be anywhere but the curb/gutter, one does become rather testy about the matter.

Car drivers, ime & generally speaking, think that they belong in front of bicycles, no matter what the road conditions - as the O/P noted when approaching traffic lights, as i noted when travelling along a road that is speed humped. And often, especially in more urban environments, that simply isn't safe either, causing cyclists to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

 

[pembrokestephen]

So, generally, would i and most other reasonable minded cyclists - as i made clear in my earlier response tho, i do get annoyed that the presumption is that cyclists should stick to the gutter on a clear road per se.

Roads are for all road users and having been swerved at and verbally abused on many occasions for daring to be anywhere but the curb/gutter, one does become rather testy about the matter.

Car drivers, ime & generally speaking, think that they belong in front of bicycles, no matter what the road conditions - as the O/P noted when approaching traffic lights, as i noted when travelling along a road that is speed humped. And often, especially in more urban environments, that simply isn't safe either, causing cyclists to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

But what you're saying here appears to be the basis for an argument that it's OK to "take it out" on any random motorist because of YOUR perception that a proportion of motorists have treated you badly.

All I can see coming out of that, if it's taken to its logical conclusion - which you appear determined to do - is that you continue to behave in a hostile and aggressive manner towards other road users on the presumption that they might drive in a way you don't like, which upsets, irritates, or just alienates more and more people who would otherwise have just been happy to coexist peacefully.

The laws of physics are no respecters of the moral high ground: you can bluster all you like, but it's a cause you'd better be prepared to die for. Crispy put the prevailing rules far better than I could, and I think that anyone who wants to start making points against cars while riding a pushbike is tilting at windmills. There's better points to make, and better ways to go about making them.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yawwwwnnnnn. What i appear to be saying....

....your logical conclusions are basically bluster, bluff and bollocks.

Shame, cos i didn't actually think you were as much of a dick as you appear to be, putting words and thoughts into other people mouths....i don't behave aggressively towards other road users at all, which is something you would know if you took the time to interact instead of interpret. innit

 

[pembrokestephen]

Yawwwwnnnnn. What i appear to be saying....

....your logical conclusions are basically bluster, bluff and bollocks.

Shame, cos i didn't actually think you were as much of a dick as you appear to be, putting words and thoughts into other people mouths....i don't behave aggressively towards other road users at all, which is something you would know if you took the time to interact instead of interpret. innit

I can only go by your own words. I got the very distinct impression from them that you thought it justified to behave in the way I was criticising. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But I don't think I am.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I can only go by your own words. I got the very distinct impression from them that you thought it justified to behave in the way I was criticising. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But I don't think I am.

My words justified what behaviour exactly? You were criticising what?

 

[gentlegreen]

I also find that often the most safe way to cycle to take up a whole lane. This avoids the problems raised by this post.

Works for me too. It's particularly enjoyable when they honk their horns.

On the rare occasions I drive, it's an ancient 2 litre Peugeot 405 diesel with a towbar for good measure, and I sometimes get nutjobs overtaking me in built-up areas when I choose not to race for a green and amber light at 40 MPH.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Works for me too. It's particularly enjoyable when they honk their horns.

On the rare occasions I drive, it's an ancient 2 litre Peugeot 405 diesel with a towbar for good measure, and I sometimes get nutjobs overtaking me in built-up areas when I choose not to race for a green and amber light at 40 MPH.

*shakes head in dismay*

*freecycles bike so as to never be mistaken for this sort of bigoted fool*

 

[gentlegreen]

*shakes head in dismay*

*freecycles bike so as to never be mistaken for this sort of bigoted fool*

Good .. there are way too many fair-weather cyclists on the road this time of year

I may even get myself a flat cap for when I drive.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Good .. there are way too many fair-weather cyclists on the road this time of year

I may even get myself a flat cap for when I drive.

gentlegreen drives by......

with apologies from the outset

 

[gentlegreen]

I used to ride a 750cc Norton Commando in the early 80s which could flip from "vintage motorcycle" to "what the feck was that ? " in about three strokes.

I can't help thinking of the Harry Enfield horse racing sketches :-