A polite plea to dawdlers.

[nicknorman]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I keep away from the curb, if I see a cyclist. They are more vulnerable. The motorcyclist would lose out there.

 

 

That is of course quite the correct thing to do.

[Higgs]

Just now, nicknorman said:

That is of course quite the correct thing to do.

 

Let's hope a motorcyclist doesn't expect something different, if they happen to choose the same moment to overtake.

 

 

[nicknorman]

22 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Sorry to open this up again, but I think that within the last few years we had a request for help from a boater who had been T Boned at a junction and the insurance company denied responsivity on the grounds of COLREGS. The chap seemed to be having a hard time getting them to accept CaRT by-laws re sounding of horns and giving way at junctions etc.

 

I recall the event but not the specifics of why the claim was rejected. I don’t recall it being a clash between the Colregs and the BW bylaws. More a case of whose word to believe. But in any case, it didn’t go to court and as we know, an insurance company will say anything to try to get out of a claim. Doesn’t mean they were correct. And I’m not sure either has any rules about priorities at junctions.

 

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I keep away from the curb, if I see a cyclist. They are more vulnerable. The motorcyclist would lose out there.

 

 

If I am passing a cyclist then there would be room for the motorbike to come through on the inside, I don't normally run them over, also I only have a cheep old Peugeot so its fitted with indicators which I activate before pulling out to pass the cyclist after looking in my mirror. 

 

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Let's hope a motorcyclist doesn't expect something different, if they happen to choose the same moment to overtake.

 

if a motorcyclist decides to overtake a car that is overtaking a cyclist with cars coming the other way, they deserve to die. I speak as someone who has been riding motorbikes for the past 50 years.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If I am passing a cyclist then there would be room for the motorbike to come through on the inside, I don't normally run them over, also I only have a cheep old Peugeot so its fitted with indicators which I activate before pulling out to pass the cyclist after looking in my mirror. 

 

 

Any motorcyclist regularly undertaking cars is likely to need the attention of an undertaker sooner rather than later...

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

if a motorcyclist decides to overtake a car that is overtaking a cyclist with cars coming the other way, they deserve to die. I speak as someone who has been riding motorbikes for the past 50 years.

 

I'm speaking as someone who thought overtaking was possible, when it wasn't. The last thing I wanted was for the car being overtaken to stop doing what they were doing - driving their car for themselves. They were being consistent. 

 

Their reaction to my action would have had them braking, as they became aware of the problem. It was only by good fortune that I decided to keep accelerating. 

 

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Any motorcyclist regularly undertaking cars is likely to need the attention of an undertaker sooner rather than later...

I give in

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

I give in

 

Huh? I was simply pointing out that a motorbike undertaking a car (alright, overtaking on the left of you want to be pedantic) is dangerous (and illegal?), just like overtaking a car which is overtaking a bike with traffic coming the other way on a single carriageway -- if anything more so because car drivers don't expect motorbikes to pass them on the wrong side.

 

Many car drivers nowadays -- not me or you, obviously -- barely seem to be able to cope with being overtaken on the right side even when its safe, or somebody doing the same to an approaching car even when there's plenty of room to do it safely -- cue lots of flashing and hooting and handwaving. Given all that, a motorbike passing a car on the wrong side is more than a bit risky, especially given who is going to come off the worst if the car pulls in.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I give in

 

I understand where you’re coming from. 
As a motorbike rider I was always grateful of car drivers who pulled over to their left a little so I could over take on the correct side and be gone. 

When I drive a car I do the same for bikers. 
 

Going back to what Nicknorman said, it’s a very wide road by that marina, to pull to the left a little to let bikes or cars pass on your right is no big issue. 
So why not do it?

Let a faster vehicle pass if it’s safe to move over a little. 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Let a faster vehicle pass if it’s safe to move over a little. 

 

I could understand nudging the car over a few inches. But some of the A roads I'm thinking about don't always have a heap of manoeuvring space.

 

 

[Paul C]

The "blocking of the car going over the speed limit" is an interesting topic. For example, if I'm on a dual carriageway (with 2 running lanes) and there's a bunch of HGVs, I'm entitled to sit in the outer lane in a van doing 60mph and overtake them, while they're doing 56mph. Just as they're entitled to sit in the outer lane (unless signed) going 56mph, overtaking another doing 55.9mph.

 

The 70+mph car has no right to 'demand' the van, or HGV, give up its overtaking manoeuvre for the sake of his, even though he's -10mph in the process. The only requirement is to not pull out in front of the car causing it to have to slow abruptly. But slow it will once it catches up with the slower overtaker.

 

Its the same scenario as when you see cars coming up to the backside of others on the motorway, right up their tailgate, only to see the brake lights illuminate and a period of tailgating, before they drop back and realise they aren't getting past in a hurry. A much better technique is to gradually approach in a smooth fashion, reaching the correct distance behind to do the overtake, exactly at the point in time that overtake is now possible.

 

And to pre-empt the "caravan" angle - the difference is the HGV or van is undoubtedly using the road for a commercial reason, they're making progress as fast as the law allows, in a responsible manner. They are doing it for a living/profession, unlike the leisure user. 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The "blocking of the car going over the speed limit" is an interesting topic. For example, if I'm on a dual carriageway (with 2 running lanes) and there's a bunch of HGVs, I'm entitled to sit in the outer lane in a van doing 60mph and overtake them, while they're doing 56mph. Just as they're entitled to sit in the outer lane (unless signed) going 56mph, overtaking another doing 55.9mph.

 

The 70+mph car has no right to 'demand' the van, or HGV, give up its overtaking manoeuvre for the sake of his, even though he's -10mph in the process. The only requirement is to not pull out in front of the car causing it to have to slow abruptly. But slow it will once it catches up with the slower overtaker.

 

Its the same scenario as when you see cars coming up to the backside of others on the motorway, right up their tailgate, only to see the brake lights illuminate and a period of tailgating, before they drop back and realise they aren't getting past in a hurry. A much better technique is to gradually approach in a smooth fashion, reaching the correct distance behind to do the overtake, exactly at the point in time that overtake is now possible.

 

And to pre-empt the "caravan" angle - the difference is the HGV or van is undoubtedly using the road for a commercial reason, they're making progress as fast as the law allows, in a responsible manner. They are doing it for a living/profession, unlike the leisure user. 

 

I don't think the "blocking" comments was aimed at drivers who are genuinely overtaking another vehicle, even if they're going slower than the car behind wants to -- it was aimed at the drivers who sit in lane 2 (on a dual carriageway) at 70mph (or what they think is 70mph) when there's no vehicle in lane 1 for hundreds of yards ahead of them, and don't pull over when a faster car comes up behind them because "it's the limit, innit?".

 

What also isn't excusable is tailgaters trying to bully cars out of their way, when those cars are overtaking slower traffic on a busy motorway.

 

In Germany both these types of behaviour -- especially tailgating -- can result in big fines, and I'm sure this is one reason the standard of driving on motorways is better than here -- as well as the fact that a Porsche might perfectly legally come up behind you at 200+kph... 😉

Edited June 1, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I could understand nudging the car over a few inches. But some of the A roads I'm thinking about don't always have a heap of manoeuvring space.

 

 

you’d be surprised what little extra a bike needs. 

and if you’ve never ridden a bike you’d also be surprised at the better view a biker has of the road. Given that they’re often seated so they can see over your car and well ahead. They can be watching tail lights for several cars in front. 
of course hair pin bends and such like are pretty dangerous. 😃
and no one’s asking a driver to put themselves in danger but the acceleration of a big bike will get them past you in a moment. 

 

it’s the awkward bastards that deliberately pull over to stop a bike over taking that causes trouble. 
 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

And to pre-empt the "caravan" angle - the difference is the HGV or van is undoubtedly using the road for a commercial reason, they're making progress as fast as the law allows, in a responsible manner. They are doing it for a living/profession, unlike the leisure user. 

 

HGV drivers are actually normally very courteous to us caravanners and will often treat us as  'equals' flashing us back in to lane in the same manner they do for each other.

 

And we do the same for them.

 

Fortunately they dont seem to share the same unreasonable animosity towards us as some evidently do.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by M_JG

[Silent Flight]

On 25/05/2023 at 15:05, Captain Pegg said:

There’s quite a few things you can do at locks that might upset folk. And stuff that you can do to help them.

 

Most obvious is not turning a lock on an oncoming boat. Unless that is you’re confident you can clear it and leave it open before they get there.

 

Try and work locks one up/one down whenever possible and avoid putting two boats in the same pound waiting for one boat coming the other way. That’s a waste of water and makes little or no difference to transit time of a flight.

 

When ascending a flight if someone going the same way is waiting ahead of you in the pound don’t draw the paddles to fill your lock until the boat in front is in the next lock and has shut the gates. This is particularly important if the pound is low and/or the boat is deep draughted.

 

If someone is following you through a flight of locks and no one is coming the other way draw a paddle back to start filling or emptying the lock you’ve just exited.

 

But mostly in locks simply look up and down the flight for other boats and help everybody by leaving them set, within reason.

Thanks for the lockiqutte! 

[Ronaldo47]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I don't think the "blocking" comments was aimed at drivers who are genuinely overtaking another vehicle, even if they're going slower than the car behind wants to -- it was aimed at the drivers who sit in lane 2 (on a dual carriageway) at 70mph (or what they think is 70mph) when there's no vehicle in lane 1 for hundreds of yards ahead of them, and don't pull over when a faster car comes up behind them because "it's the limit, innit?".

 

What also isn't excusable is tailgaters trying to bully cars out of their way, when those cars are overtaking slower traffic on a busy motorway.

 

In Germany both these types of behaviour -- especially tailgating -- can result in big fines, and I'm sure this is one reason the standard of driving on motorways is better than here -- as well as the fact that a Porsche might perfectly legally come up behind you at 200+kph... 😉

Pre-covid  a polce initiative was announced, proposing booking drivers who stayed in the outside lane when there was nothing in the inside lanes. It seemed to fizzle out rather rapidly.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typo

[nicknorman]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The "blocking of the car going over the speed limit" is an interesting topic. For example, if I'm on a dual carriageway (with 2 running lanes) and there's a bunch of HGVs, I'm entitled to sit in the outer lane in a van doing 60mph and overtake them, while they're doing 56mph. Just as they're entitled to sit in the outer lane (unless signed) going 56mph, overtaking another doing 55.9mph.

 

The 70+mph car has no right to 'demand' the van, or HGV, give up its overtaking manoeuvre for the sake of his, even though he's -10mph in the process. The only requirement is to not pull out in front of the car causing it to have to slow abruptly. But slow it will once it catches up with the slower overtaker.

 

Its the same scenario as when you see cars coming up to the backside of others on the motorway, right up their tailgate, only to see the brake lights illuminate and a period of tailgating, before they drop back and realise they aren't getting past in a hurry. A much better technique is to gradually approach in a smooth fashion, reaching the correct distance behind to do the overtake, exactly at the point in time that overtake is now possible.

 

And to pre-empt the "caravan" angle - the difference is the HGV or van is undoubtedly using the road for a commercial reason, they're making progress as fast as the law allows, in a responsible manner. They are doing it for a living/profession, unlike the leisure user. 

This is true. It’s called elephant racing. Perfectly legal as you say. But it causes congestion and frustration when taken to excess. One car slowing from 70 to 60 for a prolonged period as a result, causes the car behind it to tend to have to decelerate more quickly, and if traffic is heavy, that translates into the cars 50 cars back coming to a temporary and near emergency stop.

But clearly, from a straw poll of people on here, there are a significant % of the population who have not the slightest care for other people and have no intention of being courteous and considerate. Which is a shame. Maybe they were bought up to think that being courteous and considerate is a sign of weakness? Probably.

 

I do think there is a case for a law prohibiting vehicles restricted to speeds below the normal maximum, from overtaking their kin unless there is a reasonable speed difference, say 3mph. As you say, as the law stands a lorry could be in the outside lane of a dual carriage way doing 0.0001mph faster than the inside lane vehicle for tens of miles. Surely that can’t be good strategy for the smooth running of traffic?

[bizzard]

Here lies the body of William Gray who insisted on his right of way.

[Silent Flight]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

As you say, as the law stands a lorry could be in the outside lane of a dual carriage way doing 0.0001mph faster than the inside lane vehicle for tens of miles

This is not true. If it takes more than a minute or max two then it’s deemed a tuggable offence. Overtakes in Hgv’s need to be planned and things like traffic, road layout, hills etc all need to be taken into consideration.

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

This is true. It’s called elephant racing. Perfectly legal as you say. But it causes congestion and frustration when taken to excess. One car slowing from 70 to 60 for a prolonged period as a result, causes the car behind it to tend to have to decelerate more quickly, and if traffic is heavy, that translates into the cars 50 cars back coming to a temporary and near emergency stop.

But clearly, from a straw poll of people on here, there are a significant % of the population who have not the slightest care for other people and have no intention of being courteous and considerate. Which is a shame. Maybe they were bought up to think that being courteous and considerate is a sign of weakness? Probably.

 

I do think there is a case for a law prohibiting vehicles restricted to speeds below the normal maximum, from overtaking their kin unless there is a reasonable speed difference, say 3mph. As you say, as the law stands a lorry could be in the outside lane of a dual carriage way doing 0.0001mph faster than the inside lane vehicle for tens of miles. Surely that can’t be good strategy for the smooth running of traffic?

Well yes, there is a wave effect of slowing cars amplifying the slowing down-speeding up effect.

 

There is a case for the law, but its weak because the country relies on the smooth running of the transportation/freight industry, of which the majority of goods seem to go on trucks rather than trains. While it might not be smooth for cars, for trucks, a loaded HGV has significantly impacted performance compared to a light or empty one so it really does help - and HGV drivers are quite happy to help each other out in this way - but the loaded HGV certainly isn't going to come off the juice on an incline for the sake of a few impatient cars.

[nicknorman]

10 minutes ago, bizzard said:

Here lies the body of William Gray who insisted on his right of way.

Interestingly in Aviation, the Standardised European Rules of the Air has this to say in the section on collision avoidance:

 

 

I have never liked SERA.3210 (a) 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Owls Den said:

This is not true. If it takes more than a minute or max two then it’s deemed a tuggable offence. Overtakes in Hgv’s need to be planned and things like traffic, road layout, hills etc all need to be taken into consideration.

What is a tuggable offence?

Edited June 1, 2023 by nicknorman

[Silent Flight]

@nicknorman An overtake in a wagon that takes more than a minute or two.
 

The polite thing of the other wagon driver being overtaken is to let off and then flash back them back in. Saves all the nonsense of trucks holding traffic up for ages. ( flashing another driver back in is illegal but everyone does it)

 

However this doesn’t always happen, and if they are running alongside you for ages your supposed to call it and abort the overtake. It’s called them holding you out. Some trucks roll away over the limiter on down hill sections to be then caught back up by the faster or lighter truck and the tailbacks just grow larger. 
 

You get it in all walks, some drivers are polite and considerate. Some wreckless and rude.

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Once in a blue moon I probably would give the overtaking vehicle some road space. It wouldn't be on my must-do list. I'm there reading the road as well, for my own space.

 

 

It's interesting, have you ever driven in rural Ireland? Pulling over to allow overtaking vehicles to pass is what they used to do all of the time, until you get used to it, it can be a bit unexpected, but it does seem to result in far less aggression than is present on UK roads. Whether their driving methods have changed post pandemic I don't know. I do know that English driving methods are now sh*t post pandemic. Driving in London has always been a battle against aggression, but it now seems nationwide.

 

Another thing that I have also found interesting as a cyclist (as well as motorcyclist,HGV driver, car driver, etc.etc.etc) is the reluctance that drivers seem to have now for passing a cyclist. Give me a metre of passing space and I'm quite content and yet I regularly have to either pull over and stop, or ride up onto the the footpath (an awful lot of 'footpaths' are now pedestrian/cyclist shared spaces) because the car behind me wont pass if there is any traffic coming the other way, which would mean that if I don't stop, or get out of the way by other means, will lead to a tailback of traffic. No, I don't want them passing me and rapping my knuckles with their wing mirrors, but I'm not entirely sure why they need to cross onto the other side of the road to pass me. Are people no longer aware of their vehicle widths?

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

Another thing that I have also found interesting as a cyclist (as well as motorcyclist,HGV driver, car driver, etc.etc.etc) is the reluctance that drivers seem to have now for passing a cyclist. Give me a metre of passing space and I'm quite content and yet I regularly have to either pull over and stop, or ride up onto the the footpath (an awful lot of 'footpaths' are now pedestrian/cyclist shared spaces) because the car behind me wont pass if there is any traffic coming the other way, which would mean that if I don't stop, or get out of the way by other means, will lead to a tailback of traffic. No, I don't want them passing me and rapping my knuckles with their wing mirrors, but I'm not entirely sure why they need to cross onto the other side of the road to pass me

Highway Code specifies a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres for passing a cyclist at speeds below 30mph, more if faster.