Drivers and Driving

[El Cid]

Several european countries (e.g. Switzerland) require usage of headlights at all times - why would they do that if it is dangerous?

 

Its the law (recently changed), punishable by fine if you have them off:

 

The new law is "must travel during the day with the daytime running lights (DRL) on".

[DT Ralge]

It is in many circumstances not safer and indeed very stupid. Making other road users do things they should not.

 

So then how much room should they be given ?

 

A coffin's length, otherwise they might need the coffin.

[RonJeremy]

Talk me through this?

Some people will overtake cyclists on corners and if they are riding two abreast then they are then on the opposite side of the road making it all the more dangerous for oncoming traffic. I have experienced this on many occasions. When they are overtaking single file cycles, it is much less dangerous for ALL concerned.

For example, what does it "make" you do that you shouldn't?

 

Snailyboy already answered this indirectly.

And I already answered in it my earlier post.

 

 

Was that difficult to understand?

 

It's what it tells you in the highway code, as a good driver you should be familiar with it.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 15:11 ----------

 

 

By cycling two abreast they literally take over the mind of the car driver and MAKE them do things they shouldn't...

Presumably this being, overtaking dangerously...

 

Perhaps if all cyclists had holographic projectors that disguised them as tractors then Ron would understand the point?

 

It makes me do nothing of course. But I see other drivers drive in dangerous ways.

 

I've emboldened the operative word in that sentence

 

In my experience, some do, some don't.

 

Those who do, show common courtesy and all is well

 

Those who don't...might get a bit buffeted

 

BTW, that was the original context of Ron's post ("country roads" = very narrow roads...that's how I understood it anyway, whence my reply, particularly first line of same).

I haven't disputed that

 

I didn't actually mean very narrow roads - but your example is equally valid.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 20:51 ----------

 

A coffin's length, otherwise they might need the coffin.

 

so about six feet then? is that what you are saying? Why would you give that much room? I probably do give them nearly that much room when they are riding in single file, as an ex-cyclist, I know how scary it is to have a vehicle roaring past you.

 

And if it dangerous to overtake them closely, say less than 3 feet, then how come the not very bright cyclists who ride 2 and even 3 abreast put themselves at risk by riding close to the central white line? Is it more dangerous to a cyclist overtaking it at a few miles an hour faster relatively, than travelling in the opposite direction and passing them at 70 mph relatively. Or is some bright spark on here going to say I should be stopping on the opposite carriageway until they have passed?

 

Cyclists who ride in double file, get a lot less passing room from me than those riding in single file usually.

[martin6]

I love drivers behind with misaligned headlights dazzling all my mirrors so I cant see. Thanks for that.

[DT Ralge]

Some people will overtake cyclists on corners and if they are riding two abreast then they are then on the opposite side of the road making it all the more dangerous for oncoming traffic. I have experienced this on many occasions. When they are overtaking single file cycles, it is much less dangerous for ALL concerned.

 

 

It makes me do nothing of course. But I see other drivers drive in dangerous ways.

 

 

 

I didn't actually mean very narrow roads - but your example is equally valid.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 20:51 ----------

 

 

so about six feet then? is that what you are saying? Why would you give that much room? I probably do give them nearly that much room when they are riding in single file, as an ex-cyclist, I know how scary it is to have a vehicle roaring past you.

 

And if it dangerous to overtake them closely, say less than 3 feet, then how come the not very bright cyclists who ride 2 and even 3 abreast put themselves at risk by riding close to the central white line? Is it more dangerous to a cyclist overtaking it at a few miles an hour faster relatively, than travelling in the opposite direction and passing them at 70 mph relatively. Or is some bright spark on here going to say I should be stopping on the opposite carriageway until they have passed?

 

Cyclists who ride in double file, get a lot less passing room from me than those riding in single file usually.

 

A coffin's length so that I don't drive over any part of them if they fall off.

Two abreast (when used intelligently) is defensive (and assertive) riding - it goes some way to stopping drivers skimming past astride the centre line (and buffeting them).

[Cyclone]

Some people will overtake cyclists on corners and if they are riding two abreast then they are then on the opposite side of the road making it all the more dangerous for oncoming traffic. I have experienced this on many occasions. When they are overtaking single file cycles, it is much less dangerous for ALL concerned.

Somehow you've managed to make a dangerous overtaking maneuver by a car driver, a cyclist's fault.

 

It makes me do nothing of course. But I see other drivers drive in dangerous ways.

And yet you complain about cyclists, not dangerous drivers.

 

 

 

I didn't actually mean very narrow roads - but your example is equally valid.

 

so about six feet then? is that what you are saying? Why would you give that much room?

Because you don't want to kill them? I hope.

I probably do give them nearly that much room when they are riding in single file, as an ex-cyclist, I know how scary it is to have a vehicle roaring past you.

 

And if it dangerous to overtake them closely, say less than 3 feet, then how come the not very bright cyclists who ride 2 and even 3 abreast put themselves at risk by riding close to the central white line?

They don't put themselves more at risk, they make it safer for themselves as car drivers can't attempt to squeeze past.

Is it more dangerous to a cyclist overtaking it at a few miles an hour faster relatively, than travelling in the opposite direction and passing them at 70 mph relatively. Or is some bright spark on here going to say I should be stopping on the opposite carriageway until they have passed?

I doubt that cycling 2 abreast means that the outer one is on the white line.

 

Most likely they are a good two or three feet away from it, as are cars going the opposite way.

 

Cyclists who ride in double file, get a lot less passing room from me than those riding in single file usually.

 

When you overtake perhaps. But single cyclists will have been passed by other drivers dangerously close. Riding two abreast reduces the chance of that happening.

[RonJeremy]

Somehow you've managed to make a dangerous overtaking maneuver by a car driver, a cyclist's fault.

 

And yet you complain about cyclists, not dangerous drivers.

Because you don't want to kill them? I hope.

They don't put themselves more at risk, they make it safer for themselves as car drivers can't attempt to squeeze past.

I doubt that cycling 2 abreast means that the outer one is on the white line.

 

Most likely they are a good two or three feet away from it, as are cars going the opposite way.

 

When you overtake perhaps. But single cyclists will have been passed by other drivers dangerously close. Riding two abreast reduces the chance of that happening.

 

So? 3 feet is acceptable when the relative speed is 60 mph but too close when the relative speed is 20mph. Right?

Edited December 22, 2015 by RonJeremy

[Cyclone]

How'd you get 3 feet?

[RonJeremy]

Somehow you've managed to make a dangerous overtaking maneuver by a car driver, a cyclist's fault.

 

And yet you complain about cyclists, not dangerous drivers.

Because you don't want to kill them? I hope.

They don't put themselves more at risk, they make it safer for themselves as car drivers can't attempt to squeeze past.

I doubt that cycling 2 abreast means that the outer one is on the white line.

 

Most likely they are a good two or three feet away from it, as are cars going the opposite way.

 

When you overtake perhaps. But single cyclists will have been passed by other drivers dangerously close. Riding two abreast reduces the chance of that happening.

 

What I am saying, is that cyclists make themselves more vulnerable by riding two abreast - I'm not saying they are at fault in the case of an accident, I am saying that they are more vulnerable and their arrogance sometimes ("I'm allowed to do this the law says so, nah nah") makes the situation worse. It also makes some drivers hate them. A lot.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 09:56 ----------

 

How'd you get 3 feet?

 

You said 2 feet from the line and I'm driving 1 foot away from the line 2 + 1 = ......

[Cyclone]

2 or 3. And the cars being an equal distance from the line on the other side would be 4 to 6 wouldn't it?

 

If the road were so narrow that car drivers were within a foot of the centre line, I'd expect the cyclists to adopt single file in the primary position (centre of the carriageway, not in the gutter).

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 10:32 ----------

 

What I am saying, is that cyclists make themselves more vulnerable by riding two abreast - I'm not saying they are at fault in the case of an accident, I am saying that they are more vulnerable and their arrogance sometimes ("I'm allowed to do this the law says so, nah nah") makes the situation worse. It also makes some drivers hate them. A lot..

 

Those drivers should be immediately banned from driving. They clearly don't have the temperament or the intelligence to be sharing the road with other users.

 

No (sensible) cyclist knowingly puts themselves in danger. You think riding two abreast CAN be dangerous, and I accept that it COULD be. But generally it's safer, and that's when cyclists do it, and that's when you don't like it.