Overtaking Cyclists

Pandoras Twist

I find this a bit awkward. All help is appreciated, pretty sure this is what I failed on in my test

- How much berth do you give them

- If you don't cross the white line do you still indicate?

- If there is oncoming traffic would you have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist and wait for an opportunity to overtake?

Reg'stoy

I personally always indicate as much to show traffic behind me that there is an obstacle up ahead so that they inturn will slow down. As a learner I would wait behind the bike (drop down the gears) till I could safely pass it allowing him/her space in case of wind which is if I remember correctly is a theory test question.

I would assume that during the test the tester would take your slowing and indication as awareness of a hazzard. I would only cross the centre line if there was no oncoming traffic but if the road was wide enough to pass him without crossing it, I would still indicate.

For others wiser than I, having read in motors about an accident where a fellow driver 'flashed' a car to proceed across him (car turning right) only for turning car to hit a motorbike. In the OP's situation where learner approachs bike, slows and indicates only to have an oncoming driver 'flash' him as in 'pass the bike' what should they do? By not passing are they showing lack of progress. Maybe one of the ADI's might tell us.

**Timbuk2**

Hi!

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

- How much berth do you give them

It's hard to answer this exactly, but I'd say - a lot! Cyclists can easily swerve to avoid potholes, or more commonly be blown off course due to wind, etc. Try to give them as much room as possible - almost as much as if you were overtaking a car. Make sure it's safe to do.

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

- If you don't cross the white line do you still indicate?

I've heard this white line thing a few times and I'm not sure where it comes from. When overtaking (although it sounds a bit odd), imagine there is no white line - give them as much room as you can (realistically), don't worry about trying to stay any side of the white line. Indicate (after checking your mirrors) if you think it will help other drivers to understand your intentions. In most cases, indicate regardless of whether you will cross the white line or not - but just be wary about overtaking a cyclist if you are approaching a junction, or somewhere where a right turn signal may mislead.

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

- If there is oncoming traffic would you have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist and wait for an opportunity to overtake?

Yes! Definitely! Too many people overtake cyclists dangerously. Slow right down the speed of the cyclist, making sure to check your mirrors regularly while waiting for a gap to overtake. If you've ever seen Dublin Buses waiting behind cyclists, you'll know what I mean - they come into contact with cyclists all the time (because they are in bus lanes) and they never overtake dangerously (or at least not in my experience).

I know you didn't ask it but I may as well point out that you shouldn't overtake a cyclist if you are turning left shortly ahead - chances are the cyclist is going straight on. I've seen it happen too many times that people overtake a cyclist, then slow down to take the turn (meanwhile the cyclist maintains the same speed) and the driver completely forgets about the cyclist they just overtake, resulting in the cyclist having to brake hard to avoid being hit by the car. Of course a check in the left wing mirror before you turn (which is a critical component of the Mirror-Signal-Mirror-Manouver technique) would probably solve this, but it's often overlooked.

I hope this helps

seamus

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

- How much berth do you give them

In countries where a minimum passing distance is in force, this distance is 1m (3 feet). This is the kind of berth you should give a cyclist when overtaking. Sound like a lot when the road is only 2.5/3m, but remember that the cyclist may need to take corrective action to avoid a hazard themselves and 1m gives them the room to do so.

- If you don't cross the white line do you still indicate?

Yes. This shows that you are alerting other drivers to your actions. Any change of road position should be adequately indicated to other roads users, whether or not you cross the white line.

It's also worth noting that you may not cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist. Where there is a solid white line, you may only overtake where the overtake would not result in crossing the white line.

If there is oncoming traffic would you have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist and wait for an opportunity to overtake?

Absolutely. Do not drive up the cyclist's arse. Treat the overtake as you would overtaking any other slow-moving vehicle - stay back far enough and when overtaking, move out before overtaking. Don't drift right-wards while overtaking.
Yes, it's extremely frustrating when you're stuck behind a 70 year old man on an even older bike travelling at 10km/h, but provided that you are putting other roads users' safety first, you won't have an issue with progress.

In my experience it's very rare to find yourself held up by a slow-moving cyclist for more than 100m or so.

If you come upon a fast moving cyclists (doing 25km/h or more), then consider the road ahead. If there is a junction 50m ahead where you will have to stop anyway, then file in behind the cyclist and don't overtake him. Remember that overtaking is a manouver you use to significantly improve your progress on the road. If you overtake only to have to stop 50m down the road (i.e. within the distance you can see to be clear), then that's a poor/pointless overtake.

ciotog

Thought I'd add a cyclists perspective, purely from safety/courtesy perspective, more than the test. Timbuk2 and Seamus sum it up really well. I'm also involved in a cycling campaign and we request that motorists take the French 1.5 metre clearance when overtaking (if possible). Though the 1m mentioned above would be much more than a large proportion of drivers currently give. The conditions of the roads are getting much worse, so I find myself having to come further out from the left edge to avoid debris and potholes. I'm not trying to be vindictive doing this, I'm not in the 'cyclist vs cagers' camp. I don't want to hold your journey up without good reason. Close overtaking tends to push a cyclist further towards the verge and closer to or through these hazards. It's easy to come off the bike from what seems a shallow (for a motor vehicle) pothole and inadequate space means a potential crush situation. I really, really appreciate motorists who signal (and give space) regardless of crossing the white line as it seems to encourage other following motorists to behave more cautiously also. My understanding is that it is required you signal when overtaking.

Lastly, a lot of motorists overtake cyclists when there's oncoming traffic. Incredibly dangerous and it's an offence. Slow down and wait for the safe opportunity.

Pandoras Twist

Thanks for the replies, they were really helpful

One or two more overtaking questions as I think its what I failed my test on.

- When you are overtaking do you indicate out and then indicate back in when you have passed, even if its a cyclist?

I did it in Orwell and there's a really long road which at the weekend (when I was doing all my driving lessons) was completely free of cars. I think its Orwell Road. Come the Friday morning when I do my test, there was a row of parked cars on both sides of the road with no gaps that I could even pull in on my side.

- What would you do in that situation? Its a very common road that's used in the test so I wonder how everyone else managed it. Do you stop and only go forward when there is gaps in the oncoming traffic (which there wasn't) or proceed while staying just to the left of the white line?

- How much berth should I be giving the parked cars? Because if its 2 or 3 ft I would have been well over the other side of the road and there was loads of oncoming traffic.

- What speed should I have maintained? I was trying to stay doing 50 but it felt a bit reckless while I was doing it.

Thanks all!

seamus

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

- When you are overtaking do you indicate out and then indicate back in when you have passed, even if its a cyclist?

Generally not. Remember that you should only indicate where it would be helpful to do so. If you are overtaking someone, the expectation is that you will return to the left-hand side of the road, and therefore there is no specific necessity to indicate left when moving back in.
Indicating left after an overtake may confuse oncoming traffic or cars waiting to pull out (they might think you're taking the next left turn).

What would you do in that situation? Its a very common road that's used in the test so I wonder how everyone else managed it. Do you stop and only go forward when there is gaps in the oncoming traffic (which there wasn't) or proceed while staying just to the left of the white line?

I know the road, though I didn't so my test there. If there is a fairly comfortable amount of room between the parked cars and the white line, then you can proceed without stopping for oncoming traffic.
If you will have to cross the white line, then wait for a break in the traffic. Indicate left, pull out around the cars, turn off your indicator and then proceed. If it is a solid row of cars on your left, don't pull back in and stop for oncoming traffic. Assuming that there was no oncoming traffic when you started the overtake, then you are in control of the road for the entire manouver.

How much berth should I be giving the parked cars? Because if its 2 or 3 ft I would have been well over the other side of the road and there was loads of oncoming traffic.

This is always quite hard to say. The distance you give in general is proportional to the speed you're going. That is, if you're moving swiftly, give more room. If you're crawling along, you can afford to squeeze it to within 1 foot.

What speed should I have maintained? I was trying to stay doing 50 but it felt a bit reckless while I was doing it.

If it's as tight as you say, then 50km/h is way too fast. Would you have been able to stop if a child or dog came out from between two of the parked cars? Again, it's hard to say, but if it's tight, then 30 or even 20km/h isn't unreasonable.

Knowing the Orwell road, it's not *that* tight, but then I'm experienced. Try to get an experienced driver to come with you when that road is busy and give you their opinion on what to do.

seamus

Here is probably a good example of the conditions you're talking about:

http://bit.ly/fqB2cf

If you look at the proportions in reality - you'd fit two of those puntos into that lane with change to spare. The red Toyota (starlet?) on the right is technically illegally parked beside a traffic island, but even so you'd still manage to fit another car between it and the line without difficulty.

So it's probably experience more than anything. The car isn't as big as you think it is. Plant your wheels beside the white line and drive at 30km/h until you get around that bend and you'll be fine. Practice on this road if you need to.

challengemaster

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

I find this a bit awkward. All help is appreciated, pretty sure this is what I failed on in my test

- How much berth do you give them

- If you don't cross the white line do you still indicate?

- If there is oncoming traffic would you have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist and wait for an opportunity to overtake?

I remember being told that you should give enough room so that if they fall off the bike, you won't run them over... so essentially how high they are is how far out you move....

I'd indicate to let other traffic know A) what I'm doing, and that there's a potentially invisible to them cyclist/road user/obstacle I'm overtaking. The lights aren't on your car for your benefit, it's so others know what you're doing.

Yes, if there's oncoming traffic and you don't have enough room to overtake the cyclist safely, then slow down, sit back and treat them like a slow moving car. Remember to watch your mirrors in traffic if you come to a stop soon after passing a cyclist, as they can/will move through stationary traffic.

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, they were really helpful

One or two more overtaking questions as I think its what I failed my test on.

- When you are overtaking do you indicate out and then indicate back in when you have passed, even if its a cyclist?

I did it in Orwell and there's a really long road which at the weekend (when I was doing all my driving lessons) was completely free of cars. I think its Orwell Road. Come the Friday morning when I do my test, there was a row of parked cars on both sides of the road with no gaps that I could even pull in on my side.

- What would you do in that situation? Its a very common road that's used in the test so I wonder how everyone else managed it. Do you stop and only go forward when there is gaps in the oncoming traffic (which there wasn't) or proceed while staying just to the left of the white line?

- How much berth should I be giving the parked cars? Because if its 2 or 3 ft I would have been well over the other side of the road and there was loads of oncoming traffic.

- What speed should I have maintained? I was trying to stay doing 50 but it felt a bit reckless while I was doing it.

Thanks all!

I wouldn't ever have tended to indicate back in after overtaking a cyclist, because I wouldn't have felt I was out far enough to warrent it. However if you feel the need, do so. You won't ever get marked down for letting others know what you're doing.

If there are cars parked on both sides of the road, then it's a case of whoever gets there first has right of way. Normally, which ever side has the obstacle (car parked) on it, has to wait, but if both sides are blocked, whoever arrives first has the right of way. If there's not sufficent room for 2 cars to pass eachother and the parked cars, you should wait until there is a gap in traffic long enough for you to fully pass the stretch.

Make sure to indicate for this entire manouver.

For parked cars, you should allow enough room that a driver can open their door fully and you will miss them. This is because you never know when this can happen, and people WILL do this without paying attention. Again, if you need to move onto the other side of the road/cross the white line - wait until you have a large enough gap in traffic to complete the manouver, and always indicate when overtaking parked cars.

Proceeding more slowly through an area with a build up of parked cars should NOT be an area where you will lose marks, as there is a very likely chance that a person/child/animal could run out from behind a car onto the road. If you feel the need to proceed more slowly, do so, it will also give you a better chance to observe your surroundings and watch out for hidden hazards.

Just make sure to maintain the speed limit at all other times, or you will be marked down for progression

challengemaster

seamus wrote: »

The red Toyota (starlet?) on the right is

Is a yaris. Tut tut seamus

seamus

Whatever it is, I wouldn't be caught dead in it!

brian076

seamus wrote: »

It's also worth noting that you may not cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist. Where there is a solid white line, you may only overtake where the overtake would not result in crossing the white line.

Incorrect. It's perfectly acceptable to cross a continuous white line to get by an obstruction if safe to do so, and a cyclist would be deemed as an obstruction in this case.
Would you realistically stay behind a cyclist for several miles if you had an opportunity to pass but only by crossing a solid white line?

challengemaster

I'm fairly sure cyclists count as road users.... no matter how much of an obstruction they can be >_>

jimmyw

I tell ya I am a car driver but with the past while I am also a cyclist and I did not realize how vulnerable cylists really are on the road even with a high vis jacket.Some cars, and even trucks are only a cats whisker away from you, you could touch their mirrors, feckin scary:(

Wishbone Ash

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

If you've ever seen Dublin Buses waiting behind cyclists, you'll know what I mean - they come into contact with cyclists all the time (because they are in bus lanes) and they never overtake dangerously (or at least not in my experience)............

...........you shouldn't overtake a cyclist if you are turning left shortly ahead - chances are the cyclist is going straight on

I'd have to disagree with you there. I used to have a lot of time for Dublin Bus drivers until I went back to cycling last year. Many have a nasty habit of overtaking me only to immediately pull in at a stop several metres ahead when they could easily have waited another 2 seconds or so.

When overtaking they are generally OK within the city or suburban areas but on the outer suburban and county routes where there is no bus lanes and the roads are narrower and often unlit, they tend to pass very close and then cut in to avoid oncoming traffic.

seamus wrote: »

If you come upon a fast moving cyclists (doing 25km/h or more), then consider the road ahead

I tend to cycle quite fast (40-55kph) and find that some drivers have a psychologically need to overtake a cyclist before assessing his speed. They then find that midway through their manoeuvre, they face an oncoming truck with flashing headlights. Of course they then "blame" the cyclist with horn and gestures! :rolleyes:

brian076

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm fairly sure cyclists count as road users.... no matter how much of an obstruction they can be >_>

That's not the point, in general cyclists are not capable of matching the speed of vehicles who wish to drive up to the speed limit and therefore they become an obstacle. The same could be said of horses and riders on a country road. They're entitled to be there, but that doesn't mean you're going to drive behind them for a few miles just because you don't want to cross a continuous white line.

Pandoras Twist

Thanks again for all the replies. They should sort me out

It was this part of the Orwell Road I'm talking about where it was much narrower

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dropping+Well,+milltown&aq=t&sll=53.308814,-6.277077&sspn=0.006231,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=Dropping+Well,+milltown&hnear=&ll=53.29997,-6.254018&spn=0.000745,0.002411&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.29997,-6.254018&panoid=ETi92mwcSU3p4PwnIMVG_Q&cbp=12,316.7,,0,9.95

The car in the picture has crossed the white line when passing but on the day there was constant oncoming trafffic.

From the photo though there looks like there was more space than it felt like on the day. Should I have kept the speed up in that situation?

Also there was only cars on my side. I must have just felt more hemmed in because of the panic!

challengemaster

brian076 wrote: »

That's not the point, in general cyclists are not capable of matching the speed of vehicles who wish to drive up to the speed limit and therefore they become an obstacle. The same could be said of horses and riders on a country road. They're entitled to be there, but that doesn't mean you're going to drive behind them for a few miles just because you don't want to cross a continuous white line.

Have you any proof of this, say, in the road traffic laws?

brian076

challengemaster wrote: »

Have you any proof of this, say, in the road traffic laws?

Not every aspect of driving is covered in the Rules of the Road, however sometimes you just have to use common sense.

The ROR state that you can only cross a continuous white line in the case of an emergency, but it's widely accepted that you can also cross one to get by an obstruction, to gain access to a property and where there are 2 lines in the centre of the road and the one closest to you is broken.

I actually failed my first Advanced Driving test for not overtaking a cyclist in such a situation. The tester, who was a Garda Driving Instructor told me that any vehicle which is not capable of travelling at at least 40kmh can be considered an obstruction, and you can cross a continuous white line if safe to do so.

tomasrojo

I think there's a certain inconsistency in the use of continuous white lines.

For example, can buses and cyclists cross the white lines that border bus lanes and cycle lanes? The intended meaning is almost certainly that cars can't cross into them, but the implication is that buses and cyclists can't cross out of them. Double lines, broken on the inside and continuous on the outside would be more logical, but a lot more trouble.

As for the scenario the OP is talking about here, I don't think claiming a vehicle travelling at under 40km/h is an obstacle would stand up in court, unless there is a regulation or statute that says that. I can see the logic, in that an obstacle is something that impedes progress, but a moving obstacle seems a curious concept.

The law could do with some refinement on this issue, I think. Common sense should be one's guide, I suppose, but that's not sufficiently unambiguous for the reassurance the OP is seeking in the context of a driving exam.

For sure, even from the point of view of passing the exam, don't let a continuous white line influence you into making a close pass as you overtake a cyclist.

Lumen

brian076 wrote: »

I actually failed my first Advanced Driving test for not overtaking a cyclist in such a situation. The tester, who was a Garda Driving Instructor told me that any vehicle which is not capable of travelling at at least 40kmh can be considered an obstruction, and you can cross a continuous white line if safe to do so.

A bicycle is capable at travelling at well over 40kph on the flat. If you mean "a vehicle which is not being driven at over 40kph", I got points on my licence in the UK for crossing a white line to overtake a car doing about 30kph, and whilst the laws are not identical the principles are the same.

I wouldn't want to leave the decision over what consitutes an "obstacle" to a guard. I'd rather just hang back for a while and enjoy some unobstructed progress once the overtake is done.

brian076

Lumen wrote: »

A bicycle is capable at travelling at well over 40kph on the flat. If you mean "a vehicle which is not being driven at over 40kph", I got points on my licence in the UK for crossing a white line to overtake a car doing about 30kph, and whilst the laws are not identical the principles are the same.

I wouldn't want to leave the decision over what consitutes an "obstacle" to a guard. I'd rather just hang back for a while and enjoy some unobstructed progress once the overtake is done.

The important point again is to use common sense. Of course it's not safe to overtake an obstacle if your going to put yourself or someone else in danger, and of course a bike could go at 40kmh, but if your stuck behind some oul lad on a bike dojng 5kmh and you've a clear road ahead of you, are u going to stay behind him for the next mile until you get a broken line?

For the benefit of the OP, if this situation occurs on your test and you don't overtake, you won't be marked, as the ROR only mentions an emergency, but the tester will almost certainly tell you to pass him if safe to do so. Having worked as a tester I can assure you that this happens on a regular basis

seamus

brian076 wrote: »

The important point again is to use common sense. Of course it's not safe to overtake an obstacle if your going to put yourself or someone else in danger, and of course a bike could go at 40kmh, but if your stuck behind some oul lad on a bike dojng 5kmh and you've a clear road ahead of you, are u going to stay behind him for the next mile until you get a broken line?

The law says "yes". Although there no interpretation given, common sense tells us that the difference between an obstruction and another road user is motion.

For the sake of the test it's not worth making your own interpretation of the law and as you point out, the tester will not mark a driver down for sticking to the law where no lawful alternative exists.

**Timbuk2**

Maybe it's just a Co. Louth thing, but in a few places I see broken white lines where there definitely shouldn't be, and some roads have solid white lines when they aren't really necessary - I wouldn't let white paint on the road dictate where is and isn't safe to overtake. Assess the road ahead, the traffic behind you, how long it will take to overtake the cyclist, then overtake when it is safe to do. I've seen cars trying to squeeze past parked cars by staying to the left of the white centreline - whereas it would be much safer if they just crossed the white line when there is a gap in traffic.

challengemaster

brian076 wrote: »

Not every aspect of driving is covered in the Rules of the Road, however sometimes you just have to use common sense.

That's why I said the road traffic laws - they DO cover everything.

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Maybe it's just a Co. Louth thing, but in a few places I see broken white lines where there definitely shouldn't be, and some roads have solid white lines when they aren't really necessary - I wouldn't let white paint on the road dictate where is and isn't safe to overtake. Assess the road ahead, the traffic behind you, how long it will take to overtake the cyclist, then overtake when it is safe to do. I've seen cars trying to squeeze past parked cars by staying to the left of the white centreline - whereas it would be much safer if they just crossed the white line when there is a gap in traffic.

Unfortunately you have to, otherwise if Mr.Garda sees you, you'll be getting some penalty points and a fine. And yes, in most places the road markings are completely insane.

**Timbuk2**

challengemaster wrote: »

Unfortunately you have to, otherwise if Mr.Garda sees you, you'll be getting some penalty points and a fine. And yes, in most places the road markings are completely insane.

Well that's true - but it just seems illogical to base it solely on line type. If it's the case that overtaking is illegal when it's a solid white line, then people will believe the contrapositive to be true - that overtaking when it is a dashed white line is always safe. But I have seen it happen that even at junctions the lines remain dashed (usually minor road joining a main road) - and I could be wrong, but isn't it illegal to overtake at junctions? Even if it isn't illegal, there's lots of hazards associated with overtaking at junctions - cars turning left may only look right, etc. (there's a lot of hazards involved with overtaking at junctions listed in the Roadcraft book!)