|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
John Benn wrote:
"Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking why they did this and held up traffic. Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior. ============================= I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass. Some roads and places traffic huggs the center line, or there is a half decent Bike lane. once it gets chocker though mostly I find you need to swap sides since space and visablity changes, likewise get some roads where it's wide and straight with out oncomming traffic that I can just roll down the right lane. simple hard rules don't work there are places where to filter/overtake is foolish and where it makes sence to go left or right. Roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
On 18/08/2012 09:17, Colin Reed wrote:
On 18/08/12 00:44, JNugent wrote: On 17/08/2012 23:32, Colin Reed wrote: [ ... ] I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order to do so you must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all the motorists, most also do not leave enough room between themselves and the vehicle in front for an overtake on the right side. If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so that you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so much an overtaking move as a queue-jump. So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue jumping? ...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's speed. Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit? I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not walking past cars. What *on* *the* *carriageway*, and plonk themselves in a queue of motor vehicles, such that the motor vehicles behind them could move only at the pedestrians' speed? What happened after you woke up? You appear to be arguing with yourself. Only you have mentioned plonking pedestrians right in front of cars. Don't wriggle. You said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" in the context of overtaking and/or queue-jumping. That means within the same traffic stream. The only traffic stream within which pedestrians habitually move is the quasi-cycle-path known as the footway. A pedestrian walking on the footway past a stationary vehicle on the carriageway cannot credibly be said to be either overtaking or queue-jumping. I repeat: if you need a space between the front of the stationary vehicle you are overtaking and the rear of the stationary vehicle in front of him, you are not overtaking. You are queue-jumping. I suppose you are trying to make a comparison that cyclists "queue jump" and then immediately (and possibly deliberately) hold up the traffic. However, everyone else has merely written about overtaking queueing traffic, as have I. If you can overtake without queue-jumping (it IS possible in some circumstances, using any type of vehicle), all well and good. But if you intend (or need) to pull into a space between two queueing stationary vehicles ahead of you, you are simply queue-jumping. There is no other description that fits. It is a lousy way to behave, BTW. [ ... ] He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down the LHS. The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side - geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more effective on the driver's side? The driver has a better view of what is on the offside of his vehicle because he hasn't got the mass of the vehicle between him and it. Sit in the driving seat of a lorry and experience the lack of vision down the nearside for yourself. If you think the size of the upper B post is a bigger problem than that, your car must look very odd. You reckon that the offside A post blocks rearward vision down the offside flank of the vehicle? I see. No, I said that the closer an obstruction is to the observer, the wider the angle of the blind spot - and that there are potential methods to reduce the blind spot for the driver. What do you suggest makes them always more effective on the driver's side? I don't know that they are more "effective". And doubly wrong if he thinks that it justifies the stupidity of overtaking on the nearside: Apart from it being your opinion, what makes you so sure about this? What made you form this opinion? Did you read the recent report of the cyclist killed when he tried to undertake a left-turning bus (as retold by another cyclist who witnessed the incident but was far too canny and cautious to try the same trick)? Are all vehicles buses? Were we talking about general points or do you now want to specify purely left turning buses? I understand if you wish to move the goalposts of the discussion - it's ok. The stupidity of passing a large vehicle on the nearside should obvious enough - it's all to do with bad things that might happen to you. The stupidity of passing any vehicle on the nearside may be a little too subtle for you and certain others. The basic principle is that we make progress on the left and overtake on the right. That means that any road-user is actually under an obligation to keep left and others are under an obligation to allow him to do so (after all, he might need to stop). Passing on the nearside breaches that fundamental rule of the road. So it's just as much about the bad things you are doing to the people you undertake as about the bad things that might happen to you. Of course, I quite understand that you might not be very bothered about doing bad things to other people as long as you feel you can get away with it. The rule about not overtaking on the nearside applies in many countries, and for several reasons, including the driver not normally being on that side of the vehicle. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
On 18/08/12 19:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2012 09:17, Colin Reed wrote: On 18/08/12 00:44, JNugent wrote: On 17/08/2012 23:32, Colin Reed wrote: [ ... ] I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order to do so you must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all the motorists, most also do not leave enough room between themselves and the vehicle in front for an overtake on the right side. If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so that you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so much an overtaking move as a queue-jump. So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue jumping? ...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's speed. Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit? I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not walking past cars. What *on* *the* *carriageway*, and plonk themselves in a queue of motor vehicles, such that the motor vehicles behind them could move only at the pedestrians' speed? What happened after you woke up? You appear to be arguing with yourself. Only you have mentioned plonking pedestrians right in front of cars. Don't wriggle. You said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" in the context of overtaking and/or queue-jumping. That means within the same traffic stream. You are making another good job of defining what the other person is arguing. I said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" after previously having asked "So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue jumping?" I have a road around 400 metres from my house where there is no footpath. If there is a traffic jam, and I am walking into town, would walking past the stationary traffic where there is no footpath be considered queue jumping in your mind? It's a straight forward question - and no where did I say that they must be in the same traffic stream, or anything about plonking themselves in front of traffic. You added that all by yourself. All your own work. Well, done, but read the question fully before starting your answer. The only traffic stream within which pedestrians habitually move is the quasi-cycle-path known as the footway. A pedestrian walking on the footway past a stationary vehicle on the carriageway cannot credibly be said to be either overtaking or queue-jumping. I repeat: if you need a space between the front of the stationary vehicle you are overtaking and the rear of the stationary vehicle in front of him, you are not overtaking. You are queue-jumping. Although no-one else has mentioned space between the front and rear of two vehicles for taking the space - only for passing a stationary queue. It's called making way. I suppose you are trying to make a comparison that cyclists "queue jump" and then immediately (and possibly deliberately) hold up the traffic. However, everyone else has merely written about overtaking queueing traffic, as have I. If you can overtake without queue-jumping (it IS possible in some circumstances, using any type of vehicle), all well and good. But if you intend (or need) to pull into a space between two queueing stationary vehicles ahead of you, you are simply queue-jumping. There is no other description that fits. It is a lousy way to behave, BTW. We get it - you don't like queue jumping - even to the point where you'll think that people are describing it when they're not. After all, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that everyone *isn't* out to get you. [ ... ] He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down the LHS. The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side - geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more effective on the driver's side? The driver has a better view of what is on the offside of his vehicle because he hasn't got the mass of the vehicle between him and it. Sit in the driving seat of a lorry and experience the lack of vision down the nearside for yourself. If you think the size of the upper B post is a bigger problem than that, your car must look very odd. You reckon that the offside A post blocks rearward vision down the offside flank of the vehicle? I see. No, I said that the closer an obstruction is to the observer, the wider the angle of the blind spot - and that there are potential methods to reduce the blind spot for the driver. What do you suggest makes them always more effective on the driver's side? I don't know that they are more "effective". And doubly wrong if he thinks that it justifies the stupidity of overtaking on the nearside: Apart from it being your opinion, what makes you so sure about this? What made you form this opinion? Did you read the recent report of the cyclist killed when he tried to undertake a left-turning bus (as retold by another cyclist who witnessed the incident but was far too canny and cautious to try the same trick)? Are all vehicles buses? Were we talking about general points or do you now want to specify purely left turning buses? I understand if you wish to move the goalposts of the discussion - it's ok. The stupidity of passing a large vehicle on the nearside should obvious enough - it's all to do with bad things that might happen to you. The stupidity of passing any vehicle on the nearside may be a little too subtle for you and certain others. The basic principle is that we make progress on the left and overtake on the right. That means that any road-user is actually under an obligation to keep left and others are under an obligation to allow him to do so (after all, he might need to stop). Passing on the nearside breaches that fundamental rule of the road. So it's just as much about the bad things you are doing to the people you undertake as about the bad things that might happen to you. Of course, I quite understand that you might not be very bothered about doing bad things to other people as long as you feel you can get away with it. The rule about not overtaking on the nearside applies in many countries, and for several reasons, including the driver not normally being on that side of the vehicle. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
Jolly polly wrote:
"John Benn" wrote in message ... "Jolly polly" wrote in message ... "John Benn" wrote in message ... "John Benn" wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. This topic is being discussed in the censored, err. moderated group at the moment but posts are being deliberately delayed so much that it's pretty much unusable unless you are on the whitelist. whitelist? Or white list - a list of people who get their posts auto-approved. Having a chiark email address guarantees being on the white list. mmm I've posed many times there I expect there are plenty of admirers. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:38:29 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote: "Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:21:19 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking why they did this and held up traffic. Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior. ============================= I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass. All cars have been fitted with mirrors on the left hand side for at least a generation. ============================= But humans are only fitted with one pair of eyes and they have been for at least a generation. They also have a neck that can move through at least 180 degrees |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
... John Benn wrote: snip I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass. Some roads and places traffic huggs the center line, or there is a half decent Bike lane. once it gets chocker though mostly I find you need to swap sides since space and visablity changes, likewise get some roads where it's wide and straight with out oncomming traffic that I can just roll down the right lane. simple hard rules don't work there are places where to filter/overtake is foolish and where it makes sence to go left or right. Roger -- www.rogermerriman.com sounds good to me |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
Colin Reed wrote:
On 16/08/12 22:47, JNugent wrote: On 16/08/2012 22:36, Colin Reed wrote: On 16/08/12 19:23, JNugent wrote: On 16/08/2012 15:22, Jolly polly wrote: "John Benn" wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order to do so you must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all the motorists, most also do not leave enough room between themselves and the vehicle in front for an overtake on the right side. If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so that you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so much an overtaking move as a queue-jump. So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue jumping? ...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's speed. Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit? I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not walking past cars. As many cyclists do not wish to hinder the progress of a motor vehicle they will usually stay to the left of a lane, even when overtaking. I disagree about the blind spots, the obstructions like roof pillars are closer to the drivers head on the right, so hide a greater amount of whatever maybe there. You are wrong to think so. He's wrong to think that geometry works? He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down the LHS. The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side - geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more effective on the driver's side? the eyes are positioned considerably nearer to the offside A post thus movement of the head will enable a view around, on the near side movement of the head will not enable clear vision past the A post. with commercial vehicles there are blind spots caused principally by the height of the eyeball relative to the road. cyclists near my near side front wheel are visible, they are covered by the horizontal mirror above the side window whereas cyclists ahead of the scope of this mirror cannot be seen from the driving position, cyclists towards the rear of the vehicle can be in a blind spot when they are behind the scope of the horizontal mirror yet not back far enough to appear in the normal near side rear view mirror. -- ennemm |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message ... On 18/08/2012 10:46, Cassandra wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:36:58 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 18/08/2012 10:31, Cassandra wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking why they did this and held up traffic. Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior. Pushbikeists are only able to over (or rather undertake) stationary traffic. Once moving the child's toy is left behind. There appears to be a serious design flaw in cars as a means of transport if they can be beaten by childrens toys. As I said above, they can only be beaten when stationary. Which bit of that didn't you understand? But why are they stationary? If they are so good they should be moving all the time! Alan |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message ... On 18/08/2012 12:43, Cassandra wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:41:42 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 18/08/2012 10:46, Cassandra wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:36:58 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 18/08/2012 10:31, Cassandra wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking why they did this and held up traffic. Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior. Pushbikeists are only able to over (or rather undertake) stationary traffic. Once moving the child's toy is left behind. There appears to be a serious design flaw in cars as a means of transport if they can be beaten by childrens toys. As I said above, they can only be beaten when stationary. Which bit of that didn't you understand? If I'd bought a vehicle that ceases to function on a regular basis I'd take it back. Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending? One thing is absolutely certain, she is nowhere as stupid as you! Alan |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?
"John Benn" wrote in message ... "Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:21:19 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn" wrote: "Bill" wrote in message news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu... On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote: The Highway Code 163 says: If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left You have published the answer. Please learn to read. Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the driver. If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking why they did this and held up traffic. Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior. ============================= I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass. All cars have been fitted with mirrors on the left hand side for at least a generation. ============================= But humans are only fitted with one pair of eyes and they have been for at least a generation. Does that include car drivers? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Residents angered by litter left by cyclists | Mr. Benn[_9_] | UK | 75 | April 30th 12 07:55 PM |
Pembrokeshire cyclists at risk of serious injury after wire left onbusy cycle path | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 2 | January 6th 12 02:13 AM |
Left-turning cyclists could be exempt from stop signs. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 285 | November 2nd 08 12:08 PM |
Boris wants to legalise RLJ for left turning cyclists. | Martin Dann | UK | 41 | March 17th 08 09:26 AM |
Left Handed Cyclists? | Bret | Racing | 8 | February 14th 05 01:41 AM |