Near Miss of the Day 493: Aggressive close pass on cyclists riding two abreast

Mungecrundle wrote:

When the car driver has the simple option of merely deviating their overtake line by an extra metre or so to move completely into the opposite lane (as they should do anyway regardless of one cyclist or two side by side) then not only is it entirely legal but also within the spirit of the highway code and therefore completely acceptable.

The only danger here is that caused by the incompetence / ignorance / attitude of the driver. Remember, it is not just cyclists who end up on the wrong side of these people, almost 100% of road traffic collisions, injuries and fatalities are caused by driver error.

I think this road is too narrow for that, which is probably why there is no centre line.

AndyIT wrote:

...

Do you think it's acceptable to cycle side by side just to have a chat when there are several cars around?

Yep.

NEXT!

AndyIT wrote:

Do you even cycle or drive? if they are cycling two abreast just to have chat then be more considerate when there are cars around - it's not hard & good clubs encourage this already.

gaslighting, two cyclists occupy less space than a car, the majority of cars are being occupied by a single person. 2 cyclists require less space than a single motorist.

How do you reach the conclusion the cyclists are being unreasonable and hogging road space?

The driver is always two abreast, often with his invisible buddy in the passenger seat, no one complains. Being two abreast at all times is something drivers chose when selecting their vehicle. But the onus is placed on others to accomodate this.

In this case the driver comes round the bend, sees the cylists two abreast, doesn't consider slowing down, just goes straight past. They do not have time to single out, which they may, or may not have done if the driver slows and lets them react. So the driver has not been inconvenienced, the toot cannot be a warning as he gives them no response time.

To say be more considerate whne cars are around suggests they knew he was there when moving to side by side, clearly not the case. And in fact the video shows they are not habitually side by side.

No, I just post on here for shits and giggles.

I see others have brought up the main points of the video so I don't need to go into detail in refuting your claim.

hirsute wrote:

No, I just post on here for shits and giggles.

Looks like you're not the only one....

AndyIT wrote:

Do you even cycle or drive? if they are cycling two abreast just to have chat then be more considerate when there are cars around - it's not hard & good clubs encourage this already.

If they were *just* having a chat that could be classed as inconsiderate - though perfectly within their legal rights. However, odds are that they are also preventing car drivers making a dangerous close pass on them if they were singled out and, if the road is wide enough, making it easier for cars to pass as they only have to stay in the opposite lane for one bike length's worth of pass, not two or three. The fact that they are having a chat at the same time is not really relevant.

Rendel Harris wrote:

AndyIT wrote:

Do you even cycle or drive? if they are cycling two abreast just to have chat then be more considerate when there are cars around - it's not hard & good clubs encourage this already.

If they were *just* having a chat that could be classed as inconsiderate - ...

I think you and I are largely on the same page, however, I'd also dispute this point. 

When cycling with my daughter I often ride beside her. One reason is to fend off idiots who don't know how to overtake safely, but another is to coach her in roadcraft. For example approaching a roundabout, it really helps to be beside the person you are explaining things to. Guess what , 2 abreast "just" to have a chat..

I get all the points about bad car drivers and dangerous passes (no excuse for that) & I am not excusing in any way the drivers in the video. I wanted to bring up a more general point on cycling two abreast.

I get that most posters here consider it fine at any time in any amount of traffic to cycle two abreast as it's legal. I don't share the same view point in terms of being considerate (and a club I have been to does'nt either but maybe I have been lucky and been to one of the better ones) so agree to disagree. Enjoy your cyling & stay safe.

Some posters have suggested I have made claims I have'nt (e.g How do you reach the conclusion the cyclists are being unreasonable and hogging road space?). Either you have misunderstood my comments or not read them properly.

I do wonder if many posters just hate car drivers period.

Good example re cycling with your daughter as I can see cycling two abreast in that situation provides some protection & no doubt helps her confidence.

Having a motorbike with a loud exhaust drive up close behind you then whack open the throttle to overtake (leaving plenty of room) but creating loads of noise is perfectly legal I suspect but I would'nt call it considerate driving.

AndyIT wrote:

...

I get that most posters here consider it fine at any time in any amount of traffic to cycle two abreast as it's legal.

Good, because it is. It is what the rider feels appropriate, not the person in the car that counts (unless you're Poophole Freeman of course...)

AndyIT wrote:

...

I do wonder if many posters just hate car drivers period.

See my other post, and you might understand why. However, most posters here are drivers. There'd be a lot of self hate going on - not something you could accuse me of some would say

AndyIT wrote:

Good example re cycling with your daughter as I can see cycling two abreast in that situation provides some protection & no doubt helps her confidence.

Thanks, not restricted to daughters though. Adults are sometimes inexperienced and need coaching too - How would a driver be able to tell, and so bring their righteous anger about being held up for a second or two to bear?

AndyIT wrote:

Having a motorbike with a loud exhaust drive up close behind you then whack open the throttle to overtake (leaving plenty of room) but creating loads of noise is perfectly legal I suspect but I would'nt call it considerate driving.

Maybe, maybe not - you're not supposed to alarm or intimidate other road users. This is hardly comparable to riding 2 abreast, which is causes no alarm or intimidation.

I'd view considerate road use as to whether someone causes risk or harm. People side by side on bikes do not, and it is certainly not for us drivers to sit in judgment on people riding legally.

But let's look at the other way. As drivers can we say we do no harm? we damage roads, pollute, and risk others' lives every time we venture out. Before asking "do those riders need to be side by side", have we answered the question "did I need to use my car?"

Unless we happen to be driving more than, say, 5 miles, or have a wardrobe, fridge, plumbers tools, or battalion's ammunition in the back, can we actually even be considerate drivers?

Deleted

AndyIT wrote:

I can't see from the video but why were the cyclists two abreast? I cycle allot and usually get one close pass per ride however I see cyclists two abreast just chatting and think there is no need for them to be two abreast. One of the clubs I occassionaly cylce with are very good and always shout car back so people can adopt single file where it makes sense.

I'm confused.  Clearly there was a need for them to ride side-by-side.  You've stated it:  they wanted to chat.

(Pretty sure that was still legal when the video was filmed, or did I miss a memo?)

I don't think it's generally considerate just to cycle two abreast just to have a chat if there are a number of cars around & you wonder why cyclists are not sometimes liked.

Why is it inconsiderate? It's easier for cars to overtake two cyclists abreast rather than one behind the other if they're overtaking correctly.

Is it inconsiderate for a solo motorist to take up the same amount of room as two cyclists riding abreast? I would certainly consider so, and you wonder why motorists are not sometimes liked.

AndyIT wrote:

I don't think it's generally considerate just to cycle two abreast just to have a chat if there are a number of cars around & you wonder why cyclists are not sometimes liked.

Anyone who rides (Do you? Actually?) is well aware that they "are not sometimes liked". This dislike is manifested in: 

• Close passes
• Tailgating
• gunning engines
• Beeping horns
• throwing objects
• spitting
• verbal abuse
• assaults
• occasional murder

Are you are honestly trying to make out that the above are rational considered responses by safe drivers to people going about their everyday lawful business?

AndyIT wrote:

I can't see from the video but why were the cyclists two abreast? 

Because the riders saw it as appropriate at the time. Why else?

Now the real questions. How can the drivers justify dangerous agressive o/taking, and why are you victim blaming?

Which club are you with that encourages cyclists to single out whenever a car is behind?

A considerate one. It does depend as well on the situation but you already know that. From your comment most clubs don't promote this behaviour then? or is it more the hardcore clubs that don't?

AndyIT wrote:

A considerate one. 

I wonder how considerate it is singling out and therefore increasing the distance/time I need to spend in the opposite lane while passing. This reduces the opportunities I have to overtake. Please, remain bunched up.

You don't want to handle nuance at all; all or nothiing. No big suprise from your comments. Glad I have'nt met anyone like you (& some of the other posters) whilst cycling.

AndyIT wrote:

You don't want to handle nuance at all; all or nothiing. No big suprise from your comments. Glad I have'nt met anyone like you (& some of the other posters) whilst cycling.

What nuance are you interested in? The nuance of when it's acceptable to intimidate vulnerable road users? No, I don't want that. It is indeed all or nothing. You either look after the vulnerable or you don't - you don't get to judge who to bully based on what you subjectively think is "reasonable" or "considerate".

Maybe you don't want to meet me. Maybe you'd sooner meet the drivers like those we saw in the vid. Good luck. If we do meet though, I'll still be taking care of you.

The nuance is that sometimes (agree re shelding vulnerable/less experienced) it's inconsiderate to cycle two abreast (two experienced cyclists needing to shelter each other?). Suspect you know this but won't admit it. Your comment it's all or nothing makes no sense. My comments keep being misinterpreted; bonkers to think that anyone sensible would have an issue with shelding vulnerable/inexperienced cyclists; I never said this. I did'nt mention bullying. You almost seem to hate drivers of all vehicles.

I meet drivers similar to the ones in the videos all the time (roughly one too close pass per ride); can't avoid them, but does'nt stop me trying to be a considerate cyclist and will avoid those that are'nt.  Good evening.

AndyIT wrote:

The nuance is that sometimes (agree re shelding vulnerable/less experienced) it's inconsiderate to cycle two abreast (two experienced cyclists needing to shelter each other?). Suspect you know this but won't admit it. Your comment it's all or nothing makes no sense. My comments keep being misinterpreted; bonkers to think that anyone sensible would have an issue with shelding vulnerable/inexperienced cyclists; I never said this. I did'nt mention bullying. You almost seem to hate drivers of all vehicles.

I meet drivers similar to the ones in the videos all the time (roughly one too close pass per ride); can't avoid them, but does'nt stop me trying to be a considerate cyclist and will avoid those that are'nt.  Good evening.

 

I think you've completely missed the point.

The driver is in no position to make any value judgement about riders' decision to double up. Therefore the sensible position as a driver ( the one that I take) is to wait for a safe place to pass, or for the riders and myself to part company. And that's it. I suspect you know this but won't admit it.

Your comments have not been misinterpreted, but they have been challenged, and you don't appear to be able to respond effectively - this is not my fault.

As I have said, I am a driver. At no point have I suggested that I hate drivers - why would I? This seems a particularly odd accusation coming from one who whines about misrepresentation. It's about as silly as suggesting that you hate all cyclists.

What I do believe in is the hierarchy of responsibility - eg those with the capacity to do most harm have a greater responsibility than those that do least. In addition, when driving I really can't be arsed to pop a vein about slower traffic in front. As I have said on more than one post, it does me no harm, and I'm confident enough to deal with it calmly and safely. When on my bike my priority is our safety above your convenience I'm afraid, and I would expect nothing different from any other rider I encountered

I'm always here for a good old chinwag, however, should you choose not to hang around, have a good evening yourself.

Toodlepip old thing 

You have made your views on considerate cycling clear; you won't bother with it as long as what you are doing is legal. I don't agree. Everyone has their own view.

AndyIT wrote:

You have made your views on considerate cycling clear; you won't bother with it as long as what you are doing is legal. I don't agree. Everyone has their own view.

It seems what you don't agree with is my view that riders do not inconvenience drivers, and therefore I have no reason to demand that they get out of my way. I am perfectly willing to accommodate them on the road (as per the direction of the HWC).

You still have done nothing to identify what you mean by considerate riding, other than, by implication, *get out of my way!*, so we have no hope of coming to a consensus there.

I'll hazard that we can agree that dangerous driving, bullying, intimidation and endangering lives is never acceptable, or excusable (even when inconvenienced), which was what we saw in the vid, and that riding side by side pales into insignificance by comparison

We have also covered the "nuance" that, yes riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable in many if not all circumstances. Hopefully, you also accept that as a driver we have no reliable way of identifying the reasons in each particular case, but amongst others there are:

• protecting a child from negligent driving
• coaching
• explanation of route
• indicating to drivers that it is unsafe to o/take
• preventing dangerous manoeuvres
• confidence building for an inexperienced rider
• It is actively proscribed by Bikeability and the Police as being acceptable!

With the above in mind how can we as drivers ever come to the conclusion that in this case our righteous anger is justified, these riders are inconsiderate (if perfectly legal and safe) and so should *GET OUT OF MY BLOODY WAY!*? Especially when o/taking riders is fully explained by the HWC, and easy to do in a safe manner?

I'm aware you don't agree. In spite of being a cyclist it seems that you still have a driver-centric point of view re ownership of the roads. Perhaps you cycle only for fun, and that colours your view. But that, I believe, is the root of our difference of opinion.

I see the roads as belonging to all to use as they see fit within the HWC, however, there is no "right" to go fast, to demand an empty way, to expect other people to accede to your wishes. As long as all accept that, there is no cause for conflict.

"We have also covered the "nuance" that, yes riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable in many if not all circumstances." that is the only point I was making.

"You still have done nothing to identify what you mean by considerate riding, other than, by implication, *get out of my way!*, so we have no hope of coming to a consensus there." you seem to get off on misinterpreting comments; it's not helpful. I have never said that nor sought to imply it.

"In spite of being a cyclist it seems that you still have a driver-centric point of view re ownership of the roads. Perhaps you cycle only for fun, and that colours your view. But that, I believe, is the root of our difference of opinion." You seem to have a bip chip on your shoulder re vehicle drivers. I don't have a driver centric viewpoint.

Yes I cycle for Fun/Fitness/to get from A to B; you? What's the issue with with cycling for fun? is it not real cycling?

"I'll hazard that we can agree that dangerous driving, bullying, intimidation and endangering lives is never acceptable, or excusable"; completely agree all road users should be considerate and not endanger other road users.

I believe in being considerate when on the roads whether in a car or bike; you are happy to do anything as long as its legal; surely that is the difference.

Have a good day.....

AndyIT wrote:

"We have also covered the "nuance" that, yes riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable in many if not all circumstances." that is the only point I was making.

In which case I don't understand your objection to it.

AndyIT wrote:

"You still have done nothing to identify what you mean by considerate riding, other than, by implication, *get out of my way!*, so we have no hope of coming to a consensus there." you seem to get off on misinterpreting comments; it's not helpful. I have never said that nor sought to imply it.

You have implied that getting out of your way is a key component to cycling considerately. You have offered no other concrete definition

AndyIT wrote:

"In spite of being a cyclist it seems that you still have a driver-centric point of view re ownership of the roads. Perhaps you cycle only for fun, and that colours your view. colours your view. But that, I believe, is the root of our difference of opinion." You seem to have a bip chip on your shoulder re vehicle drivers. I don't have a driver centric viewpoint.

No chip here - for risk of repeating myself, I'm a driver, who (covid not withstanding) clocks up many more miles on 4 wheels than 2.

AndyIT wrote:

Yes I cycle for Fun/Fitness/to get from A to B; you? What's the issue with with cycling for fun? is it not real cycling?

Again you misrepresent. I merely try to understand why you seem to believe that cyclists are lower on the hierarchy than car drivers. My view on how and why anyone chooses to use the road is covered by the first line in my last paragraph - "belonging to all to use as they see fit within the HWC"

AndyIT wrote:

"I'll hazard that we can agree that dangerous driving, bullying, intimidation and endangering lives is never acceptable, or excusable"; completely agree all road users should be considerate and not endanger other road users.

Great stuff

AndyIT wrote:

I believe in being considerate when on the roads whether in a car or bike; you are happy to do anything as long as its legal; surely that is the difference.

Again you make this assumption which has more than a hint of strawman about it. I'm happy to ride or drive in a safe manner. I expect other road users to do likewise. Especially when we drive, as this is when we have more capacity for harm.

AndyIT wrote:

Have a good day.....

You too.

"You have implied that getting out of your way is a key component to cycling considerately. You have offered no other concrete definition".

"I merely try to understand why you seem to believe that cyclists are lower on the hierarchy than car drivers.

You are at it again; you are mis-interpreting what I have said (in line with your agenda maybe?). Sometimes allowing other road users to more easily pass is considerate. You disagree. There is nothing more to be said.

Surely there is no need for a road hierarchy all can share safely & considerately. I don't think cyclists are 'lower' than vehicle drivers.

AndyIT wrote:

"You have implied that getting out of your way is a key component to cycling considerately. You have offered no other concrete definition".

"I merely try to understand why you seem to believe that cyclists are lower on the hierarchy than car drivers.

You are at it again; you are misinterpreting what I have said 

No misrepresentation, I have stated the implications of what you have said and how it came across. It would be hard to misrepresent when no clear point is being made.

AndyIT wrote:

... (in line with your agenda maybe?). 

Agenda? Really?? I have been clear that

• I drive more than I ride,
• I believe the roads to be the public space and free to use for all.
• consideration is primarily about the reduction of risk and harm.

As a driver, I take this very seriously. And well I should, as the risk and harm to others is immeasurably higher when behind the wheel than when on two. Waffling about 2 abreast being inconsiderate simply does not compare.

AndyIT wrote:

Sometimes allowing other road users to more easily pass is considerate. You disagree. There is nothing more to be said.

I have not disagreed, because that was not the point you made. Where I disagree is that there can be an expectation from drivers for riders to do this. It is utterly at the discretion of the rider, who will need to consider a myriad of safety-related issues before worrying whether continuing will delay a driver from getting to the end of the next queue by a few seconds.

AndyIT wrote:

Surely there is no need for a road hierarchy all can share safely & considerately. I don't think cyclists are 'lower' than vehicle drivers.

In which case why the expectation that they should yield? 

To sum up we saw a video of bullying, aggressive, dangerous driving around 2 riders who were cycling legally and safely.

Your take away that the riders were inconsiderate, in my view, is nonsensical. As a driver of 25 years, including driving professionally,  I have yet to be inconvenienced or put at risk by someone on a bike, and that certainly wasn't the case on this vid.

I don't give two hoots that you don't agree with me; I do care however when you keep mis-interpreting my statements as others on this forum will read them.

"Your take away that the riders were inconsiderate, in my view, is nonsensical"
My point was in general not specifically related to the video. The video showed good riding; had there been a queue of cars then considerate riders would have maybe gone to single file (though it idepends on road width if that would make a difference). I know, know they don't have to and no you would never ever ever ever consider doing this; I get it. belive me I get your viewpoint.

So in summary I don't hate cyclists (well only the ones that cycle dangerously near pedestrians/children etc) nor do I think cyclists are some how beneath vehicle drivers; they are'nt!.

Let's park it. life is to short.

AndyIT wrote:

I don't give two hoots that you don't agree with me; I do care however when you keep mis-interpreting my statements as others on this forum will read them. 

That I haven't done - maybe you need to be clearer in what you say?

AndyIT wrote:

"Your take away that the riders were inconsiderate, in my view, is nonsensical"
My point was in general not specifically related to the video.  

Here is your first post

"I can't see from the video but why were the cyclists two abreast? I cycle allot and usually get one close pass per ride however I see cyclists two abreast just chatting and think there is no need for them to be two abreast"

Your point was very definitely specific to riders in the vid.

AndyIT wrote:

The video showed good riding; had there been a queue of cars then considerate riders would have maybe gone to single file 

Perhaps, but that would be at their discretion.

AndyIT wrote:

 I know, know they don't have to 

Good

AndyIT wrote:

 and no you would never ever ever ever consider doing this; I get it. belive me I get your viewpoint.

I'm sure that you will be able to point out where I have said that. Again you shout a lot about misrepresentation whilst dishing it out liberally yourself. What I was clear on is that it is at the discretion of the rider, not the imagined convenience of the driver

AndyIT wrote:

So in summary I don't hate cyclists (well only the ones that cycle dangerously near pedestrians/children etc)

At no point did I suggest that you did

AndyIT wrote:

nor do I think cyclists are somehow beneath vehicle drivers; they are'nt!.

Good

AndyIT wrote:

Let's park it. life is to short. 

Like I said. I'm always here for a good old chin wag

Chin Chin