Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Racing on public roads. Shameful.It's less effort for more speed. Win win.
Racing on public roads. Shameful.It's less effort for more speed. Win win.
Please provide a link to this data.Both wind tunnel, cfd and real world testing have shown benefits up to 10 m away, aerodynamics is a somewhat more complex thing than your little equation.
Also, much lol at the idea of 3m being an unsafe distance on a bike.
Most of the time the south circular would be chocka and cyclists would be breezing past 100's of cars with irate lemming driversHeres a really standard London suburban A road - one lane each way, often at peak times with a constant stream of traffic each way
View attachment 236055
If a bike is riding near the kerb at such a time are you saying you should never "overtake" unless you can go into the lane of oncoming traffic?
you are living on a different planet to me
if any car were to slow down to a crawl to follow a slow bike (not everyone on a bike are lycra clad racers) on a road where there was plenty of space to overtake the world would end ...
ive had a license for over twenty years and i did a long stint as a van driver - never have I seen people not "overtake" - ie drive straightforward at a speed faster than a bicycle whilst theres plenty of room to do so.
no driver in the uk has ever done that, i would bet you, so why argue thats its some kind of norm thats being trasngressed?
The new proposed rule in the highway code will put the 1.5m minimum passing distance that has been established by various police forces into the HC, with 1.5m at <30mph, 2m at >30mph, and 2m at any speed for 7.5t and over vehicles.
A cyclist needs to put their wheels minimum 75cm from the kerb (police guidance, 50cm-1m for DfT, plus another 50cm for the right hand side of themselves means that the cyclist needs 1m-1.5m from the kerb. Then 1.5m gap, then say 2m for an average car width means you need a lane that is 4.5m-5m wide. Most urban lanes in the UK are 4m wide, some are 4.5m. Rural roads, where cycling 2 abreast is more common, are often narrower with 3.5m wide lanes.
Almost every road in the UK, to pass safely and legally, you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane, which is usually not safe unless there is no oncoming traffic, which means you can go fully into the oncoming traffic lane without issue.
I totally agree that many drivers choose to overtake dangerously when there is enough room to squeeze through thinking that any space is plenty of room when it really isn't. It's an attitude that needs to be challenged and changed, and the police actions on close passing have had a noticeable effect and I hope that putting these distances explicitly into the HC will help further. As a rule of thumb, if you can't go into the oncoming lane (or lane 2 on a multi-lane road), then there's not plenty of room and you need to wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic and it is safe to overtake.
Strange, I can’t see a single reference to racing in any of my posts.Racing on public roads. Shameful.
Number of collisions with each other in a group in the time I've been with my club - zero.
I been involved in some absolute carnage on club rides. I once snapped the chainstay on a CF Ridley frame when it hit a fellow club members head when we went down.
Luckily the chances of this ever happening are about the same as me winnning next year's Tour de France.This is why bicycles should be banned from public roads. They're an unnecessary nuisance.
I don’t think anyone seriously disputes this. Where Bees got himself in trouble last night was with his assertion that cycling 3 or more abreast was often the safest way to ride, which is in direct contravention of HC advice despite the fact that it’s not illegal. Lots of things aren’t illegal but you’d still be a knob to do them.The new proposed rule in the highway code will put the 1.5m minimum passing distance that has been established by various police forces into the HC, with 1.5m at <30mph, 2m at >30mph, and 2m at any speed for 7.5t and over vehicles.
A cyclist needs to put their wheels minimum 75cm from the kerb (police guidance, 50cm-1m for DfT, plus another 50cm for the right hand side of themselves means that the cyclist needs 1m-1.5m from the kerb. Then 1.5m gap, then say 2m for an average car width means you need a lane that is 4.5m-5m wide. Most urban lanes in the UK are 4m wide, some are 4.5m. Rural roads, where cycling 2 abreast is more common, are often narrower with 3.5m wide lanes.
Almost every road in the UK, to pass safely and legally, you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane, which is usually not safe unless there is no oncoming traffic, which means you can go fully into the oncoming traffic lane without issue.
I totally agree that many drivers choose to overtake dangerously when there is enough room to squeeze through thinking that any space is plenty of room when it really isn't. It's an attitude that needs to be challenged and changed, and the police actions on close passing have had a noticeable effect and I hope that putting these distances explicitly into the HC will help further. As a rule of thumb, if you can't go into the oncoming lane (or lane 2 on a multi-lane road), then there's not plenty of room and you need to wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic and it is safe to overtake.
Exactly, most motorists will pass if they think there's enough room without changing lane. In fact it is almost never possible to do this while following the Highway Code.I don’t think he is, is he? Ska’s saying that most motorists will pass if there’s room to do so although his posts haven’t been the clearest on this.
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but bicycles aren’t motor vehicles.Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.
Motorists tend to pass if they think there’s room to do so. They are often wrong.Ska’s saying that most motorists will pass if there’s room to do so
What is 'well below' the speed limit on a 30mph suburban road? 25mph? 20mph? 15mph? Most tractors have a top speed around 25mph and travel mainly on 60mph roads. To be travelling at a similar proportion to the speed of the road a cyclist would have to be not going over 12.5mph which would be rather slow. Also the type of road you find tractors tends to be different with less junctions and specific bays for pulling over to let people pass. Why would I let a motorist pass when we're going to be waiting at the same traffic light in 30 seconds?If a cyclist expects not to be overtaken within their lane, surely they will then pull over frequently to let vehicles past - as a tractor might do on a country lane for example. Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.
No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.Exactly, most motorists will pass if they think there's enough room without changing lane. In fact it is almost never possible to do this while following the Highway Code.
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but bicycles aren’t motor vehicles.
If a cyclist expects not to be overtaken within their lane, surely they will then pull over frequently to let vehicles past - as a tractor might do on a country lane for example. Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.
Yes. I've gone from disliking motorists intensely to believing they should all be shot.Has anyone ever changed their minds on the subject because of something they've read on one of these motorist vs cyclist threads?
No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.
I don’t think he is, is he? Ska’s saying that most motorists will pass if there’s room to do so although his posts haven’t been the clearest on this.
If you can straddle the line then you can go fully across it. Therefore it doesn’t matter if cyclists are in the middle of the lane, or are 2 (or more) abreast. Thank god for that, we got there in the end.No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.
Both posters were clearly talking about in-lane overtaking. You can't (safely) straddle the line with oncoming traffic. If you can straddle the line you can give the proper amount of space.
My reading of his posts was that it's not necessary for drivers to use the oncoming lane to pass cyclists safely and can do so in lane, that there's (usually) plenty of space to do so (on an normal urban street as in the picture they posted at the start of that particular convo in this thread).
Oh, I've never taken issue with you on two abreast (although there are exceptions like on B roads with no centre line). My issue with you last night was on 3 or more, which is absolutely not on, according to the HC, despite it not being illegal.If you can straddle the line then you can go fully across it. Therefore it doesn’t matter if cyclists are in the middle of the lane, or are 2 (or more) abreast. Thank god for that, we got there in the end.
They are so fucking tedious. I tend to check in them every so often. Skim the last page. It's always the same people saying the same things. What's the point?Has anyone ever changed their minds on the subject because of something they've read on one of these motorist vs cyclist threads?
Why are you fretting over this minor point like it was something important? It really doesn't matter. If you don't like driving on roads with bikes, stick to motorways and dual carriageways.Oh, I've never taken issue with you on two abreast (although there are exceptions like on B roads with no centre line). My issue with you last night was on 3 or more, which is absolutely not on according to the HC (despite it not being illegal).
Because that's what we do here.Why are you fretting over this minor point like it was something important?