Discussion
Was following a cyclist along a narrow winding road with loads of blind corners recently. The first opportunity to overtake came at the point of the attached photo. (This is from street view, the road was clear at this point). I considered overtaking but would have liked to see the road to be clear just a little further. After getting a bit frustrated that we had not been able to get past up untill now (about half a mile at this point). The guy behind took the chance and overtook both me and the cyclist. He did it decisively and nobody came round the corner ahead as he was going past. Im not here to say the guy has done wrong. Nobody came from the other direction whilst he was going past. And he moved back over before the corner. But as i know that people dont always drive at a speed which allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear on this road, i didnt want to risk it. As far as im concerned ive done no wrong ethier, whilst i was perhaps being abit too cautious, there was no hesitation in my decision to not pass, i didnt try to go round then change my mind for example. I chose not to take the - albeit small - risk that someone could come round the corner ahead quickly.
This particular road is a nightmare for cyclists. Whilst going past here is justifiable, i didnt think it was so clearly safe that not going past was injustifiable. Anybody see this as a mistake ? (Understand its hard to say without seeing exactly what we were seeing).
Anybody else feel like alot of people take risks too readily with cyclists because they get frustrated ?
Markjag12 said:
Anybody else feel like alot of people take risks too readily with cyclists because they get frustrated ?
Yes, of course they do. There's so little risk to the driver - and "it's only a cyclist". Reckless and selfish behaviour. Difficult to say from the picture - but I find it hard to justify anyone overtaking a car (plus a cyclist) with a solid white line in the middle of the road.
Markjag12 said:
Anybody else feel like alot of people take risks too readily with cyclists because they get frustrated ?
Yep happened yesterday; going along Seven Hills Road in Weybridge, as the name suggests it is fairly hilly, so there are a fair few blind crests.I'm 3 cars back with a cyclist (MAMIL) at the head of the queue, we are stuck behind said cyclist for a whileas the traffic on the opposite side of the road is reasonably heavy, a gap appears and the ML at the head of the queue goes for it, however I can see a lorry coming, I honestly thought either the ML would hit the lorry or the cyclist, it was that close, there was a massive blare of the horn from the lorry.
I managed to safely overtake further along.
Were I cycling there, I'd probably wave you around. However, I probably wouldn't be cycling there because I don't trust motorists.
Last week I had a chap tailgate me, stand on the horn and then brake check me because he wanted to be at the next red light a little quicker. A rarity, but not fun.
Last week I had a chap tailgate me, stand on the horn and then brake check me because he wanted to be at the next red light a little quicker. A rarity, but not fun.
Driving along this road has led me to believe recently that i might be overly cautious when overtaking cyclists. Although i think that is just me letting impatient people behind make me second guess myself. But i was not indecisive, i know that being indecisive can be dangerous in some contexts.
Im not to clear on the rules in this scenario regarding double solid white lines and cyclists ?
Im not to clear on the rules in this scenario regarding double solid white lines and cyclists ?
The problem IMO for me with that is the solid white lines.
Ultimately solid whites are rarely there for the fun of it, most drivers (and I think many could agree on here) is that there is a clear hazard with oncoming vehicles.
Even 129 in regards to cyclists is not very helpful as realistically could you say there were doing less than 10 mph?
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less."
In regards to the car that went for it then it is clear they are an absolute clown and definitely could be prosecuted.
Irrespective of the solid whites, I would have waited until the corner had been passed the view clear with no or sufficient distance for oncoming vehicles, no junctions at the side and then gone for it leaving a good distance between the cyclist and me. Another concern I have is when cyclists aim to miss grids etc.
Far too many drivers have any real concept of distance when driving (and this does not just apply to passing cyclists). Where they are following another vehicle they are generally a) passive tailgaters, generally not thinking and are too close b) aggressive and doing it deliberately. None of this makes it right at all.
Now combine the above, they will push past a cyclist at the most dangerous opportunities leaving little real space for the cyclist (or for that matter oncoming vehicles).
I have had two incidents one like yours OP, however no cars went to overtake me and I have had one clown go for it and force me to brake oncoming, they nearly shat themselves I think when braked heavily as I had to miss them.
Ultimately solid whites are rarely there for the fun of it, most drivers (and I think many could agree on here) is that there is a clear hazard with oncoming vehicles.
Even 129 in regards to cyclists is not very helpful as realistically could you say there were doing less than 10 mph?
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less."
In regards to the car that went for it then it is clear they are an absolute clown and definitely could be prosecuted.
Irrespective of the solid whites, I would have waited until the corner had been passed the view clear with no or sufficient distance for oncoming vehicles, no junctions at the side and then gone for it leaving a good distance between the cyclist and me. Another concern I have is when cyclists aim to miss grids etc.
Far too many drivers have any real concept of distance when driving (and this does not just apply to passing cyclists). Where they are following another vehicle they are generally a) passive tailgaters, generally not thinking and are too close b) aggressive and doing it deliberately. None of this makes it right at all.
Now combine the above, they will push past a cyclist at the most dangerous opportunities leaving little real space for the cyclist (or for that matter oncoming vehicles).
I have had two incidents one like yours OP, however no cars went to overtake me and I have had one clown go for it and force me to brake oncoming, they nearly shat themselves I think when braked heavily as I had to miss them.
Edited by Ninja59 on Tuesday 29th May 09:15
syl said:
Overtaking slow moving cyclists (and horses/maintenance vehicles) is ok. Of course, the slow moving cyclist (or other slow moving vehicle holding up traffic) should have stopped to let any build up of traffic past.
First bit yes, I wouldn't even hesitate from that picture. Second bit, not sure there is any obligation for them to do that apart from respect to other road users (of which, of course, there is generally none these days).
Markjag12 said:
This particular road is a nightmare for cyclists. Whilst going past here is justifiable, i didnt think it was so clearly safe that not going past was injustifiable. Anybody see this as a mistake ? (Understand its hard to say without seeing exactly what we were seeing).
Anybody else feel like alot of people take risks too readily with cyclists because they get frustrated ?
1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
MaxSo said:
What type of cyclist was it, and how fast were they going?
1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
It's strange, but it's always frustrating to get held up, but I don't really know why. This morning I got stuck behind a stationary bin lorry just before a left hand bend and I caught myself pondering if I could take a risk to get past. For what, to get to work 2 minutes earlier? I had to tell myself to calm the f1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
k down and just wait for the bin to start moving again and then overtake when it was safe. As it happened, one of the bin men crossed the road to check that it was clear and then waved me past. I don't know what it is about me that makes me so impatient when behind the wheel of a car. It's just not sensible.Edited by VladD on Tuesday 29th May 10:12
loggo said:
We're you driving a 2CV ?
Oi!Legally - if the speed is <10mph, it's legal to pass. If car A is sitting behind cyclist, <10mph, then car B can overtake car A and cyclist legally.
Practically - I don't think I'd pass car + cyclist, but I'd certainly pass the cyclist, unless they were on a full tonk. My reluctance to pass the car would be based as much on the expectation that they'd get bored of staring at the lycra-covered arse, and pull out whilst I was alongside, though.
MaxSo said:
What type of cyclist was it, and how fast were they going?
1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
I would say they were a medium pace cyclist. And, like i say, going past may have incurred a very small risk. Risks including - but not limited to - someone quickly coming round the corner ahead, possibly on the wrong side of the road as they themselves had just overtaken a cyclist - lots of cyclists on this road. I considered all this in my decision not to pass. 1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
My criticism would not be of someone who safely passed here. It would be of the person behind, who, upon being frustrated with my - possibly unnecessary (but i dont think so) - caution. Decided to pass us both and then, if faced with a car coming quickly around the corner ahead, would have likely put the responsibilty on me. Simply because i chose to mitigate the risk on front of me to as close as zero as possible. Like i said, this was not irratic and indecisive driving. Just potentially a little too cautious.
Not saying you are one of these people btw,
, just mentioned it because you touched on people behind making overtakes.If i had to guess, they were going over 10mph.
russell_ram said:
First bit yes, I wouldn't even hesitate from that picture.
Second bit, not sure there is any obligation for them to do that apart from respect to other road users (of which, of course, there is generally none these days).
First bit HC 129Second bit, not sure there is any obligation for them to do that apart from respect to other road users (of which, of course, there is generally none these days).
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Second bit HC 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
syl said:
HC 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Which references three bits of legislation.Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
RTA88, s36 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio... - general catch-all "obey signs".
TSR02, s10 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regul... - "these are the signs that RTA s36 means"
TSR02, s26 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regul... - and this is where the fun starts.
TSR02 s26 said:
(6) Nothing in paragraph (2)(b) shall be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so—
...
(b)in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
...
(e)in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear the sign shown in diagram 610 or 7403;
(f)in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g)in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph
...
So I was wrong above - even if a car is being driven at 8mph, you CANNOT overtake it. Only a bicycle or horse, and the only motor vehicle is a signed-up road maintenance vehicle. You cannot legally pass a steamroller or a bloke pushing a wheelbarrow or driving a really slow tractor or road-legal mower or digger....
(b)in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
...
(e)in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear the sign shown in diagram 610 or 7403;
(f)in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g)in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph
...
syl said:
HC 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
He should (advisory).Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
You MUST NOT (mandatory).
Besides, the HC also tells us that other people cock up, and you should be understanding and give them space - and my mother definitely told me two wrongs do not make one right.
Markjag12 said:
MaxSo said:
What type of cyclist was it, and how fast were they going?
1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
I would say they were a medium pace cyclist. And, like i say, going past may have incurred a very small risk. Risks including - but not limited to - someone quickly coming round the corner ahead, possibly on the wrong side of the road as they themselves had just overtaken a cyclist - lots of cyclists on this road. I considered all this in my decision not to pass. 1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.
2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.
My criticism would not be of someone who safely passed here. It would be of the person behind, who, upon being frustrated with my - possibly unnecessary (but i dont think so) - caution. Decided to pass us both and then, if faced with a car coming quickly around the corner ahead, would have likely put the responsibilty on me. Simply because i chose to mitigate the risk on front of me to as close as zero as possible. Like i said, this was not irratic and indecisive driving. Just potentially a little too cautious.
Not saying you are one of these people btw,
, just mentioned it because you touched on people behind making overtakes.If i had to guess, they were going over 10mph.
10mph is really very slow. The rule for solid lines makes the same dispensation for a cyclist as a road maintenance vehicle, despite the latter obviously being much wider, longer and difficult to see past. This is why I say I'd normally (subject to the conditions I outlined previously) go past a cyclist slightly exceeding 10mph.
Ultimately, if you can't be sure the cyclist was doing 10mph or less than you, legally, did the correct thing. It's impossible to judge whether it was appropriately or overly cautious without being there; but it's certain that the person behind both broke the law and should not have overtaken.
TooMany2cvs said:
Legally - if the speed is <10mph, it's legal to pass. If car A is sitting behind cyclist, <10mph, then car B can overtake car A and cyclist legally.
He could legally cross or straddle the white lines to pass the cycle (not exceeding 10mph) but it would be an offence to do the same to pass the car, irrespective how slowly that car was travelling.VladD said:
It's strange, but it's always frustrating to get held up, but I don't really know why. This morning I got stuck behind a stationary bin lorry just before a left hand bend and I caught myself pondering if I could take a risk to get past. For what, to get to work 2 minutes earlier? I had to tell myself to calm the fk down and just wait for the bin to start moving again and then overtake when it was safe. As it happened, one of the bin men crossed the road to check that it was clear and then waved me past. I don't know what it is about me that makes me so impatient when behind the wheel of a car. It's just not sensible.
This is the thing with people rushing that I don't understand... and it happens on the roads, on the tube and in other situations too. What are people actually rushing for? Is it the case that almost everyone is running late all the time, or that they will get in trouble at work if they arrive at 5 past 9, or they will get fined by their kid's after school club if they don't collect kid at 4pm sharp??k down and just wait for the bin to start moving again and then overtake when it was safe. As it happened, one of the bin men crossed the road to check that it was clear and then waved me past. I don't know what it is about me that makes me so impatient when behind the wheel of a car. It's just not sensible.Edited by VladD on Tuesday 29th May 10:12
I think sometimes people just maybe get in the habit of rushing, even when they absolutely have no need to. People on the tube, who have been sat in an office day, rushing and pushing to claim a seat (because god forbid the next one isn't for a whole 2 minutes), just so they can get home and sit on the sofa as soon as possible. Like you say, it's just not sensible behaviour. The population could do with mandatory meditation or something.
Part 2.
Please see below picture.
Now imagine this is your view and a cyclist is ahead of you. Also the lane coming towards you is full of traffic as far as you can see over the hill.
Something i know from driving this route alot, Is that, this hatched area - which starts over the brow of this hill - is treated by some as lane 2 of a duel carriageway. I have seen people move straight into it the moment it starts and go over the blind brow, coming towards "your" view, whilst "overtaking" the cars to their left. This happens rarely, but it happens.
All this means that, in the past, with the picture as my view, with a cyclist infront of me and the real lane coming towards me full, i dont pass untill over the brow. Despite the fact that this hatched portion looks free to use going up the hill.
This infuriates people behind. And this is honestly not criticism - as i have made mistakes before. But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
Please see below picture.
Now imagine this is your view and a cyclist is ahead of you. Also the lane coming towards you is full of traffic as far as you can see over the hill.
Something i know from driving this route alot, Is that, this hatched area - which starts over the brow of this hill - is treated by some as lane 2 of a duel carriageway. I have seen people move straight into it the moment it starts and go over the blind brow, coming towards "your" view, whilst "overtaking" the cars to their left. This happens rarely, but it happens.
All this means that, in the past, with the picture as my view, with a cyclist infront of me and the real lane coming towards me full, i dont pass untill over the brow. Despite the fact that this hatched portion looks free to use going up the hill.
This infuriates people behind. And this is honestly not criticism - as i have made mistakes before. But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff