How close should a wing mirror get to you when overtaking?

mirv

I was cycling with a group of people around the Blessington lakes the other evening. Myself and one other person in the group were cycling two abreast ahead of the others when I heard a loud horn being sounded angrily twice behind me (it was definitely aggressive rather than feathering the horn a little to warn me).

We were on a stretch of windy bends with a continuous white line in the center of the road and were going 30-35km/h. Having heard the horn I had attempted slowed down to pull into a single file behind the other cyclist in order to let the driver pass, but she didn't give me enough time to do so and sounded her horn again before attempting to overtake the both of us. As she made her pass I looked down and her wing mirror was at most 20-30cm from my hip and I was quite angry and scared that she was coming so close so I batted at her wing mirror in an attempt to show her how ridiculously close she was to me. She had beeped angrily again before speeding off and pulling in so she could give out to us.

I'm 5'4 in height and I was on the hoods of my drop bars so I clearly wasn't stretching an awful lot in order to reach her mirror, especially in a split second time frame. I reached down with my right arm at a pretty low angle when I batted her mirror.

When we pulled in to talk to her she was a fuming ball of rage, trying to accuse us of not being allowed to cycle two abreast (we are, and I was attempting to pull back into single file as a courtesy), warning us of local boy racers who are speeding around the place, as well as pointing out that the bends where she overtook us are dangerous (there was a continuous white line, she shouldn't have overtook anyway, nevermind overtaking so close to us), and warning me that I shouldn't have tried to grab her wing mirror (I shouldn't have the opportunity to do so!), as well as not wanting to waste 10 minutes of her life behind cyclists (if she had given me a few more seconds to pull in a bit more and had given me a little more space when overtaking none of this would have occured!). She was in a state of denial of having had passed too close and was clearly scared when I touched her mirror, which turned into anger once she saw I wasn't knocked over on the side of the road.

Later on, we stopped to regroup with the rest of the cyclists in the group (probably around 6 or 7 others) and it had appeared that she had given them the same treatment of beeping angrily followed by a close pass. Clearly by the time she had caught up to me and the other cyclist she had run out of patience and was even more enraged than before at cyclists.

What are you meant to do in these situations? I've got no bell on my bike and I doubt either would be loud enough at 30km/h with a car's windows wound up. I know I shouldn't have hit her mirror but I panicked and it was the only thing I could have done to get her attention. It's awful that she denied any responsibility, and that nothing good came of the situation besides both of us having animosity for each other.

lennymc

take her details, report her for dangerous driving.

Beasty

1.5m is the minimum recommended distance. 30cm from the wing mirror (probably 40cm or so from the body of the car) would irritate me, but I would not personally get overly concerned, although I understand others would. If it was a heavy goods vehicle or bus that creates a lot of turbulence I would be a lot more concerned though

I would not recommend "batting" at a wing-mirror though, particularly if you were cycling so fast - that can only increase any danger to you and your fellow cyclists. You would also not do yourself any favours if you did any damage to her car

IMO the driver was definitely too close, should not have been blaring her horn and her attitude stank. As lennymc has said, the best thing you could now do is report her - given the numbers of cyclists involved, if everyone did this I am sure the Guards would feel obliged to act

Chips Lovell

The only time I think its acceptable to strike someone's car is to warn them if they're coming too close, which is what you appeared to do here.

Solid white line means she shouldn't have been overtaking, regardless of whether you were two abreast or single file

mirv

Yeah, the thing is if I didn't strike her car she would have had no warning whatsoever and we wouldn't have had any sort of 'conversation' at all. I feel that car drivers often don't realise how bad they are in relation to cyclists as we can't beep back to give them a bollocking.

It's as if they automatically assume that they're great drivers since we managed to not get run over or knocked off by a close pass. If she was overtaking another car with that clearance I'd pretty much assume the slower car would lay on the horn quite thickly. It's as if nothing is wrong until they DO knock us over.

Tenzor07

Amazing that this person should choose to try and warn you about "boy racers" speeding around the place, as if she hold's herself up as a prime example of how to behave behind the wheel!

People like her should have there licence suspended for a week and be made cycle everywhere, maybe then they would have some appreciation for what it's like to be on the roads with no metal/glass cage around them...

Lusk Doyle

mirv wrote: »

When we pulled in to talk to her she was a fuming ball of rage, trying to accuse us of not being allowed to cycle two abreast (we are, and I was attempting to pull back into single file as a courtesy), warning us of local boy racers who are speeding around the place, as well as pointing out that the bends where she overtook us are dangerous (there was a continuous white line, she shouldn't have overtook anyway, nevermind overtaking so close to us), and warning me that I shouldn't have tried to grab her wing mirror (I shouldn't have the opportunity to do so!), as well as not wanting to waste 10 minutes of her life behind cyclists (if she had given me a few more seconds to pull in a bit more and had given me a little more space when overtaking none of this would have occured!). She was in a state of denial of having had passed too close and was clearly scared when I touched her mirror, which turned into anger once she saw I wasn't knocked over on the side of the road.

Brilliant!

Lumen

I think we must accept that in any such conversation with an idiot, the best we can hope for is that they reconsider their behaviour after the event, later on when they've calmed down. You will not win the argument there and then.

For this reason the best approach is to clearly and patiently put your case, which is that you are cycling legally and safely and that she performed a dangerous manoeuvre.

This is unbelievably difficult to do when you want to grab the idiot and cave their head in with any available blunt instrument.

I tend to pick a middle ground which is to say nothing at all.

As for striking the mirror, you wouldn't be able to do that if she was overtaking at a safe distance.

JRant

Unfortunately drivers like that are becoming more and more common, not only in the cities but the country roads as well. If people actually seen the damage a car hitting a cyclist can do they would not be long changing there tune. They have a steel box protecting them, we have Lycra and a helmet.

Best approach is to take down their details and make a complaint through the Garda traffic watch phoneline.

hardCopy

I had a nasty close pass this morning from an Eircom van, didn't think quickly enough to get his number.

The road swung left as he was passing me and he just cut the corner and came very close to taking me out, I had to jam on and let him pass to avoid the squeeze.

Lusk Doyle

The Hoogerland incident from the tour last year should be shown by RSA in their safety ads!

fondriest

Yet another example of shocking driver behaviour . On a side note would I be right in saying that cyclists are only entitled to ride single file where there is a solid white line . Might be wrong but it's a habit I've gotten in to .

hardCopy

fondriest wrote: »

Yet another example of shocking driver behaviour . On a side note would I be right in saying that cyclists are only entitled to ride single file where there is a solid white line . Might be wrong but it's a habit I've gotten in to .

I'm pretty sure the line pattern has no effect on your right to ride two abreast. Although it may be illegal for a third cyclist to pass, since overtaking is not allowed on a continuous line.

Bunnyhopper

Pedal Cyclists

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

I don't see any mention of continuous white lines. I suppose the argument might be about what "endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic" would cover. It strikes me as extraordinarily vague, but then IANAL and there may well be well-established definitions for those terms. There's also the question of to what exactly the "and then only" refers.

Bunnyhopper

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the line pattern has no effect on your right to ride two abreast. Although it may be illegal for a third cyclist to pass, since overtaking is not allowed on a continuous line.

Is it that overtaking is not allowed at all, or that crossing the continuous white line is not allowed? If it's the latter then the third cyclist probably could overtake legally.

Idleater

hardCopy wrote: »

since overtaking is not allowed on a continuous line.

No, crossing the continuous line is illegal no overtaking.
As it happens, most vehicles won't be able to overtake in one lane, but a bicycle or motorcycle certainly can.

Beasty

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Is it that overtaking is not allowed at all, or that crossing the continuous white line is not allowed? If it's the latter then the third cyclist probably could overtake legally.

My understanding is it's the latter.

Boardnashea

308400_291807450830763_958356985_n.jpg

Beasty

Idleater wrote: »

No, crossing the continuous line is illegal no overtaking.
As it happens, most vehicles won't be able to overtake in one lane, but a bicycle or motorcycle certainly can.

It can also be relevant to motor vehicles when, for example, a slow moving vehicle moves over to the hard shoulder to allow other vehicles to pass, or if there are 2 lanes inside the continuous white line.

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

when, for example, a slow moving vehicle moves over to the hard shoulder to allow other vehicles to pass

I think that's illegal too.

Undercover Elephant

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Is it that overtaking is not allowed at all, or that crossing the continuous white line is not allowed? If it's the latter then the third cyclist probably could overtake legally.

Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1962

12. The following roadway markings having the following significance may be used :—

(a) a continuous white line, approximately four inches wide, and extending not less than sixty feet along the centre of the roadway—to indicate that traffic must keep to the left of such line;

IOW, it's the latter. The white line does not stop you overtaking, as long as you keep to your side of it.

2406r

When I am overtaking vehicles I try to leave a reasonable distance between me, my bike, and the wing mirror of the vehicle - particularly if the vehicle is also moving. However in circumstances in which I want to check that I am maintaining an appropriate facial expression I would pass quite close to the wing mirror of the vehicle concerned.

-PornStar-

Boardnashea wrote: »

308400_291807450830763_958356985_n.jpg

Pretty cool. Though it reinforces the fallacy that cyclists should stay in the gutter.

Páid

Originally Posted by Beasty
when, for example, a slow moving vehicle moves over to the hard shoulder to allow other vehicles to pass

Lumen wrote: »

I think that's illegal too.

It's only illegal on Motorways.

From the rules of the road "This road contains a hard shoulder, which is normally only for pedestrians and cyclists. If a driver wants to allow a vehicle behind them to overtake, they may pull in to the hard shoulder briefly as long as no pedestrians or cyclists are already using it and no junctions or entrances are nearby. Different rules exist for hard shoulders on motorways. See Motorways section for details."

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/traffic-signs-road-markings/road-markings.html

Motorways - http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/motorways/on-the-motorway.html

Lusk Doyle

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Pedal Cyclists

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

I don't see any mention of continuous white lines. I suppose the argument might be about what "endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic" would cover. It strikes me as extraordinarily vague, but then IANAL and there may well be well-established definitions for those terms. There's also the question of to what exactly the "and then only" refers.

How does one drive a pedal cycle?

Chips Lovell

You sit on it and turn the pedals with your feet, using the handlebars to steer yourself.

Lusk Doyle

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You sit on it and turn the pedals with your feet, using the handlebars to steer yourself.

Oh right, I thought that was called "cycling". My mistake.

macnab

A guy nearly clipped me with his wing mirror last week and then verbally abused me when I asked him to give more consideration to cyclists. For some reason my car horn beeps every time I pass his house........I need to get a life, I know ha ha.
Seriously though, its only a matter of time before a cyclist is killed due to car drivers attempts to teach cyclists lessons on how to use the road.
I have heard so many idiotic storeys from people I used to respect about how they spun their wheels or sounded their horn or drove really close to a group of cyclists because they held them up, or worse, the cyclists were cycling 2 abreast.....
I would like to see a national TV add campaign highlighting these issues, I am sick to the teeth of road side debates with ignorant people about the legality of cycling 2 abreast.

JRant

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You sit on it and turn the pedals with your feet, using the handlebars to steer yourself.

Oh right, I thought that was called "cycling". My mistake.

I've heard some garda refer to a bike as a push vehicle as well

macnab

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

How does one drive a pedal cycle?

From Wiki: "Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a land vehicle, such as a car, truck or bus.
Although direct operation of a bicycle and a mounted animal are commonly referred to as riding, such operators are legally considered drivers and are required to obey the rules of the road"


I suppose technically cycling is what you do with the pedals/crank etc, you also need to steer and balance, the culmination of all actions needed to propel a bicycle is riding.

robertxxx

Keep a Nunchuck in your back pocket and do a Bruce lee on the back window.

Woodend warrior

The road you were is used a lot by cyclist. The last couple of wicklow 200s used it. The world and its morher cycle there at weekends. Most people around there know this and are very patient. But you always get one. No matter where you are on that road run you have to keep your wits about you especially as you get back to the village. Be safe.

feck sake lads

there was an artical in cycling weekly few years back on road rage against cyclists,a simular incident happened the guy in the car got out like a crazy guy to kill everyone in the group, but didn't realize that one of the lads was a complete nutter , he grabbed the driver stuck a head in him fired him into the ditch and flung the car keys into the field ,the group rode off and left the guy in a sorry state in a wet and mucky ditch justice if you ask me :D:D

JRant

robertxxx wrote: »

Keep a Nunchuck in your back pocket and do a Bruce lee on the back window.

Or if your in a built up area there is always the right foot the the wing mirror technique!

hardCopy

JRant wrote: »

robertxxx wrote: »

Keep a Nunchuck in your back pocket and do a Bruce lee on the back window.

Or if your in a built up area there is always the right foot the the wing mirror technique!

*cough* Chain-Whip *cough*

macadam

Any less than arms lent and Ill bend his mirror.

Beasty

The next person advocationg going out of their way to damage motor vehicles (as opposed to touching them in a way to alert the driver to your presence) can expect a minimum of a red card.

Stoolbend

macnab wrote: »

A guy nearly clipped me with his wing mirror last week and then verbally abused me when I asked him to give more consideration to cyclists. For some reason my car horn beeps every time I pass his house........I need to get a life, I know ha ha.
Seriously though, its only a matter of time before a cyclist is killed due to car drivers attempts to teach cyclists lessons on how to use the road.
I have heard so many idiotic storeys from people I used to respect about how they spun their wheels or sounded their horn or drove really close to a group of cyclists because they held them up, or worse, the cyclists were cycling 2 abreast.....
I would like to see a national TV add campaign highlighting these issues, I am sick to the teeth of road side debates with ignorant people about the legality of cycling 2 abreast.

If no one reports these incidents then it is only a matter of time. If nothing came from it other than the guards to have a chat with the driver they would think twice the next time.

I would almost always cross the white line passing a cyclist anyway. What's another couple of metres to me. I don't even cycle.

lookitsme

even if you allowed to cycle two abreast doesn't mean you always have to. road courtesy goes both ways, cyclist have to pay attention to other road users as well. if you think it would be difficult for a car to pass out cyclists two a breast i think it is only right to cycle single file. if a car did pass dangerously close a bit of a knock, just enough to make a sound but not damage the car could be just the thing to highlight the drivers error.

macnab

lookitsme wrote: »

even if you allowed to cycle two abreast doesn't mean you always have to. road courtesy goes both ways, cyclist have to pay attention to other road users as well. if you think it would be difficult for a car to pass out cyclists two a breast i think it is only right to cycle single file. if a car did pass dangerously close a bit of a knock, just enough to make a sound but not damage the car could be just the thing to highlight the drivers error.

I wish you were right, but sadly the type of person who causes these problems is not the type of person who listens to reason.

Legally we as cyclists are allowed cycle 2 abreast, nobody has the right to deny us that without changing the law.

I have been held up on the roads by cyclists, tractors, busses, lorries and cars while I have been cycling. Never has one of those drivers pulled over to let me pass. I have never challenged any of those drivers about their bad driving manners. But then I dont feel that my journey is more important than theirs.

Pa Dee

There was a thread on politics.ie where it was claimed that cyclists had to remain with 12 inches of path or verge

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-8.html

lookitsme

macnab wrote: »

Legally we as cyclists are allowed cycle 2 abreast, nobody has the right to deny us that without changing the law.

tractors have the right to drive on the road but when they can most of them pull in to allow faster moving traffic pass. they are being courteous. by all means travel two abreast but if you are on a road that's not that wide and has on coming cars would you not just travel single file for a period of time if there are some cars behind you then travel 2 a breast when it conditions of the traffic or road conditions change

vamos!

I have never and would never try to intimidate a cyclist with my car. I get that you have no safety cage. What I don't get is how some cyclists are comfortable holding up people in faster vehicles, who are not out for a jaunt or exercise by constantly cycling two abreast. Is it safer? I have no objection to sitting in 1st or 2nd gear behind a bike when the road is bad and the cyclist cant stay in for fear of hitting a pothole. It boils my blood to sit behind a group of cyclists for 3 4KM or more when they COULD go one abreast to let me pass. I live on roads that are very busy with cyclists, horses, tractors and trailers. There are exceptions of course, but only one group consistently take up most of the road for kilometers without any consideration for cars and their drivers. I have no time whatsoever for road rage loonies, but am beginning to think that some are goaded into it by selfish cyclists who think it is acceptable to think that cars should sit behind them doing their speed when it is not necessary. Lack of patience for cyclists is dangerous for cyclists so why not encourage a bit of cop on and give and take?

macnab

lookitsme wrote: »

tractors have the right to drive on the road but when they can most of them pull in to allow faster moving traffic pass. they are being courteous. by all means travel two abreast but if you are on a road that's not that wide and has on coming cars would you not just travel single file for a period of time if there are some cars behind you then travel 2 a breast when it conditions of the traffic or road conditions change

I do most of my cycling alone to and from work (90km round trip) so most of my experience is in that circumstance. However I do get to enjoy some pleasure cyclists with friends now and then and on these occasions I have noticed that on the roads that you have mentioned ie "a road that's not that wide and has on coming cars" if you reduce from 2 abreast to single file then the majority of motorists will attempt to overtake us even if there is oncoming traffic, which of course means squeezing past the cyclist in a dangerous manner.

The result of this is that the cyclist is left to decide whether to inconvenience a car driver or potentially put their own life at risk.

Which option would you choose.

Chips Lovell

Two abreast is irrelevant here as it was a solid white line.

radia

Pa Dee wrote: »

There was a thread on politics.ie where it was claimed that cyclists had to remain with 12 inches of path or verge

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-8.html

That claim was made by TommyP who appears to be a dangerous, anti-cycling nutter. In the same thread he repeatedly admitted to buzzing cyclists who he feels are too far from the verge ("I dont keep any distance from them") and "viciously" beeping cyclists "in the hope of scaring them off the roads permanently". He claimed to do this to 2-3 cyclists every month. A few examples of his attitude:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-40.html#post3578448
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-42.html#post3580530
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-43.html#post3580551
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-45.html#post3584393
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-45.html#post3586060
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-46.html#post3611798

He was asked numerous times in that thread to substantiate his claim that cyclists must remain within 12 inches of the verge and didn't/couldn't because it's simply not true. In fact others cited legislation clearly showing the contrary.

If he's not just trolling and actually does this, he's a danger to others and himself. Imbecile!

Pa Dee

radia wrote: »

Pa Dee wrote: »

There was a thread on politics.ie where it was claimed that cyclists had to remain with 12 inches of path or verge

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-8.html

That claim was made by TommyP who appears to be a dangerous, anti-cycling nutter. In the same thread he repeatedly admitted to buzzing cyclists who he feels are too far from the verge ("I dont keep any distance from them") and "viciously" beeping cyclists "in the hope of scaring them off the roads permanently". He claimed to do this to 2-3 cyclists every month. A few examples of his attitude:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-40.html#post3578448
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-42.html#post3580530
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-43.html#post3580551
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-45.html#post3584393
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-45.html#post3586060
http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/146381-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists-46.html#post3611798

He was asked numerous times in that thread to substantiate his claim that cyclists must remain within 12 inches of the verge and didn't/couldn't because it's simply not true. In fact others cited legislation clearly showing the contrary.

If he's not just trolling and actually does this, he's a danger to others and himself. Imbecile!

He seems to dislike cyclists a lot. I didn't see other responses previously

SerialComplaint

lookitsme wrote: »

if you are on a road that's not that wide and has on coming cars would you not just travel single file for a period of time if there are some cars behind you

And so creating a narrow, longer obstruction for cars to pass, in which case they are even more likely to try to squeeze through at points where there in not enough space to pass safely.

mirv wrote: »

What are you meant to do in these situations?

Get a helmet-cam. It will cost you about €20 from 7dayshop.com. When you stop to have a 'little chat' with the driver in question, let them know that their dangerous overtake is on camera, and you're struggling to decide whether to put it on Youtube, take it to the Gardai, or both.

lookitsme

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And so creating a narrow, longer obstruction for cars to pass, in which case they are even more likely to try to squeeze through at points where there in not enough space to pass safely.

IMO its easier and safer to pass two cyclists traveling directly in front of each rather then them cycling beside each other

Beasty

lookitsme wrote: »

IMO its easier and safer to pass two cyclists traveling directly in front of each rather then them cycling beside each other

I don't understand why - if you're going to have to go into the oncoming lane anyway what difference does it make if you take an extra metre or so? It definitely makes the passing manouever quicker (and in most cases safer) if you're passing a shorter length of cyclists.

Idleater

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Two abreast is irrelevant here as it was a solid white line.

No, the solid white line (as stated earlier) has no bearing on whether overtaking is legal or not. Overtaking is legal once the solid white line is not crossed, and enough care and attention is given to other road users.

There are plenty of roads where cyclists can cycle two abreast and have a car pass with 1.5m clearance without crossing the centre line.

I've overtaken a long queue of cars (including a garda car) safely within the lane whilst driving the motorbike. Leap frogging each one in turn makes it simple and safe as you can see a lot more from a motorcycle than in a car thanks to positioning.

Back on topic, and having just returned from a club spin where there were one or two crossing the continuous white line passes, one with a beep to highlight the fact that we were "in the way" and "holding them up from passing illegally", cycling two abreast constitutes a much shorter and easier "blockage" for a motorist to pass. Just as it is easier to pass a tractor than a truck. Sadly, the concept of passing seems foreign to many motorists as they insist on being blocked instead of positioning themselves with a view to overtake.