Overtaking cyclists - double standards?

Motorist

When a motorist overtakes a cyclist a wide berth must be given for safety- I usually try to give a very minimum of about 6 feet space especially on a windy day or on a bad road. Yet cyclists find it perfectly acceptable to shoot along in moving traffic less than an inch from your door on the inside.

If giving a wide berth is necessary for safety, why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

Motorist

Motorist wrote: »

When a motorist overtakes a cyclist a wide berth must be given for safety- I usually try to give about 6 feet space especially on a windy day or on a bad road. Yet cyclists find it perfectly acceptable to shoot along in moving traffic less than an inch from your door on the inside.

If giving a wide berth is necessary for safety, why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

Because the damage a cyclist would do to a car in these scenarios is negligible compared to the damage a car would do to a cyclist.

Fair play for giving space on windy days, I always appreciate considerate driving.

-Chris-

If a car clips your handlebar as it passes, the bars turn hard left and you're most likely to fall off to the right - i.e. into traffic. If you clip a car (wing mirror etc.), it'll turn your bars hard right and probably throw you off to the left - i.e. away from traffic.

If a car clips your bars, it'll hit the bars at 50Kmph+, causing a violent loss of control for the cyclist. If a cyclist clips a car, they're doing it at (probably) less than 20Kmph. There's a big difference in the effect of the two impacts.

If a motorist clips a cyclist and the cyclist loses control and falls over, they'll more than likely fall in the path of the car behind. If a cyclist clips a motorist in slow moving traffic, they won't be exposed to the same danger.

Even without an impact, the air disruption from the car passing so close to the bike could destabilise it (think of when you pass a large truck at high speed on the motorway and feel the car rock with the force of the wind).

To summarise, there are loads of reasons why the emphasis is placed on cars overtaking too close rather than cyclists overtaking too close.


That being said, I'm always amazed by these threads. If you substituted "pedestrian" for "cyclist" in any of these questions, what would the result be?
Would you be as worried about pedestrians passing too close to your car when it's parked, and wonder why you can't pass them at the same distance?

There are stupid and dangerous "drivers" of all forms of vehicles. You shouldn't use the worst examples of behaviour to tar the entire group with the same brush.

Chartsengrafs

Motorist wrote: »

why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

Thanks for looking out for us Motorist. Nice to know someone cares.

Motorist

-Chris- wrote: »

That being said, I'm always amazed by these threads. If you substituted "pedestrian" for "cyclist" in any of these questions, what would the result be?
Would you be as worried about pedestrians passing too close to your car when it's parked, and wonder why you can't pass them at the same distance?

There are stupid and dangerous "drivers" of all forms of vehicles. You shouldn't use the worst examples of behaviour to tar the entire group with the same brush.

I thought your post was good up to here.

Im not having a go at cyclists, just genuinely wondering reasons which you offered with explanation of handlebar being clipped. I had really only ever envisaged a cyclist swerving out or falling out in front of me while driving.

n900guy

Motorist wrote: »

When a motorist overtakes a cyclist a wide berth must be given for safety- I usually try to give a very minimum of about 6 feet space especially on a windy day or on a bad road. Yet cyclists find it perfectly acceptable to shoot along in moving traffic less than an inch from your door on the inside.

If giving a wide berth is necessary for safety, why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

Same as running between traffic for a pedestrian and cars not being allowed drive on footpaths.

nomdeboardie

In addition to the factors the previous posters mentioned, a cyclist knows exactly how far they are from a car they're passing at all times. In contrast, a driver's perspective is a good few feet to the right and occluded by bits of car even before they reach the cyclist.

n900guy wrote: »

Same as running between traffic for a pedestrian and cars not being allowed drive on footpaths.

Yes, or where there's a narrow shared space in which cars and pedestrians have to pass each other - a walker can safely move very close to a stationary or already-slowly-moving car, but if approaching a walker, the onus is on a driver to keep as far as possible from them /reduce speed /stop, especially if the walker is on the passenger side of the car.

seamus

It's exactly the same reason why people usually move way out or change lane when passing a broken-down vehicle in the hard shoulder of a motorway, but on a narrow road will crawl by parked vehicles with just inches to spare.

The margin for error required is directly proportional to the speed differential. You do it subconsciously in most cases.

SerialComplaint

Motorist wrote: »

When a motorist overtakes a cyclist a wide berth must be given for safety- I usually try to give a very minimum of about 6 feet space especially on a windy day or on a bad road. Yet cyclists find it perfectly acceptable to shoot along in moving traffic less than an inch from your door on the inside.

If giving a wide berth is necessary for safety, why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

Do you leave different distances when overtaking another car at 100 kmph, and when passing in slow moving traffic at 10 kmph?

morana

Motorist wrote: »

When a motorist overtakes a cyclist a wide berth must be given for safety- I usually try to give a very minimum of about 6 feet space especially on a windy day or on a bad road. Yet cyclists find it perfectly acceptable to shoot along in moving traffic less than an inch from your door on the inside.

If giving a wide berth is necessary for safety, why do cyclists endanger themselves by overtaking with so little room on the inside?

lets be honest here what are you trying to achieve with this?

Do you cycle yourself? In one of the major cities perhaps?

A lot of my commute is covered by cycle lanes where I can freely fly by the motorists stuck in traffic.

And before you ask I am fully taxed & insured motorist like most of the people who contribute here.

(PS I am also insured when on the bike except when going for milk!!!)

-Chris-

Motorist wrote: »

I thought your post was good up to here.

Im not having a go at cyclists, just genuinely wondering reasons which you offered with explanation of handlebar being clipped. I had really only ever envisaged a cyclist swerving out or falling out in front of me while driving.

Apologies, I've just seen this conversation so many times at this stage that I tend to read it as antagonism/anti-cyclist by default.

monument

-Chris- wrote: »

Apologies, I've just seen this conversation so many times at this stage that I tend to read it as antagonism/anti-cyclist by default.

I'm not having a dig at you, but I think on this board sometimes as a collective (both normal mods and normal uses) we can be very hostile to people with little understanding of how little many people are of why cyclists do things.

Even when we explain something, it may take a bit to sink in or may not be clear no matter how hard we try to explain – doing is quite different than saying and experiencing is quite different than being told.



Even among cyclists, it can be hard to explain something with the difference between urban cyclists / off-road only cyclists / road racers / et.

-Chris-

monument wrote: »

I'm not having a dig at you, but I think on this board sometimes as a collective (both normal mods and normal uses) we can be very hostile to people with little understanding of how little many people are of why cyclists do things.

Even when we explain something, it may take a bit to sink in or may not be clear no matter how hard we try to explain – doing is quite different than saying and experiencing is quite different than being told.



Even among cyclists, it can be hard to explain something with the difference between urban cyclists / off-road only cyclists / road racers / et.

(Not meaning to take the thread OT, but... )

I completely accept your point and would definitely agree that we're far more likely to change minds through educating rather than berating people.

It was an answer borne of frustration at the fact that virtually every discussion on cycling (on radio, in the papers, on boards, etc) eventually results in someone complaining re: RLJ/not paying road tax/cycling with no lights etc., and the conversation being hijacked by those subjects.
It doesn't matter what the topic is, that's what it'll be reduced to.

It's like a Godwin's law for cycling topics

thebullkf

I would've thought the simplest answer and most common is because theres so little room in the first place to over/under take.

But no- it never fails to amaze me the rabid defence of all things bi-ped, incl questioning OP's motives for asking a genuine question.