Driving etiquette………..
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 27 May 2015
Driving etiquette………..
I drive about 60 miles a day to/from work. I tend to use the dual carriageway trunk roads in the morning and the quiet country roads in the evening.
For some while now, I’ve observed the driving “tactics” of others and myself and wondered what is considered acceptable etiquette in various situations. The scenarios are numerous, so I’ll start with an over-simplified situation……….
For example, four-lane dual carriageway (two lanes each direction) with a National speed limit at 70mph. Long line of relatively slow moving traffic at 57mph in the nearside lane. Lone motorist following at 65mph and obviously catching up the long, slow line. Lone motorist notices that a long line of vehicles in the outside lane, travelling at 70mph are catching up with him. Decision time !
Does etiquette suggest the lone motorist should :-
- Slow down to 57mph, remain in the nearside lane and allow the faster queue to overtake
- Speed-up to 70mph, pull out and overtake the slow line, ie at the head of the fast line
- Pull out at a steady 65mph and maintain this previously selected speed until well clear of the slow line and then give way to the now “not so fast queue” that has built up behind him.
Don, I think I've spotted a flaw: Being male he should be referred to as the father of all stupid cyclists!
Actually apart from the coffee (hence one hand) and headphones he's entitled to be there, however, it's still not a road I'd choose to cycle along (I also know it).
Huge, Yes I know he has aright to be there, and he is the "father" rather than the "mother" (but that didn't sound right to me) of all stupid cyclists , and yes it was Bury's Bank Road.
Like you, I wouldn't choose to cycle this particular road, or attempt the cattle grid on a bike, using one hand !
Whilst unhesitatingly I condemn the idiocy of cyclists not being in full control of their cycles or aware of their surroundings for whatever reason - holding something, overladen, listening to music amongst many other possibilities, I would observe that every cyclist has as much a right to be on every road not formally closed to cyclists as any car driver, and car drivers should remember that. Sadly many don't, and defensive cycling - which includes being assertive at times - is definitely require, hence my criticism re music, which is different from the situation for car drivers purely because of the need to be defensive. If all were equal cyclists would not need to ride that way ( some countries give clear guidance regarding clearance when passing cyclists - that is heeded).
Don, I think I've spotted a flaw: Being male he should be referred to as the father of all stupid cyclists!
Actually apart from the coffee (hence one hand) and headphones he's entitled to be there, however, it's still not a road I'd choose to cycle along (I also know it).
Huge, Yes I know he has aright to be there, and he is the "father" rather than the "mother" (but that didn't sound right to me) of all stupid cyclists , and yes it was Bury's Bank Road.
Like you, I wouldn't choose to cycle this particular road, or attempt the cattle grid on a bike, using one hand !
Whilst unhesitatingly I condemn the idiocy of cyclists not being in full control of their cycles or aware of their surroundings for whatever reason - holding something, overladen, listening to music amongst many other possibilities, I would observe that every cyclist has as much a right to be on every road not formally closed to cyclists as any car driver, and car drivers should remember that. Sadly many don't, and defensive cycling - which includes being assertive at times - is definitely require, hence my criticism re music, which is different from the situation for car drivers purely because of the need to be defensive. If all were equal cyclists would not need to ride that way ( some countries give clear guidance regarding clearance when passing cyclists - that is heeded).
I think when you read my comments above, but in the context of my other posts you will recognise that I understand the current rights of cyclists (in the UK) and far more importantly, that I do my level best to safeguard them from harm by me.
Don, I think I've spotted a flaw: Being male he should be referred to as the father of all stupid cyclists!
Actually apart from the coffee (hence one hand) and headphones he's entitled to be there, however, it's still not a road I'd choose to cycle along (I also know it).
Huge, Yes I know he has aright to be there, and he is the "father" rather than the "mother" (but that didn't sound right to me) of all stupid cyclists , and yes it was Bury's Bank Road.
Like you, I wouldn't choose to cycle this particular road, or attempt the cattle grid on a bike, using one hand !
Whilst unhesitatingly I condemn the idiocy of cyclists not being in full control of their cycles or aware of their surroundings for whatever reason - holding something, overladen, listening to music amongst many other possibilities, I would observe that every cyclist has as much a right to be on every road not formally closed to cyclists as any car driver, and car drivers should remember that. Sadly many don't, and defensive cycling - which includes being assertive at times - is definitely require, hence my criticism re music, which is different from the situation for car drivers purely because of the need to be defensive. If all were equal cyclists would not need to ride that way ( some countries give clear guidance regarding clearance when passing cyclists - that is heeded).
I think when you read my comments above, but in the context of my other posts you will recognise that I understand the current rights of cyclists (in the UK) and far more importantly, that I do my level best to safeguard them from harm by me.
Indeed understood, Don, and I didn't mean to sound as if I suggested otherwise. My point is that far too many motorists regard cyclists as in the way on THEIR road - when it is equally the cyclist's road, and there shouldnt be roads where anyone considers it an unsuitable place for cyclists to be (though cyclists should use wisdom in deciding a route, which would reasonably take account of the risk presented by other road users and the physical road itself, though of course if not local, as apparently the case with the example cited, knowledge of the road could not figure.)
Sounds like a plonker, but what's your point?
"Plonker" is too kind a word winky.
My points are.....
- He stood a real probability of coming a cropper on the cattle grid.
- Some irresponsible motorist might have tried to overtake him only to meet another motorist coming the other way and this guy wouldn't have been able to respond to any subsequent manoeuvre due to being effectively deaf as well as out of control of his machine.
- It was entirely up to other people, in this case my other half, to help ensure his safety.
"Plonker" is nowhere near the mark ! All of us, cyclists included, have a responsibility towards our own safety as well as the safety of others. Mrs D displayed that responsibility, this chap didn't. Not all motorists are intent on murdering cyclists, but many cyclists seem committed to suicide.
You have a point of there were any facts at all to back up your assertion that cyclists have some sort of deathwish.
I'll see you one anecdote, and raise you two. Three or four modified cars on the sea-to-sky last night driving well in excess of the speed limit, and weaving in and out of traffic. A pickup on Friday eveninig that came alongside, me squeezed me into the door zone, then pulled across my path into a parking spot, all without indicating. A car this morning that came alongside me on a blind curve, then realising that they couldn't see far enough ahead to stay halfway across the unbroken yellow line safely, simply squeezed me into the gutter.
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
I used to feel very naked on my bicycle rides in the days before lycra was invented....
Good call, this thread needed someone to lighten it up a bit!
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
The families of the two cyclists murdered by a drunk driver an hour north of here two weeks ago need to lighten up a bit too, I guess.
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
The families of the two cyclists murdered by a drunk driver an hour north of here two weeks ago need to lighten up a bit too, I guess.
I think most of us here agree with most of what you have to say winky, but your persistent use of such emotive language undermines your cause.
Now, of course, in this particular case, you might very well be right and that a murder has been committed. It is after all in your locallity so you should know. I am however surprised that the court case that has convicted this murderer has taken place so quickly.
Whether it is a case of murder, manslaughter, gross irresponsibility or whatever words fit the case it is a crime and the drunk should be prosecuted accordingly. I can't imagine there to be any mitigating circumstances.
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
The families of the two cyclists murdered by a drunk driver an hour north of here two weeks ago need to lighten up a bit too, I guess.
I think most of us here agree with most of what you have to say winky, but your persistent use of such emotive language undermines your cause.
Now, of course, in this particular case, you might very well be right and that a murder has been committed. It is after all in your locallity so you should know. I am however surprised that the court case that has convicted this murderer has taken place so quickly.
Whether it is a case of murder, manslaughter, gross irresponsibility or whatever words fit the case it is a crime and the drunk should be prosecuted accordingly. I can't imagine there to be any mitigating circumstances.
Fair enough. The guy who ran down and killed the cyclists a couple of weeks ago was drunk, and driving unlicenced due to multiple DUI convictions in the past. Certainly warrants some strong words in my opinion. "Oopsie" doesn't cover it.
Driving in cars has always been madness...
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
The families of the two cyclists murdered by a drunk driver an hour north of here two weeks ago need to lighten up a bit too, I guess.
I think most of us here agree with most of what you have to say winky, but your persistent use of such emotive language undermines your cause.
Now, of course, in this particular case, you might very well be right and that a murder has been committed. It is after all in your locallity so you should know. I am however surprised that the court case that has convicted this murderer has taken place so quickly.
Whether it is a case of murder, manslaughter, gross irresponsibility or whatever words fit the case it is a crime and the drunk should be prosecuted accordingly. I can't imagine there to be any mitigating circumstances.
Fair enough. The guy who ran down and killed the cyclists a couple of weeks ago was drunk, and driving unlicenced due to multiple DUI convictions in the past. Certainly warrants some strong words in my opinion. "Oopsie" doesn't cover it.
+100%
For every plonker cyclist who is placing no-one but themselves at risk, there are countless examples of impatient, careless, distracted and incompetent motorists placing many others, including themsleves, their family and friends at risk all the time. Don't try to tell me there are "two sides". Yes, OK, but they are so unevenly matched that it makes the argument laughable. Don't try to justify the killing of pedestrians and cyclists by motorists by pointing out flaws in the victims' behaviour. I'm sick of this.
We could spend an eternity giving examples of such things from all persectives. Of course there are two sides but I don't see any posts that condone irresponsible behavior from any road user. So don't be so melodramatic.
The families of the two cyclists murdered by a drunk driver an hour north of here two weeks ago need to lighten up a bit too, I guess.
I think most of us here agree with most of what you have to say winky, but your persistent use of such emotive language undermines your cause.
Now, of course, in this particular case, you might very well be right and that a murder has been committed. It is after all in your locallity so you should know. I am however surprised that the court case that has convicted this murderer has taken place so quickly.
Whether it is a case of murder, manslaughter, gross irresponsibility or whatever words fit the case it is a crime and the drunk should be prosecuted accordingly. I can't imagine there to be any mitigating circumstances.
Fair enough. The guy who ran down and killed the cyclists a couple of weeks ago was drunk, and driving unlicenced due to multiple DUI convictions in the past. Certainly warrants some strong words in my opinion. "Oopsie" doesn't cover it.
+100%
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-tragedy-412717.html
It was simply an "Oops! Oh dear, I really should replaced those bald tyres. Sorry." that did indeed cover it in this case.
Driving in cars has always been madness...
Debs
'I like driving in my car
It's not quite a jag-u-ar'
Thanks for planting that terrible earworm!
Is it me or did music seem a bit more fun in those days?
Bruce
Debs
'I like driving in my car
It's not quite a jag-u-ar'
Thanks for planting that terrible earworm!
Is it me or did music seem a bit more fun in those days?
Bruce
It really was more fun in those day, Bruce.
And that particular Madness video is marvellously well thought-out and funny, the low budget British homespun daftness and humour only adding to the charm.
Debs
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-tragedy-412717.html
It was simply an "Oops! Oh dear, I really should replaced those bald tyres. Sorry." that did indeed cover it in this case.
No normal tyre, with tread or otherwise, will have any traction on black ice.
Debs
'I like driving in my car
It's not quite a jag-u-ar'
Thanks for planting that terrible earworm!
Is it me or did music seem a bit more fun in those days?
Bruce
It really was more fun in those day, Bruce.
And that particular Madness video is marvellously well thought-out and funny, the low budget British homespun daftness and humour only adding to the charm.
Debs
The only modern music video I could think of with a bit of wit. Enjoy Jake Gylenhall's shorts!
Bruce
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-tragedy-412717.html
It was simply an "Oops! Oh dear, I really should replaced those bald tyres. Sorry." that did indeed cover it in this case.
No normal tyre, with tread or otherwise, will have any traction on black ice.
Exactly. So why wasn't driver charged with something/anything other than bald tyres? Hence my assertion that it was excused as simple bad luck (i.e. an "oopsie"). Did the driver not have a legal responsibility to maintain control of his vehicle? It seems not, in the eyes of the law.
https://www.facebook.com/Cycle...eos/841394419286533/
Lots of victim-blaming going on the comments of this one!
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-tragedy-412717.html
It was simply an "Oops! Oh dear, I really should replaced those bald tyres. Sorry." that did indeed cover it in this case.
No normal tyre, with tread or otherwise, will have any traction on black ice.
Exactly. So why wasn't driver charged with something/anything other than bald tyres? Hence my assertion that it was excused as simple bad luck (i.e. an "oopsie"). Did the driver not have a legal responsibility to maintain control of his vehicle? It seems not, in the eyes of the law.
No one can control a car on black ice on normal tyres; no one can see black ice. It was bad luck.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-tragedy-412717.html
It was simply an "Oops! Oh dear, I really should replaced those bald tyres. Sorry." that did indeed cover it in this case.
No normal tyre, with tread or otherwise, will have any traction on black ice.
Exactly. So why wasn't driver charged with something/anything other than bald tyres? Hence my assertion that it was excused as simple bad luck (i.e. an "oopsie"). Did the driver not have a legal responsibility to maintain control of his vehicle? It seems not, in the eyes of the law.
No one can control a car on black ice on normal tyres; no one can see black ice. It was bad luck.
Just an "oopsie" then. So you're saying that I only have to control my vehicle when it's easy to do. When it gets hard, I have no responsibility whatsoever. Run down a few people? OK, just an accident.
Complete nonsense. The driver should have been travelling at a safe speed. It is all on him. No one was forcing him to drive around that curve at 50mph on a cold frosty morning.
Just an "oopsie" then. So you're saying that I only have to control my vehicle when it's easy to do. When it gets hard, I have no responsibility whatsoever. Run down a few people? OK, just an accident.
Complete nonsense. The driver should have been travelling at a safe speed. It is all on him. No one was forcing him to drive around that curve at 50mph on a cold frosty morning.
For the last time, no one can control a vehicle on black ice.
At what speed do you drive, if you do drive, on cold frosty mornings? Do you drive with the presumption that all roads will be sheeted in black ice? Do you actually know what black ice is?
Just an "oopsie" then. So you're saying that I only have to control my vehicle when it's easy to do. When it gets hard, I have no responsibility whatsoever. Run down a few people? OK, just an accident.
Complete nonsense. The driver should have been travelling at a safe speed. It is all on him. No one was forcing him to drive around that curve at 50mph on a cold frosty morning.
For the last time, no one can control a vehicle on black ice.
At what speed do you drive, if you do drive, on cold frosty mornings? Do you drive with the presumption that all roads will be sheeted in black ice? Do you actually know what black ice is?
I live in Canada and fairly routinely see less-than-ideal traction on the roads. On cold frosty mornings I drive and ride at safe speeds (actually, I almost always drive and ride at safe speeds, regardless of road conditions). When the temperature is such that black ice on the roads is a possibility I adjust my speed and following distances accordingly, particularly taking care to slow even more for shady and damp/icy corners. I've driven on plenty of snow and ice (black or otherwise), and I have never gone off the road due to ice (black or otherwise) or snow on the road. To maintain that this driver had no responsibility to adjust his speed for the conditions is simply absurd. I'm not sure that you're not just winding me up.
The roads should be closed to all vehicles if the surface conditions are such that the roads are unsafe at any speed.
My point is that mitigating circumstances (such poor road conditions) should be called into account when considering penalties, but just this guy effectively got a complete free pass after killing four people, including a child. He wasn't charged with, nor convicted of anything other than a vehicle defect which had little, if anything, to do with the crash.
Maybe he was (reasonably) expecting the road to have been gritted, in which case 50mph may not have been unreasonable (I don't actually know the road). Perhaps the local authority should be prosecuted for not gritting the road sufficiently?
P.S. that last suggestion was devil's advocate in case you hadn't guessed.
These crazy bicyclists are riding in the middle lane of a duel carriageway, someone should complain to the authorities about these hooligans...