In message <u4ht69$2g9cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:37 on Tue, 23 May
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>>> From the video on the article at the linked news site, it looks like
>>>>the "gesture" was rather more than just a mild rebuke, and clearly the
>>>>jury was convinced that there was more going on than just bad language.
>>>
>>>AFAIW she didn't touch her. Shouting at someone is not illegal.
>>>
>>It can be under various circumstances, including but not limited to-
>>-putting someone in a state of fear or alarm
>>-if it is perceived as threatening behaviour
>>-if it is part of a course of harrassment
>
>Didn't look like any of the above to me. She said get off the fucking pavement
>and the cyclist went into the road without looking and got run over.

[Yes, I know this is a late reply]

By a motorist who should have been paying more attention and leaving
sufficient room in case that was the outcome. Everyone argues about the
role of the pedestrian and cyclist, but airbrushes out that motorist.

>That deserves 3 years does it? To me it stinks of requiring someone to
>blame for the cyclists own stupidity.

--
Roland Perry

On 23/12/2023 08:08, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u4ht69$2g9cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:37 on Tue, 23 May 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>>> From the video on the article at the linked news site, it looks like
>>>>> the "gesture" was rather more than just a mild rebuke, and clearly the
>>>>> jury was convinced that there was more going on than just bad language.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIW she didn't touch her. Shouting at someone is not illegal.
>>>>
>>> It can be under various circumstances, including but not limited to-
>>> -putting someone in a state of fear or alarm
>>> -if it is perceived as threatening behaviour
>>> -if it is part of a course of harrassment
>>
>> Didn't look like any of the above to me. She said get off the fucking pavement
>> and the cyclist went into the road without looking and got run over.
>
> [Yes, I know this is a late reply]
>
> By a motorist who should have been paying more attention and leaving sufficient room in case that was the outcome. Everyone argues about the role of the pedestrian and cyclist, but airbrushes out that motorist.
>
>> That deserves 3 years does it? To me it stinks of requiring someone to blame for the cyclists own stupidity.
>
Yes it is a late reply, as this seems to have gone through the legal system as far as it can.

But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have taken a good part of the blame. When driving one often encounters people cycling on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that makes no difference). My experience is that they can unpredictably move off the pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking. (How many cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find it an essential bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare). So when driving past anyone riding along the pavement I always assume that they could be just about to join me on the road and so I give them plenty of extra clearance. I don't think this is covered in the Highway Code, but it should be, in my opinion.

--
Clive Page

On 23/12/2023 12:12, Clive Page wrote:
> So when driving past anyone riding along the pavement I always assume
> that they could be just about to join me on the road and so I give them
> plenty of extra clearance.  I don't think this is covered in the Highway
> Code, but it should be, in my opinion.

I would extend that to anyone who might move into the road, pedestrians
near the edge of the pavement. Elderly and children of course.

I make the presumption that anyone on a bike is a complete idiot and
liable to do anything without warning / signalling especially if a
muppet like Vine in Lycra and camera on his head.

Better safe than sorry.

In message <um6lci$22kgt$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:46 on Sat, 23 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 23/12/2023 12:12, Clive Page wrote:
>> So when driving past anyone riding along the pavement I always assume
>>that they could be just about to join me on the road

Which of course they will always do to avoid an obstruction, rather
than using their brakes. Or are they optional extras like the direction
indicators on Audis?

>>and so I give them plenty of extra clearance.  I don't think this is
>>covered in the Highway Code, but it should be, in my opinion.
>
>I would extend that to anyone who might move into the road, pedestrians
>near the edge of the pavement. Elderly and children of course.

I think the existing advice about passing cyclists who are in the gutter
should equally apply. I'm not anti-cyclist, rather than anti
anarchic-cyclists. Just like I'm anti anarchic-drivers.

>I make the presumption that anyone on a bike is a complete idiot and
>liable to do anything without warning / signalling especially if a
>muppet like Vine in Lycra and camera on his head.

My impression is lycra-clad cyclists with head-cams are desperately
hoping that should they come to grief it might 1% of the time show
it wasn't entirely their own fault.

>Better safe than sorry.

Yes indeed. Doing all the paperwork after someone's committed suicide
under the front of your car will ruin your day.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/12/2023 12:12, Clive Page wrote:
> On 23/12/2023 08:08, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u4ht69$2g9cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:37 on Tue, 23 May
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>>> From the video on the article at the linked news site, it looks like
>>>>>> the "gesture" was rather more than just a mild rebuke, and clearly
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> jury was convinced that there was more going on than just bad
>>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIW she didn't touch her. Shouting at someone is not illegal.
>>>>>
>>>> It can be under various circumstances, including but not limited to-
>>>> -putting someone in a state of fear or alarm
>>>> -if it is perceived as threatening behaviour
>>>> -if it is part of a course of harrassment
>>>
>>> Didn't look like any of the above to me. She said get off the fucking
>>> pavement
>>> and the cyclist went into the road without looking and got run over.
>>
>> [Yes, I know this is a late reply]
>>
>> By a motorist who should have been paying more attention and leaving
>> sufficient room in case that was the outcome. Everyone argues about
>> the role of the pedestrian and cyclist, but airbrushes out that motorist.
>>
>>> That deserves 3 years does it? To me it stinks of requiring someone
>>> to blame for the cyclists own stupidity.
>>
> Yes it is a late reply, as this seems to have gone through the legal
> system as far as it can.
>
> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have taken
> a good part of the blame.   When driving one often encounters people
> cycling on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that makes no
> difference).  My experience is that they can unpredictably move off the
> pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking.  (How many
> cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find it an essential
> bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare).   So when driving past
> anyone riding along the pavement I always assume that they could be just
> about to join me on the road and so I give them plenty of extra
> clearance.  I don't think this is covered in the Highway Code, but it
> should be, in my opinion.
>
>

So you leave a metre clearance as I believe is recommended, then the
stupid **** swerves right across the road anyway without looking. Is the
motorist at fault for being in the same county as the cyclist?

I have precious little sympathy for the the average cyclist who pays no
attention to the rules of the road and then blames everyone else if/when
they are involved in an accident.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 23/12/2023 12:55, JMB99 wrote:
> On 23/12/2023 12:12, Clive Page wrote:
>> So when driving past anyone riding along the pavement I always assume
>> that they could be just about to join me on the road and so I give
>> them plenty of extra clearance.  I don't think this is covered in the
>> Highway Code, but it should be, in my opinion.
>
>
> I would extend that to anyone who might move into the road, pedestrians
> near the edge of the pavement. Elderly and children of course.
>
> I make the presumption that anyone on a bike is a complete idiot and
> liable to do anything without warning / signalling especially if a
> muppet like Vine in Lycra and camera on his head.
>
> Better safe than sorry.
>
>
>

Problem is that however much clearance you give them they always need more.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 15:37:50 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 23/12/2023 12:12, Clive Page wrote:
>> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have taken
>> a good part of the blame.   When driving one often encounters people
>> cycling on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that makes no
>> difference).  My experience is that they can unpredictably move off the
>> pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking.  (How many
>> cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find it an essential
>> bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare).   So when driving past
>> anyone riding along the pavement I always assume that they could be just
>> about to join me on the road and so I give them plenty of extra
>> clearance.  I don't think this is covered in the Highway Code, but it
>> should be, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>
>So you leave a metre clearance as I believe is recommended, then the
>stupid **** swerves right across the road anyway without looking. Is the
>motorist at fault for being in the same county as the cyclist?
>
>I have precious little sympathy for the the average cyclist who pays no
>attention to the rules of the road and then blames everyone else if/when
>they are involved in an accident.

Anyone not a child and with an ounce of brain would look before riding into
a road so if they don't and get run over thats entirely their lookout IMO.
Natural selection in action.

"Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
news:kuo15lFbs1jU1@mid.individual.net...
> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have taken a
> good part of the blame. When driving one often encounters people cycling
> on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that makes no
> difference). My experience is that they can unpredictably move off the
> pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking. (How many
> cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find it an essential
> bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare). So when driving past anyone
> riding along the pavement I always assume that they could be just about to
> join me on the road and so I give them plenty of extra clearance. I don't
> think this is covered in the Highway Code, but it should be, in my
> opinion.

I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if this
road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it should be
on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail to avoid an
accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.

How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close to the
central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap between you and the
kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road that you can't miss them.
Unless you mandate that cars must stop dead whenever they see someone who
might (very low probability) do something against the rules of the road...
(I'm not joking: having seen the number of ludicrous cyclist-centred changes
in the latest HC, nothing would surprise me.)

Sometimes the person who causes the accident (as opposed to the one who
fails to avoid someone else's accident) has to take the blame.

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:um6use$244t3$1@dont-email.me...

> I have precious little sympathy for the the average cyclist who pays no
> attention to the rules of the road and then blames everyone else if/when
> they are involved in an accident.

Likewise. And I say that as an occasional cyclist, because I am one of that
rare breed who ride as if I was in charge of human-powered car with number
plate that can be traced, so I obey all the relevant rules of the road
(stopping at red traffic lights or occupied zebra crossings, NEVER
overtaking a vehicle on the side that it is indicating to turn) that I would
if I was driving. And I hope (but don't necessarily *expect*!) others to do
the same. But I do expect cyclists who disobey a rule of the road (cycling
the wrong way on a one-way street, going through red traffic lights/zebra)
to be prosecuted and punished as I would expect to be if I was driving.

Sadly cyclists get away with breaking rules and, short of paying for it with
their lives, rarely get punished.

In message <um7gt3$278ct$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:31 on Sat, 23 Dec
2023, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>"Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
>news:kuo15lFbs1jU1@mid.individual.net...
>> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have
>>taken a good part of the blame. When driving one often encounters
>>people cycling on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that
>>makes no difference). My experience is that they can unpredictably
>>move off the pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking.
>>(How many cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find it
>>an essential bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare). So when
>>driving past anyone riding along the pavement I always assume that
>>they could be just about to join me on the road and so I give them
>>plenty of extra clearance. I don't think this is covered in the
>>Highway Code, but it should be, in my opinion.
>
>I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if
>this road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it
>should be on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail to
>avoid an accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.
>
>How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close to
>the central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap between you
>and the kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road that you can't
>miss them.

Assuming you mean "can't overtake them, according to the rules". Then I
slow down, patiently drive 20ft behind them for as long as it takes, and
if that irritates the other drivers stacked up behind me, they can write
to their MP, to write to the Transport Secretary, to get the HC changed.

>Unless you mandate that cars must stop dead whenever they see someone
>who might (very low probability) do something against the rules of the
>road... (I'm not joking: having seen the number of ludicrous
>cyclist-centred changes in the latest HC, nothing would surprise me.)
>
>Sometimes the person who causes the accident (as opposed to the one who
>fails to avoid someone else's accident) has to take the blame.

--
Roland Perry

On 24/12/2023 11:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <um7gt3$278ct$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:31 on Sat, 23 Dec
> 2023, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>> "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
>> news:kuo15lFbs1jU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have
>>> taken a  good part of the blame.   When driving one often encounters
>>> people cycling  on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though that
>>> makes no  difference).  My experience is that they can unpredictably
>>> move off the  pavement on to the road, nearly always without looking.
>>> (How many  cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on my bike and find
>>> it an essential  bit of kit, but they seem to be very rare).   So
>>> when driving past anyone  riding along the pavement I always assume
>>> that they could be just about to  join me on the road and so I give
>>> them plenty of extra clearance.  I don't  think this is covered in
>>> the Highway Code, but it should be, in my  opinion.
>>
>> I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if
>> this road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it
>> should be on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail to
>> avoid an accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.
>>
>> How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close to
>> the central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap between you
>> and the kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road that you can't
>> miss them.
>
> Assuming you mean "can't overtake them, according to the rules". Then I
> slow down, patiently drive 20ft behind them for as long as it takes, and
> if that irritates the other drivers stacked up behind me, they can write
> to their MP, to write to the Transport Secretary, to get the HC changed.

I was meaning that when I'm passing a cyclist who is cycling along the
pavement and who might suddenly turn and ride into the road, I will
drive as far from the kerb as I can without crossing my central line,
giving him even more width than normal, *in case* he does ride into the
road. He is a greater hazard than a cyclist who is cycling along the
road close to the kerb because he is probably more likely to veer into
my path without looking or caring.

The problem with the new rules on giving cyclists sufficient width is
when the road is not wide enough to pass them *for a long distance* -
for example on a narrow country lane. You get the ridiculous situation
of a cyclist who is not prepared to pull into a farm gateway to let
traffic past but who is exasperated by cars that are permanently on his
tail and who will not overtake because there is not enough room. I tend
to take a "please overtake" beckoning-on signal from a cyclist as
evidence that he is aware of me and is happy for me to overtake even
though there is not quite enough room according to the new rules,
because the alternative is to stay behind him for many miles - and yes
that situation happened to me on a road in the Yorkshire Dales: after
three miles of being "good" I eventually passed him slowly giving him as
much room as possible.

I've also had problems with cyclists who ride in the middle of a
single-track road all the time that they are on a straight section of
road (which is fair enough) but who then beckon me on every time they
get to a bend where I would definitely not overtake because I can't see
oncoming traffic. With a cyclist's higher vantage point, he should be
even better placed than me to see over the hedge/wall that there is an
oncoming car round the bend - which is why I'm hanging back despite his
signal. That cyclist nearly came a cropper because he rode in the middle
of the road round a bend, straight into the path of a Royal Mail van
that had stopped because he could see me and the cyclist - and the
cyclist yelled at the van for being "in his way", when the van was
correctly stopped close to the kerb to let oncoming vehicles past.

On 24/12/2023 11:41, NY wrote:
> On 24/12/2023 11:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <um7gt3$278ct$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:31 on Sat, 23 Dec
>> 2023, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>> "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:kuo15lFbs1jU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have
>>>> taken a  good part of the blame.   When driving one often encounters
>>>> people cycling  on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though
>>>> that makes no  difference).  My experience is that they can
>>>> unpredictably move off the  pavement on to the road, nearly always
>>>> without looking. (How many  cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on
>>>> my bike and find it an essential  bit of kit, but they seem to be
>>>> very rare).   So when driving past anyone  riding along the pavement
>>>> I always assume that they could be just about to  join me on the
>>>> road and so I give them plenty of extra clearance.  I don't  think
>>>> this is covered in the Highway Code, but it should be, in my  opinion.
>>>
>>> I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if
>>> this road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it
>>> should be on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail
>>> to avoid an accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.
>>>
>>> How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close
>>> to the central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap between
>>> you and the kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road that you
>>> can't miss them.
>>
>> Assuming you mean "can't overtake them, according to the rules". Then
>> I slow down, patiently drive 20ft behind them for as long as it takes,
>> and if that irritates the other drivers stacked up behind me, they can
>> write to their MP, to write to the Transport Secretary, to get the HC
>> changed.
>
> I was meaning that when I'm passing a cyclist who is cycling along the
> pavement and who might suddenly turn and ride into the road, I will
> drive as far from the kerb as I can without crossing my central line,
> giving him even more width than normal, *in case* he does ride into the
> road. He is a greater hazard than a cyclist who is cycling along the
> road close to the kerb because he is probably more likely to veer into
> my path without looking or caring.
>
> The problem with the new rules on giving cyclists sufficient width is
> when the road is not wide enough to pass them *for a long distance* -
> for example on a narrow country lane. You get the ridiculous situation
> of a cyclist who is not prepared to pull into a farm gateway to let
> traffic past but who is exasperated by cars that are permanently on his
> tail and who will not overtake because there is not enough room. I tend
> to take a "please overtake" beckoning-on signal from a cyclist as
> evidence that he is aware of me and is happy for me to overtake even
> though there is not quite enough room according to the new rules,
> because the alternative is to stay behind him for many miles - and yes
> that situation happened to me on a road in the Yorkshire Dales: after
> three miles of being "good" I eventually passed him slowly giving him as
> much room as possible.
>
> I've also had problems with cyclists who ride in the middle of a
> single-track road all the time that they are on a straight section of
> road (which is fair enough) but who then beckon me on every time they
> get to a bend where I would definitely not overtake because I can't see
> oncoming traffic. With a cyclist's higher vantage point, he should be
> even better placed than me to see over the hedge/wall that there is an
> oncoming car round the bend - which is why I'm hanging back despite his
> signal. That cyclist nearly came a cropper because he rode in the middle
> of the road round a bend, straight into the path of a Royal Mail van
> that had stopped because he could see me and the cyclist - and the
> cyclist yelled at the van for being "in his way", when the van was
> correctly stopped close to the kerb to let oncoming vehicles past.

"The powers that be" have decreed that cycling is "a good thing". That
might be fine if every cyclist was a sensible, law-abiding person.
Unfortunately far too many range from stupid, irresponsible or downright
dangerous to everybody else, yet there is trend to blame motorists
involved in accidents caused by thoughtless cyclists.

Next time you are out at night; try to estimate what percentage of
cyclists has bright effective lighting. If it is more than about 15-20%,
I would be surprised. How many times to cyclist emerging from junctions
/ paths without looking whether there is approaching traffic. Once I was
even flattened by a cyclist emerging from a house garden whilst I was
walking from Cambridge station to the city centre. I have also had near
misses whilst walking through bus stations.

Now I admit that not every cyclist is a total idiot or incompetent, but
I do think some ought to have compulsory third party insurance. And with
our roads so busy, is it really sensible to allow - or encourage - young
children to cycle on public roads - they are no place to practice
"wheelies", etc.

In message <wTednZdTcsdFhRX4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
11:41:09 on Sun, 24 Dec 2023, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
>On 24/12/2023 11:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <um7gt3$278ct$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:31 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>2023, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>>> "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
>>>news:kuo15lFbs1jU1@mid.individual.net...

>>>> But for what it is worth, I agree that the motorist ought to have
>>>>taken a  good part of the blame.   When driving one often encounters
>>>>people cycling  on the pavement, most of them illegally, (though
>>>>that makes no  difference).  My experience is that they can
>>>>unpredictably move off the  pavement on to the road, nearly always
>>>>without looking. (How many  cyclists have mirrors? I do have one on
>>>>my bike and find it an essential  bit of kit, but they seem to be
>>>>very rare).   So when driving past anyone  riding along the
>>>>pavement I always assume that they could be just about to  join me
>>>>on the road and so I give them plenty of extra clearance.  I don't 
>>>>think this is covered in the Highway Code, but it should be, in my  opinion.
>>>
>>> I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if
>>>this road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it
>>>should be on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail
>>>to avoid an accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.
>>>
>>> How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close
>>>to the central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap
>>>between you and the kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road
>>>that you can't miss them.

>> Assuming you mean "can't overtake them, according to the rules".
>>Then I slow down, patiently drive 20ft behind them for as long as it
>>takes, and if that irritates the other drivers stacked up behind me,
>>they can write to their MP, to write to the Transport Secretary, to
>>get the HC changed.
>
>I was meaning that when I'm passing a cyclist who is cycling along the
>pavement and who might suddenly turn and ride into the road, I will
>drive as far from the kerb as I can without crossing my central line,
>giving him even more width than normal, *in case* he does ride into the
>road. He is a greater hazard than a cyclist who is cycling along the
>road close to the kerb because he is probably more likely to veer into
>my path without looking or caring.

We don't get a lot of pavement cyclists other than within a mile of the
centre of the City. And that's such a hazardous area for all road users
it's best to crawl along at 15mph anyway.

>The problem with the new rules on giving cyclists sufficient width is
>when the road is not wide enough to pass them *for a long distance* -
>for example on a narrow country lane. You get the ridiculous situation
>of a cyclist

Or often a pair of them side by side.

>who is not prepared to pull into a farm gateway to let traffic past but
>who is exasperated by cars that are permanently on his tail and who
>will not overtake because there is not enough room. I tend to take a
>"please overtake" beckoning-on signal from a cyclist as evidence that
>he is aware of me and is happy for me to overtake even though there is
>not quite enough room according to the new rules, because the
>alternative is to stay behind him for many miles - and yes that
>situation happened to me on a road in the Yorkshire Dales: after three
>miles of being "good" I eventually passed him slowly giving him as much
>room as possible.

If you can see the road ahead is clear of oncoming traffic, then cross
the white line. My strategy then is overtake hugging the RH kerb, as
rapidly as possible, so I can safely get on my side of the road quickly.

>I've also had problems with cyclists who ride in the middle of a
>single-track road all the time that they are on a straight section of
>road (which is fair enough) but who then beckon me on every time they
>get to a bend where I would definitely not overtake because I can't see
>oncoming traffic. With a cyclist's higher vantage point, he should be
>even better placed than me to see over the hedge/wall that there is an
>oncoming car round the bend - which is why I'm hanging back despite his
>signal. That cyclist nearly came a cropper because he rode in the
>middle of the road round a bend, straight into the path of a Royal Mail
>van that had stopped because he could see me and the cyclist - and the
>cyclist yelled at the van for being "in his way", when the van was
>correctly stopped close to the kerb to let oncoming vehicles past.

One should not be conned into accepting other road user's opinions on
whether overtaking is safe. If it turns out not to be, they will NEVER
take responsibility.
--
Roland Perry

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> I agree that you should try to drive defensively, and plan "what if this
> road user does this thing that they are not supposed to", but it should be
> on a best-endeavours basis with minimal blame if you fail to avoid an
> accident that was *caused* by someone else's mistake.

Bicycles lean, they wobble, riders can be startled, they can go into bumps
and potholes and fall over. You should be prepared for them to do that,
just like you'd take care when overtaking a horse.

> How much of a gap should a driver leave? Suppose you drive as close to
> the central white line as you can, leaving the maximum gap between you and
> the kerb, but the cyclist goes so far into the road that you can't miss
> them. Unless you mandate that cars must stop dead whenever they see
> someone who might (very low probability) do something against the rules of
> the road... (I'm not joking: having seen the number of ludicrous
> cyclist-centred changes in the latest HC, nothing would surprise me.)

If the other side is not occupied and it is safe to do so, use the full
width of the road to overtake. Nobody else is using that space, and the more
space you give them the more leeway they have in case of an upset.

If there is oncoming traffic and you there is no suitable gap to overtake
using the full width of the road, leave as much space as your traffic lane
allows. It doesn't hurt to pull yourself out to the centre line, again
nobody else should be using that space.

According to the highway code rule 163 you should:

<quote>
- leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to
30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds

- pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and
allow at least 2 metres of space

- allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a
pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no
pavement)

- take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists,
cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather
(including high winds) and at night

- you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse
drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not
possible to meet these clearances.
</quote>

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

Theo

On 24/12/2023 13:24, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <wTednZdTcsdFhRX4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 11:41:09 on Sun, 24 Dec 2023, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
>> I've also had problems with cyclists who ride in the middle of a
>> single-track road all the time that they are on a straight section of
>> road (which is fair enough) but who then beckon me on every time they
>> get to a bend where I would definitely not overtake because I can't
>> see oncoming traffic. With a cyclist's higher vantage point, he should
>> be even better placed than me to see over the hedge/wall that there is
>> an oncoming car round the bend - which is why I'm hanging back despite
>> his signal. That cyclist nearly came a cropper because he rode in the
>> middle of the road round a bend, straight into the path of a Royal
>> Mail van that had stopped because he could see me and the cyclist -
>> and the cyclist yelled at the van for being "in his way", when the van
>> was correctly stopped close to the kerb to let oncoming vehicles past.
>
> One should not be conned into accepting other road user's opinions on
> whether overtaking is safe. If it turns out not to be, they will NEVER
> take responsibility.

With the cyclist who *only* beckoned me to overtake at each blind bend,
and who would move aside or stop for a couple of seconds to let me past
on the straights, I suspected that he *wanted* me to crash into
something oncoming. It happened to consistently that it was more
vindictiveness than incompetence.

He seemed annoyed that I wasn't falling for his little game, but instead
held back until I could see with my own eyes that it was safe to overtake.

I'd forgotten the other inconsiderate group of cyclists that I
encountered. Near me there is a single-track road with passing places.
It is standard courtesy that the car that is closest to a passing place
on his side will pull in there and wait (indicating left and maybe
giving a de-facto "I will wait for you" headlamp flash) for the oncoming
car/bike to pass him.

I saw a group of cyclists coming towards me and I was close to a passing
place, so I pulled in and stopped to let them pass. And the buggers
stopped in the middle of the road to read their maps and have a chat. I
flashed them again, to say "come on, I'm waiting patiently for you".
When they eventually set off again, I called out to the leader "I was
waiting for you to pass" and he retorted "Oh, sorry. I thought you'd
parked there. Didn't realise." Assuming he was not just being factious,
then it shows such a blatant misunderstanding of the HC and the rules
about not parking in passing places that I wonder whether they were safe
on the road. In the same way that drivers who also ride motor-bikes or
bicycles probably make better drivers (because they can see the world
from other people's points of view), cyclists who also drive probably
make better cyclists because hopefully they will actually have read the
HC at least once so they can pass the driving test.

There is a school of cyclists on single track roads who think that the
car should always be the one to pull into a passing place, and the the
cyclist should never be the one to do so even if he happens to get to
his passing place first.

The problem with the latest changes to the HC is that they make a
special case of out cyclists, according them all sorts of privileges,
instead of making them obey exactly the same laws as motor vehicles.
I've met cyclists who think that "if a law is inconvenient for you,
ignore it - it doesn't apply to you" (a quote from a Dick Francis novel,
in a different context) - that cyclists shouldn;t have to stop at red
traffic lights or occupied zebra crossings, and that if they hit a
vehicle or a pedestrian, it is their fault for not getting out of the
way of an entitled cyclist. I've witnessed two
cyclist-versus-pedestrians-on-a-zebra-crossing incidents. In one case, a
cyclist overtook a queue of cars that had stopped to let a woman with a
pram across, swerved between the leading car and the central refuge, and
only just missed the pram; he came off his bike and nearly went under an
oncoming lorry, but he got up and started shouting and looking as if he
was going to attack the woman so my mate restrained him until the police
arrived. In the other case, I was cycling towards a zebra crossing and
was slowing down for a large group of tourists on the crossing (it was
in the centre of Oxford), when another cyclist came storming past me,
yelling "out of my f-ing way" and rode full-tilt at them, making them
scatter. If I had done either of those things in a car, I would have
deserved many points on my licence, a hefty fine or maybe even a ban;
but cyclists get away with doing it. Time for a level playing field: the
same rules apply the same to all vehicles, even human-powered ones,
irrespective of the fact that a cyclist can do less damage than a car.

On 24/12/2023 13:13, Bevan Price wrote:
> Next time you are out at night; try to estimate what percentage of
> cyclists has bright effective lighting. If it is more than about 15-20%,
> I would be surprised.

Or even *any* lights and/or bright clothing. I think a lot of cyclists
forget that at dusk, an unlit cyclist in dark clothing is invisible
amongst a sea of tail lights and oncoming headlights, and that the same
applies where a road goes through shaded woodland on a sunny day. (In
the same way, when I'm driving, I put my lights on when the road goes
into shade on a sunny day.)

When I'm cycling, I keep my head and tail lights on all the time; with
LED lights and the large battery on an electric (pedelec) bike, you can
do that without needing to worry about using up the life of AA
batteries. I also wear a fluorescent Sam Browne sash.

I work on the principle that I'm just as dead no matter whose fault a
collision is, and that I need to take responsibility for my own safety,
rather than assuming that the other person is always to blame.

On 24/12/2023 14:19, Theo wrote:
> Bicycles lean, they wobble, riders can be startled, they can go into bumps
> and potholes and fall over. You should be prepared for them to do that,
> just like you'd take care when overtaking a horse.

I'm probably guilty of expecting a cyclist to be a *bit* less likely to
be startled by overtaking traffic than a horse; I slow down further and
give even more room to a horse rider than a cyclist, and tend to wait
for a beckoning signal from the rider to say "my horse is ready now for
you to overtake wide and slow".

Horse riders are among the worst for not wearing bright clothes and
maybe lights on their body, when riding at dusk. If I could ride a
horse, I think I'd wear a red cycling light on my back.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:09:10 +0000
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 24/12/2023 14:19, Theo wrote:
>> Bicycles lean, they wobble, riders can be startled, they can go into bumps
>> and potholes and fall over. You should be prepared for them to do that,
>> just like you'd take care when overtaking a horse.
>
>I'm probably guilty of expecting a cyclist to be a *bit* less likely to
>be startled by overtaking traffic than a horse; I slow down further and
>give even more room to a horse rider than a cyclist, and tend to wait
>for a beckoning signal from the rider to say "my horse is ready now for
>you to overtake wide and slow".
>
>Horse riders are among the worst for not wearing bright clothes and
>maybe lights on their body, when riding at dusk. If I could ride a
>horse, I think I'd wear a red cycling light on my back.

Horses being as thick as mince and easily spooked would probably catch the
flashing light in a reflection or something and suddenly bolt. Tried horse
riding once and it taught me why the car so quickly supplanted them even
though early cars were smelly, slow and unreliable.

In message <eJacne34YfiF2hX4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:58:29 on Sun, 24 Dec 2023, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
>On 24/12/2023 13:13, Bevan Price wrote:
>> Next time you are out at night; try to estimate what percentage of
>>cyclists has bright effective lighting. If it is more than about
>>15-20%, I would be surprised.
>
>Or even *any* lights and/or bright clothing. I think a lot of cyclists
>forget that at dusk, an unlit cyclist in dark clothing is invisible
>amongst a sea of tail lights and oncoming headlights,

On the other hand, I find cyclists with an extra-bright light
that flashes briefly once a second makes it much more difficult
to triangulate their exact position.

>and that the same applies where a road goes through shaded woodland on
>a sunny day. (In the same way, when I'm driving, I put my lights on
>when the road goes into shade on a sunny day.)

Every car I've had the last 20yrs has automatic headlights, which do
that without me needing to get involved.

>When I'm cycling, I keep my head and tail lights on all the time; with
>LED lights and the large battery on an electric (pedelec) bike, you can
>do that without needing to worry about using up the life of AA
>batteries. I also wear a fluorescent Sam Browne sash.
>
>I work on the principle that I'm just as dead no matter whose fault a
>collision is, and that I need to take responsibility for my own safety,
>rather than assuming that the other person is always to blame.

--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:20:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <eJacne34YfiF2hX4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>14:58:29 on Sun, 24 Dec 2023, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
>>On 24/12/2023 13:13, Bevan Price wrote:
>>> Next time you are out at night; try to estimate what percentage of
>>>cyclists has bright effective lighting. If it is more than about
>>>15-20%, I would be surprised.
>>
>>Or even *any* lights and/or bright clothing. I think a lot of cyclists
>>forget that at dusk, an unlit cyclist in dark clothing is invisible
>>amongst a sea of tail lights and oncoming headlights,
>
>On the other hand, I find cyclists with an extra-bright light
>that flashes briefly once a second makes it much more difficult
>to triangulate their exact position.
>
>>and that the same applies where a road goes through shaded woodland on
>>a sunny day. (In the same way, when I'm driving, I put my lights on
>>when the road goes into shade on a sunny day.)
>
>Every car I've had the last 20yrs has automatic headlights, which do
>that without me needing to get involved.

I hate cars that do that. From the front it looks briefly like you're being
flashed and from behind that they've put their brakes on. If you can't see
a car in the shade on a sunny day hand back your license and take the bus.
Its the same nonsense as the EU daytime running lights - no doubt a great
idea in scandinavia in the winter, not so much in more southern parts of
europe particularly in the summer.

On 24/12/2023 15:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <eJacne34YfiF2hX4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 14:58:29 on Sun, 24 Dec 2023, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
>> Or even *any* lights and/or bright clothing. I think a lot of cyclists
>> forget that at dusk, an unlit cyclist in dark clothing is invisible
>> amongst a sea of tail lights and oncoming headlights,
>
> On the other hand, I find cyclists with an extra-bright light
> that flashes briefly once a second makes it much more difficult
> to triangulate their exact position.

I have a permanently-on red rear light built into my bike but I also
wear a flashing red light clipped to my rucksack or saddle bag so as to
make me more eye-catching. Best of both worlds.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:09:10 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 24/12/2023 14:19, Theo wrote:
>> Bicycles lean, they wobble, riders can be startled, they can go into bumps
>> and potholes and fall over. You should be prepared for them to do that,
>> just like you'd take care when overtaking a horse.
>
>I'm probably guilty of expecting a cyclist to be a *bit* less likely to
>be startled by overtaking traffic than a horse; I slow down further and
>give even more room to a horse rider than a cyclist, and tend to wait
>for a beckoning signal from the rider to say "my horse is ready now for
>you to overtake wide and slow".
>
>Horse riders are among the worst for not wearing bright clothes and
>maybe lights on their body, when riding at dusk. If I could ride a
>horse, I think I'd wear a red cycling light on my back.
>
I have found myself following unlit police horses at night, I can only
surmise that the riders thought they were in a convoy of two relying
on the lighting display on the other horse.
The HC (rules 50-51) only recommends lights and hi-vis with no
references at all to any relevant regulation.

Worse still, on New Years Eve in London I found myself travelling
behind a PC on a bike with no lights. Fortunately I can't remember
where it was but it will be on the dashcam for the next few days.

On 02/01/2024 06:14, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:09:10 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 24/12/2023 14:19, Theo wrote:
>>> Bicycles lean, they wobble, riders can be startled, they can go into bumps
>>> and potholes and fall over. You should be prepared for them to do that,
>>> just like you'd take care when overtaking a horse.
>>
>> I'm probably guilty of expecting a cyclist to be a *bit* less likely to
>> be startled by overtaking traffic than a horse; I slow down further and
>> give even more room to a horse rider than a cyclist, and tend to wait
>> for a beckoning signal from the rider to say "my horse is ready now for
>> you to overtake wide and slow".
>>
>> Horse riders are among the worst for not wearing bright clothes and
>> maybe lights on their body, when riding at dusk. If I could ride a
>> horse, I think I'd wear a red cycling light on my back.
>>
> I have found myself following unlit police horses at night, I can only
> surmise that the riders thought they were in a convoy of two relying
> on the lighting display on the other horse.
> The HC (rules 50-51) only recommends lights and hi-vis with no
> references at all to any relevant regulation.
>
> Worse still, on New Years Eve in London I found myself travelling
> behind a PC on a bike with no lights. Fortunately I can't remember
> where it was but it will be on the dashcam for the next few days.
There's police websites to upload dashcam footage. I suggest you post
it there.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:26:33 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>On 02/01/2024 06:14, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:09:10 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Worse still, on New Years Eve in London I found myself travelling
>> behind a PC on a bike with no lights. Fortunately I can't remember
>> where it was but it will be on the dashcam for the next few days.
>There's police websites to upload dashcam footage. I suggest you post
>it there.

After coming home from probably a rough night dealing with yobs and chavs
I'm sure what the guy really needs is some self righteous do gooder complaining
about him not having lights on his bicycle. Give the guy a break.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:32:43 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:26:33 +0000
>Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>On 02/01/2024 06:14, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 15:09:10 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> Worse still, on New Years Eve in London I found myself travelling
>>> behind a PC on a bike with no lights. Fortunately I can't remember
>>> where it was but it will be on the dashcam for the next few days.
>>There's police websites to upload dashcam footage. I suggest you post
>>it there.
>
Identification by his backside might be a bit difficult (but his mates
probably know the cake rating).

>After coming home from probably a rough night dealing with yobs and chavs
>I'm sure what the guy really needs is some self righteous do gooder complaining
>about him not having lights on his bicycle. Give the guy a break.
>
The night hadn't even started. Assaults and people trying to break
through the NYE cordon came later.