Help settle an argument

[beardy]

Its not mind reading is it? The beep was a means of communication that we are all familiar with.
Just like two fingers have a meaning which we understand.

[sonoftherocks]

....and what if the driver hadn't beeped?
This idiot of a cyclist would've carried on presumably oblivious to his poor road craft. At least we can hope he will learn from this.
Far too much focus in this discussion on the need or otherwise for the car driver to beep. It's just a completely human reaction to blatant stupidity on the road.

[MikeF]

....and what if the driver hadn't beeped?
This idiot of a cyclist would've carried on presumably oblivious to his poor road craft. At least we can hope he will learn from this.
Far too much focus in this discussion on the need or otherwise for the car driver to beep. It's just a completely human reaction to blatant stupidity on the road.

But that's not the purpose of a horn is it? So two "stupid" road users. And the motorist will no doubt continue to beep at cyclists whom he thinks are not in the right place, ie out of the way of cars.

[AlanJ]

Such hatred of drivers is not healthy. Funnily enough you are the mirror image of that which you hate

[[XAP]Bob]

The traffic island was obscured from view by the lorry in the video, although I assume the cyclist is local and knew it was there. (Additionally he could see it before the overtake was completed.)

The useless paint is completely useless - it gave up when there traffic lights and it gives up again just after the pinch point.

The driver of the lorry made a decent overtake.

The driver of the Mazda could probably see the traffic island, the gap left by the lorry and the two cyclists. He almost certainly did not see the one get overtaken but the other as he set off.

On approach to a pinch point, even with a painted farcility such as is one I'd not be looking to pass the cyclists until after the pinch point - if you try to do so you cannot give space as demonstrated by HC163 and reinforced by 213 (neither are "must"s unfortunately).

The cyclist who ended up in a heap should probably have signalled, either by arm or by head, their intentions, but since there was no reasonable possibility of the motorist needing to pull alongside...
The motorist horn is borne of frustration, he might have to drive out of a traffic jam for 10 seconds, and we all know how much motorists love traffic jams...

The cyclist then demonstrates why he didn't look round and signal, and the motorist leaves the scene of an accident in which they were clearly involved.

To me it doesn't look great from either party - but as always in these cases I suggest that the party with greater mass, and greater potential to bring energy to a collision, bears the greater responsibility to ensure the safety of all around them: lorry > car > cyclist > pedestrian. Additionally it's always been the case that those behind are responsible for planning and executing safe passing manoeuvres - this didn't look like there was any planning at all.

The fact that the farcility ended indicates that the road probably doesn't widen out again, so it was likely a "must get past" lunge in an inappropriate place.

[kwackers]

Perhaps the driver was also a cyclist who was annoyed that the overtaking cyclist hadn't left enough room when overtaking the first cyclist?
(IMO he should have been much further over.)

Thought I'd just watch it again.
Assuming the driver beeped because the cyclist got in their way then I've got no problem saying the driver had no right to attempt an overtake at that point.

And back to the 'erratic' behaviour of the cyclist; he moves out barely enough to pass the first cyclist over a period of several seconds and in a relatively smooth motion.
I was watching bats last night - now they WERE erratic, completely unpredictable.
You'd have to be a knob to not realise what could happen when coming up on a couple of cyclists and worse to make assumptions about what might happen when simply watching for more than a second will provide you with all the information you need to figure it out. There's a thread on here about motorists assuming cyclists are stationary - I reckon the idea is not without merit here too.

If your average cyclist can't even figure that out (and judging by this thread that would seem to be the case) then seriously; what chance is there of the roads ever being safe?

[TonyR]

Of course none of this would be a problem if there wasn't the usual too narrow cycle lane painted there. The cyclist would then have been within the same lane as the car and the onus on the driver to overtake safely, not the cyclist to leave the lane safely.

On my commute I have a long stretch through a village with about ten road narrowings from central islands. Fortunately there is no cycle lane on the road which means I don't have to leave the lane to assert a primary position through the narrowings. If you don't lots of drivers will try to squeeze through alongside you. If you do the numbers are much reduced but there are still the rushed overtakes and pull ins, the car horns and on occassions overtakes on the other side of the island or, if traffic is coming the other way, an embarrassing stop in the middle of the road against the island.

[[XAP]Bob]

Of course none of this would be a problem if there wasn't the usual too narrow cycle lane painted there. The cyclist would then have been within the same lane as the car and the onus on the driver to overtake safely, not the cyclist to leave the lane safely.

On my commute I have a long stretch through a village with about ten road narrowings from central islands. Fortunately there is no cycle lane on the road which means I don't have to leave the lane to assert a primary position through the narrowings. If you don't lots of drivers will try to squeeze through alongside you. If you do the numbers are much reduced but there are still the rushed overtakes and pull ins, the car horns and on occassions overtakes on the other side of the island or, if traffic is coming the other way, an embarrassing stop in the middle of the road against the island.

The lane disappeared under the cyclist before he moved out iirc.

Nope, just after.

[Vantage]

@Tonyf33...quick answer is that I wouldn't overtake a cyclist through a pinch point because regardless of whether I take primary or not, I'd expect some halfwit in a car to squeeze past despite there being no bailout room to the side.

@kwackers...I did wonder when the insults on this thread would start flying. Congrats.

[kwackers]

@kwackers...I did wonder when the insults on this thread would start flying. Congrats.

Insulting people whose inability to predict a fairly obvious event can result in death or injury???
I've got absolutely no issue doing that.

TBH I'm pretty cheesed off by dealing with that type of moron every day (like the tipper guy today who decided to start an overtake coming up to a red light that no way on earth he could complete and then simply pulled back to the kerb as if I wasn't there. And yes, I was in primary.)

[danhopgood]

A quick trawl through the Highway Code:

Rule 103 - need to signal intention to overtake
Rule 67 - cyclist not aware of traffic behind
Rule 160 - need to keep to the left unless overtaking
Rule 162 - should check before overtaking no-one is overtaking you
Rule 163 - overtake only when it's safe to do so
Rule 167 Do not overtake where you may come into conflict with other road users - such as a traffic island

A hoot of the horn is quite in order.

[Bicycler]

Such hatred of drivers is not healthy. Funnily enough you are the mirror image of that which you hate

Nobody here hates drivers. The vast majority of us on here are drivers and understand the difficulties and considerations involved in correctly controlling a motor vehicle on the road. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the average driver with regards to the needs and safety of cyclists.

Without in any way exonerating the cyclist from his bad cycling, we can condemn the inappropriate use of the horn. The law is clear that the horn is to be used only to alert other road users of your presence. It is not there to vent rage or teach errant cyclists a lesson; to use it in such a manner is illegal.

I'd go further and say that, as with horses, it is rarely appropriate to use a horn when dealing with a cyclist, even where such use would be legal and acceptable when dealing with another car. It runs the risk of causing further danger through startling the person on the bike who may then swerve or fall. Sounding a horn at a cyclist really ought to be a last resort to prevent an imminent collision and there are usually things we as responsible drivers can do to prevent a situation escalating that far

[Bicycler]

A quick trawl through the Highway Code:
Rule 103 - need to signal intention to overtake
Rule 67 - cyclist not aware of traffic behind
Rule 160 - need to keep to the left unless overtaking
Rule 162 - should check before overtaking no-one is overtaking you
Rule 163 - overtake only when it's safe to do so
Rule 167 Do not overtake where you may come into conflict with other road users - such as a traffic island
A hoot of the horn is quite in order.

but you forgot

112: The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively

Again, it is not a cyclist punishment tool nor a means of registering dissatisfaction.
Some of the more conciliatory sections of the Highway Code get overlooked in the rush to attribute 'blame' but the advice is sound.

147: Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).
-try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
-do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
-slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

[reohn2]

....and what if the driver hadn't beeped?
This idiot of a cyclist would've carried on presumably oblivious to his poor road craft. At least we can hope he will learn from this.
Far too much focus in this discussion on the need or otherwise for the car driver to beep. It's just a completely human reaction to blatant stupidity on the road.

I've just returned from a 45 mile ride,in that short 3hour span of time I was overtaken closely(within 500mm) twice by vehicles.
One I happened to catch up up at the next TL and asked if he did that all the time,his reply was "you don't pay road tax" .
I informed him I did but I won't repeat here what else I told him.
I was also overtaken on bridge by two cars(one closely following the other) who gave me plenty of room going more over the other side of the road than our side,but couldn't see over the brow of the bridge if anything was come the other way,I know they couldn't see for a fact,as I drive that way on a regular basis.
I was also overtaken on blind right hand bend by a woman in a new Mini against a solid white line,she was well over the other side of the road and totally blind,I know she was driving totally blind because I couldn't see around the bend and I was in secondary position on my own side.
She had a child in a child seat in the back.
All this happened on one 45mile ride on a lovely sunny day.
Every one of those drivers saw me clearly,and every one of them took a chance with either their own lives or someone else's,not just mine.
The driving standards,lack spacial awareness,downright stupidity and willingness to take such chances frankly astounds me in the extreme,so much so that I no longer think if,but when ....

That ride is by no means exceptional,what is exceptional,is when I come in from a ride without such things happening .

[danhopgood]

A quick trawl through the Highway Code:
Rule 103 - need to signal intention to overtake
Rule 67 - cyclist not aware of traffic behind
Rule 160 - need to keep to the left unless overtaking
Rule 162 - should check before overtaking no-one is overtaking you
Rule 163 - overtake only when it's safe to do so
Rule 167 Do not overtake where you may come into conflict with other road users - such as a traffic island
A hoot of the horn is quite in order.

but you forgot

112: The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively

Again, it is not a cyclist punishment tool nor a means of registering dissatisfaction.
Some of the more conciliatory sections of the Highway Code get overlooked in the rush to attribute 'blame' but the advice is sound.

147: Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).
-try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
-do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
-slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

So that's 6 wrong's on the cyclist's part to a debatable one for the driver - as it's a valid argument in my view the driver was merely warning the cyclist of his presence. Consideration works both ways - What would it have cost the overtaking cyclist to time his overtake so as to not inconvenience another road user? Very little. Is it inconsiderate not to blindly do your own thing without regard to the rules of the road or others? Yes it is.