The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Why Drivers nearly don't miss cyclists

Drivers always look far forward up the road not at the near things they have already accounted for. It's simply too late to deal with hazards when they are already upon them.

Having seen the cyclist very early and having planned their pass, once alongside, the cyclist is now a past event and the attention is now further up the road and especially for opposing traffic. The objective, to pass the cyclist without striking them, has been achieved. However the cyclist is bound to feel unnerved and insecure if the pass is only a matter of inches. That doesn't automatically mean dangerous driving, it is how one feels when being passed by big heavy machines on the move. That is the brain simply telling you you're in danger and asking 'what am I doing here?'


  1. I'm regularly passed by big heavy machinery (15 miles to and from work in central London) and it doesn't feel unsafe, as long as there is enough room.

    If somebody close passes me I don't think "what am I doing here" I think "what an idiot, they could've killed me, they should be more careful".

  2. Yes of course you do and there's the problem. Straight away, blame & animosity towards someone who doesn't agree with you and doesn't think they have done any wrong. So there is the confrontation straight away. But you admit you feel unsafe, exactly as I have described if there isn't 'enough room'. But that is subjective and changes from person to person, driver to driver.

    What you are refusing to do is to take yourself away from that dangerous scenario & worse getting kids to do it too. And why? Because it's your right to put yourself in danger! That really does raise very serious questions of those who cannot see that.

    There has been no problem in the past from stopping people doing what is bad or dangerous for them if it isn't crucial to society. So the cyclists, in making all these costly demands and calls for more driver liability, space, slowing, prosecution etc. are now causing the focus & the questions I raise. Apparently I am not entitled to do that.

    Yes one option that ought to be considered by politicians is 'In 2013 is it wise to allow people to be out vulnerable in the roads?' Having raised all this themselves, why on Earth do cyclists not think that option should be left out of the debate? From the twitter responses & ganging up too it is clear that the cycle lobby in intolerant of any valid observation that doesn't suit it.

    I don't mind spending a bit of my time with a minority of a minority, but my main function is to get my observations heard and discussed on other driver forums & groups & thus among the 35 million drivers nationally.The media certainly love the fresh & original ideas hence I was broadcasting on BBC yesterday, and let's face it most drivers love someone stating their case & that will be most of those listening. I would regard myself as a failure if I were not drawing the wrath of some folk, it goes with all public comment & public presence but I know to make a good omelette you have to break some eggs

    Clearly I must be worrying the cycle lobby; I now have the honour of two parody twitter accounts and many more RTs too.

  3. When I'm cycling along the road and another road user close passes me that the other road user's fault, not mine.

  4. ..and the confrontation initiates with the decision to pass me closely, not in my thinking the pass was too close...

  5. And there in a nutshell is a cyclist who insists on joining a dangerous scenario, get's annoyed at other road users because they frighten him, & this can often cause a physical retaliation like thumping a vehicle, gesticulating at a driver, damage to wipers as in the coach chase example, and confrontation.

    Even the reason why the situation has developed is not acceptable to these people it seems.

    I saw a spandex clad, racing style cyclist pumping hard along an A trunk road only wide enough for opposing vehicles, with one hand on his bars and refreshing himself from his bottle with the other, totally oblivious to what may have been bearing down on him from behind. How can anyone with any sense imagine that is a safe place to be or to travel?

  6. "Even the reason why the situation has developed is not acceptable to these people it seems. "

    What, the close pass isn't acceptable?

    No, it's not, whatever vehicle I am in or on, or when I'm on foot, say walking down a country lane, no, a close pass is never acceptable.

  7. You also appear assume that close passes by a given road user of another road user are always unintentional...

  8. Well I believe in innocent until proven guilty. That is where all this attack on drivers comes from. The assumption that drivers do it deliberately.

    The Highway Code is wrong in many things. It's actually a combination of information from many non experts, is hopelessly out of date in many ways, it's advice on driving on ice is the reverse of the best advice for example.

    Horses have long since been nothing but a pastime and hobby which means that large unpredictable beasts are in the road just to undulge a recreation. That's how out of date the code is. It's all very well making a clause that means nothing because passing a car at 40 MPH means going along the opposing carriageway anyway but to apply their rule would mean you can never pass a cyclist if there is opposing traffic. What HC don't do in both cases is say it would be much safer if horses & cyclists were not in the road at all. You may not like the question, but many others will like it & it needs to be asked of politicians and The HC. Of course cycling won't be stopped but at least I hope to prevent more legistlation and restrictions against drivers by pointing out that the whole concept is dangerous so don't penalise and restrict an essential resource for it if that's OK?

  9. Keith drivers should give cyclists the same amount of room as if they were passing a car, it's in the Highway Code for crying out loud (Rule 163) and giving adequate space is also good manners. I am interested to know what evidence you have to back up your ideas about why some drivers pass too close. You clearly have a lot of hate for cyclists, what did they ever do to you?
    The reason that nobody is debating whether cyclists should be banned from the roads is because that is totally bugfuck mental, I really can't be bothered explaining all the massive benefits of cycling to you because it is clear from your previous posts that you are incapable of listening to reason, and yet nobody is debating whether lunatics should be banned from the internet either. If you were to bother to look at the figures you would see that cycling is actually safer than driving, walking, or indeed hanging around at home posting rubbish on the internet. Cyclists are not going away and you will have to accept that at some point, that is why the debate is about how we can all share the roads better, it isn't cyclists that are the problem and it isn't motorists either, it is idiots who don't care about the law or other people, some ride bikes, some drive cars, that is why cyclists are calling for more consistant sentencing of motoring offences. Do you really thing it right that a driver can kill somebody because they are on the phone and get away with a £35 fine?
    You are at least right on one point, you would indeed be a failure as a troll if you weren't getting a response. Please keep posting, I think you are hilarious.

    1. No I don't hate cyclists. Why is defending drivers & responding to cyclists complaints blown up into a hatred of them?

      I suggest that you look at the two pages of cycling casualties, especially top cyclists, at before youi try to claim that being exposed and unprotected in the road is safer than being enclosed in metal. The casualty rate for that is low considering the 300 billion driver miles a year being travelled and so many more passengers too. There are 35 million drivers plus their passengers so you are wrong about cycle v motor vehicle safety.

      Yes of course cyclists want to 'share the road' that is only for their benefit though and a driver's liability. Why not share railway lines or airport runways too? 'Sharing' sounds so nice and benign but it is a way of a tiny unessential minority comparing themselves with a 35 million essential majority. Let's look at sharing on that basis.

      But why are you worried if you don't think these very good points will be heard?

  10. "Well I believe in innocent until proven guilty."


    But even if a given road user didn't intend to swipe another they should be still open the charges of careless driving, dangerous driving or even manslaughter.

    We are responsible for the actions we take in every day life (or even those we don't) and if we cause the death or injury of another, or even if our actions could have led to such a situation but didn't, we need to accept that responsibility.

    So even if a car driver didn't even mean to close pass a cyclist/horse rider/pedestrian/other car driver that was subsequently injured or killed, they are open to being held responsible for their choice of driving syle.

  11. Well your initial remark and attitude was one of already guilty.

    With regard to the rest of your post, I have dealt with this ad nauseum many times in many places.

    Blaming doesn't bring you or the little kiddy back from the dead or recovers them from being a paraplegic. Most of the hostile tweets I get fail to address or accept that the scenario is dangerous & it is from utter choice. That is where the next question comes in. Is cycling so crucial to society that we can still allow it in the 21st Century? It's a fair question.

    But is it also fair to allow mixing humans with these essential machinery when we wouldn't allow it with other machinery, like trains & planes, fairground or racing circuits, and then prosecute and jail people when it goes wrong?

    By your logic if you chose to go mountain climbing you'd look for someone to blame for being hit by an avalanche. You choose this dangerous activity, no-one else does.

    If UK's 35 million supine drivers woke up & use their powers at the ballot box & with their MPs the answer would be 'no'to your ideas and a whole relook at road use & the multi billion road safety industry too.

    1. Thank god most of the 35million drivers are sensible and see the benefits of both cycling and motoring.

      Commercial motoring is essential, no one denies this. Private motoring is mostly non-essential and alternatives could be used. It is through choice that many use private motor vehicles, with this choice comes the responsibility of operating a "dangerous, heavy machine". If unable to operate this with care then one should be challenged.

      If you want to re-address the roads then we must consider the necessity of the private motorvehicle also. All of us could get by without them in 2013.

  12. No most of the 35 million drivers, as with the 65 million inhabitants, don't cycle and have no wish to. Of course there are benefits to cyclists as I cycle too, however it is foolish to trust in a lot of unknown people who are operating heavy machinery. At least I acknowledge that.

    Re the necessity of the private vehicle I have proved that ad nauseum on twitter & web. But for you, I will do it again.

    All commercial & public transport depend on the private drivers to make the links as well as getting their operators there too. Added to which, road transport, especially food and small goods, are relying on private cars to collect their stuff and carry it away regularly and swiftly so they can bring the next load. Your NHS hospitals are surrounded by full STAFF car parks as well as all the car parks for the sick & out patients none of whom are able to cycle, & especially long distances. The water workers who also travel by car as well as the train and bus drivers who do so too. The emergency workers and the working mums with families to get to school as well as loads of shopping too. Even you depend on car drivers. There is no little corner of your life that isn't supported by private car drivers. Society didn't expand or grow because of cyclists that's for sure.It is built around all motor transport which is only the successor of the horse, chariot, carriages, carts & waggons of yesteryear and goes back 1000s of years, when all that time manpower travel on foot had been superceded by higher speeds, longer distances & bigger loads.

    It amuses me that I am ridiculed by people who cannot even accept history and reality.

    1. But Keith, you are a road safey expert, yes? It's not your place to decide economically or sociologically what is right for the road system. You are qualified to comment on the infrastructure and the law-breaking behaviour of the users, you may even be qualified to comment on how to improve things for the road users of the UK.

      This is the major downfall in your argument, you claim that you are interested only in road safety, yet you let your bias and opinions on political and environmental issues guide your 'expert advice'. Your speciality is not in the social impact of driving/cycling, nor is it in the economy. Why do you believe it is inappropriate for 'non-experts' to comment or rule on road safety, yet you feel you are also the best commentator for the external issues of which you have no qualification?

      No one denies that the speed of the growth of the country had been largely due to the engineering breakthroughs in the 19th & 20th Century. But we are living in the 21st century, where by alternative transport methods are more than appropriate for a majority of short journeys, public transport is mostly very good and commercial transportation has never been more accommodating in terms of customer service.

      I don't think any of your opposition (correct me if i'm wrong) are asking for the abolishment of the private motor vehicle and most will willingly confess that motoring is the most appropriate choice for some journeys.

    2. I don't mind who talks road safety providing they are correct and am very concerned that many who do, are not only incorrect but can be shown to have a vested, often a financial interest. It's part of my CV that I don't get paid or earn from it and it's entirely voluntary.

      So I am likewise able to comment on any other aspect providing I am correct and will bow to any reasoned case by an expert that I am incorrect.

      So am I correct to point out that man progressed when he left man power behind and took to the horse, horse driven vehicles which carried large loads at speed accross whole continents? Without them even the railways would never have been built? Well motor transport is the successor to that.

      Public Transport? The best example we have is London where buses & trains run almost 24/7. Often 5 buses in one street and in rush hour a train every 2 minutes. Right and how are we to replicate all that nationally? Londoners still depend on their cars and most of those PT drivers on shifts will be getting to their trains & buses by car as my son, a train driver, does.

      An example of PT. I had to attend a transport conference in Leicester to book in by 0845. To get there by PT I would've needed to leave home at 1900 the evening before and the cost was incredible. Not only was my car cheaper and in one day return, but it could've taken another 4 too. So please be realistic.

      But I am not asking for the abolition of anything. But the private motor vehicle is the essential link to all our basic services and on which our economy is dependent so any changes must give priority to that. When cyclists, a non essential, moan about drivers and their safety then one of the questions that should be asked is: 'Is the answer to stop it then?' How can cyclists start a debate and not expect their necessity to come into the equation?

      It's cyclists who have started all this discussion. Surely it's not confined to what they want to hear is it?

    3. Without bicycles, your precious car probably wouldn't exist though, or it would be the most horrendously diabolical thing to operate with zero comfort, difficult to turn and prone to breaking down through friction, also, here in Southampton, most public transport drivers, don't drive to work, they CYCLE, mostly because, driving is their job and to drive even more before and after work, would make them pull their hair out, I have no doubt that most public transport drivers in other areas of the country are exactly the same, cycling to and from work instead of driving, a lot of hospital staff also cycle, cycle commuters are also less likely to have sick days from work than their motoring counterparts and often more than their motoring counterparts too, anyway, cyclists were important for the development of the motor vehicle and airplane and cyclists are STILL important in todays societies, by the way, without cyclists, roads as we know them today, wouldn't exist, so Keith Peat(A.K.A JollySelfRighteous the troll on youtube), sit down and shut up with your stupid, cycle(and equine) hating idiocies and get off the roads because you obviously aren't sound of mind enough to be safe on the roads, better yet, book yourself into a mental home because you really need some help.

    4. What utter Carlton Reid rubbish you've been reading. Cars developed from carriages and coaches, their predecessors. Society wasn't built on cycles or by cyclists either. But what's all the anger and rudeness about? I am only advancing the case of drivers and not attacking cyclists. It seems that being pro driver attracts much hostility. Do I go on cycle blogs being personal and rude? No.

    5. You're wrong, the ball bearings used in your car were first made for BICYCLES, the pneumatic tyres on your car were first developed by Mr. Dunlop for his son's BICYCLE, the light weight yet strong, tubular steel used for your car's chassis was first inveted for BICYCLES, the differential drive was first inveted by a CYCLIST, mass production was first used to make BICYCLES 30 YEARS before Henry Ford utilised it for making his cars, rover(yes, the British car manufacturer) started off producing BICYCLES, just like all of the original car manufacturers started out making BICYCLES, the gearbox was developed from the sturmey archer hub gears used for BICYCLES, the drum brake was also first used on the BICYCLE, though the bicycle drum brake is commonly known as a coaster or pedal back brake, the principle is the same as modern drum brakes on a car, BICYCLES had the first mechanical transmission where you could choose different gear ratios, though they were hub gears, the principle is the same as a car transmission, the only difference is, that instead of driving a hub directly, the car transmission drives a shaft that goes to the wheel/s(this was before a cyclist invented the differential drive) and it was CYCLISTS who first petitioned for smooth, dust free roads, resulting in the roads we see today, so in all actuallity, society WAS built on bicycles AND cyclists.

    6. You are citing the idiot Carlton Reid and his 'Roads weren't built for cars' lunacy.
      They certainly weren't built for cyclists either. But the Crown Wheel and pinion, goes back to windmills and the wheels and spokes thousands of years. The first smooth roads were the railroads, oh who's drivers were engine drivers. And no society was built thousands of years ago by fast, long distance, load/passenger bearing non manpower transport and the forerunner of today's motor transport. It wasn't built on any manpower transport at all. Cycling was just a poor man's inadequate transport until we moved on. That we can manage without cycling but not without driving is a reality you cannot accept.

      But what's all this to do with why drivers nearly don't miss cyclists anyway?

  13. Still nothing about the difference between an avalanche as a natural event and a car driven by a person Keith? Oh dear.

    1. Well I could first look at all my brilliant points that you have ignored and failed to provide a good answer to.

      The comment you have focused on -because it's the best you can do- ended 'You choose this dangerous activity no-one else does'. Which is very pertinent to your moan. I have said on many occasions that it is unfair to put drivers in the position where there is more risk of death & injury unless it is crucial to society. Cycling is no more crucial than mountain climbing is. Mountain climbers threaten no-one with their activity in terms of liability & jail but cyclist are a threat to drivers. So it is a good analogy. It goes to my central question. What is cycling? How dangerous is it (no matter as to why)? and is it crucial to society? All fair points. You're position is that it is your right to be in danger & if something bad happens it's someone's fault. Mine is that there cannot be a right to safety in a dangerous place.

      Now I really don't have the time for what amounts to trolling & so that is the last comment from you that I will publish & answer.

  14. The main issue with your attitude is evident in that reply. "...As long as they are correct..." surely, in a debate it is not up to one party or the other to decide who is right, but is down to independent parties to conclude?

    You are concerned by the vested interests of others, don't you feel it is a little hypocritical? Even if The Drivers protest Union is an educated amateur, voluntary group, they are still bias and your interests are clearly vested. This argument is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. If their reasoned case is not enough, what is?

    Public transport is one of the many various alternative methods of transportation I was referring to. My experience of which, to counteract yours, has been very positive.

    We all know that commercial motoring is essential and in many cases private motoring is the best option, but given that the environmental concerns are an issue for govt (whether you believe them or not) should we not be promoting sustainable transportation and providing a safe, suitable infrastructure for all road users?

  15. You will find that on here and at Drivers Union we either publish fact or if not ask a series of questions based on fact where any sensible personal will reach an inevitable conclusion. I am prepared to debate but what I cannot do is to accept an alteration to fact or an entire change of premise. Really it's often because the other party cannot come to terms with the inevitable conclusion that they prevaricate, change the subject, change the premise etc. It's what Trolls do quite a lot. By the way, much of this is covered in a response to the previous post.

    Vested interests? Just see the previous post reply I answer that there too. But you are clearly wrong. What CV then do you think is appropriate for road safety matters?

    Public transport simply isn't an alternative to most of the country & for shift large items or several people. It doesn't do that at all & especially outside large connurbations. In any case it depends totally on car drivers to make the links and to get its staff there too.

    Your last paragraph is wishful thinking. You still do not accept that all your vital services depend on private car use. Until you can acknowledge that, then it's an example of one side refusing to accept a simple fact and thus arguing a false premise.

  16. Your questions are really thinly veiled Keith, it's very clear what your opinion is on the matter and you would like to make out as though anyone who disagrees with the conclusion you expect is "a fool" or "an idiot". You also fail to provide evidence for so many claims of fact that it is virtually impossible to accept any actual well researched perspective that you may contribute. A big part of academia, scientific rigour and professional life, is proving a need/theory/conclusion through the use of evidence, failure to accept or adhere to these conventions of scholarly practice has a negative bearing on the education you hold and the points that you are trying to make.

    I haven't questioned your CV, however your vested interests are clear to anyone who is aware of your other amateur organisations. Anyone who runs a group which is so blatantly bias cannot be in a place to offer good impartial advice, and to claim that you are only interested in road safety, is blatantly a slap in the face. Your vested interests may not be financial, but this does not make them any less vested than those of whom you vilify. This article is a perfect example of your bias.

    I accept wholly that the general public has developed a dependancy on the private motor vehicle. I do not accept that this is the solution or the future of our private transportation, and agree wholeheartedly that sustainable transport must be made more accessible and actively encouraged by weight of the benefits (not forced). The private motor vehicle in many people's lives is a luxury which allows them to divulge, in many cases it is not the only solution, but it is the easiest. Granted, in some situations, there is no better alternative than the use of a private motor vehicle. The populous has been conditioned to expect to drive, often even when driving is not the most sensible option. Not to mention that the infrastructure which has been established in this country has for the most part brushed aside the safety needs of the other road user groups.

  17. Reply: 1

    But it doesn't matter if a question is valid. Are you suggesting no-one should question anything and accept every proposal & statement without query unless being called ridiculous, idiotic, a c-nt, & other comments I fend off? I only revert to 'idiot' 'fool' 'troll' after perpetual twitter goading & a refusal to stick to a point or worse attributing comments to me that I have not made to the extent of being totally libellous. Added to that, I am a volunteer & top expert in my field, which is road safety, whereas people meddling and arguing with that are very often dangerous fools too.

    If it were mountain climbing, bungee jumping, free fall parachuting, any other life & death matter, they would listen to experts yet in road safety & driving, every charlatan & profiteer is able to have a big say & our site exposes them. This is actually killing people, directly & indirectly for profit. I am trying to stop and curtail the profiteer vested interests by putting up an appropriate CV for the subject. When someone presumes or assumes wrongly and persists in it dangerously, It’s crucial to ask what’s their qualification?

  18. 2

    My site is full of fact, evidence, stats and expertise. What isn't those, is fair questioning. You seem to think the world revolves around academics. It doesn't. Does a boss go to a professor about his lathe operator's- who hasn't even passed an eleven plus- work or listen to the lathe worker who has to do the job and has done the job all his life? But typically of the Trolls, you don't even give a specific example to examine where any one part of a massive web site is wrong. You snobbishly assert that if it hasn't the endorsement of scientists, mathmeticians, professors, it must be wrong. It isn't. They are not points I am trying to make, they are factual happenings that I am exposing. It's my hope and wish that the academics get down from their pedestals and accept the things they never thought of. So an RAC Foundation Professor claims that death on the roads among young is higher than those that hang themselves. Wow! I should bloody well hope so since everybody, including babies, are out on the road. So there's an academic for you. I have read whole papers by academia on road safety based on a false premise & have noted that if the premise is wrong, the whole paper is invalid.

    Clearly you have never prosecuted at court, neither have any of your academics either, but where is the court conclusion & evidence based on scientists, mathmaticians, statiticians? Bearing in mind that it may imprison for life, it isn't. It is all based on sets of happenings, occurrences, events, comments virtually no science and certainly no stats at all. Even the lawyer making the case isn't qualified in the subject matter. Our problem is that we are using science and using stats to challenge fact too much. Never more evident than in AGW. No scientist but at the beginning I wryly noted 'It's the Sun wot does it silly' like any other Joe Bloggs. And here we are, six years later, after millions of words from scientists arguing the toss, guess what? Old Joe Bloggs had it in one. Where else can surface heat come from? Stats? Right well I have actually done accident stats and more. Read the CV. I actually analyse the stats 19 system and where it is at fault. Stats are very much rubbish in, rubbish out. Their weakness I identified ages ago. They rely on the lowest paid least qualified factotum in any organisation to gather the info fed in. At that crucial stage there are no scientists, analysts, statisticians because they are too high and mighty for those menial tasks. And that's where it goes wrong from the off. The lowly paid know they can cheat, make up the numbers, make it much easier by not actually doing it and the boss will never come off his lofty perch to check it all out. I have seen it done, and the jolly amusement of the serfs when they see their fiction published as fact in the glossy annual report. Well that's how accident stats are originated with the Stats 19s Stats should only ever be used to answer the unknown but not to challenge the already known. When they are, the profiteers and charlatans move in.

  19. 3

    Motor transport isn't a luxury it's a necessity and a massive drain and struggle for most people. You talk of developing a dependency on the private motor vehicle. Society has done that in its expansion. In my young day we all lived and worked in one area. Yes cycling distance if you like. Now our economy is based on travelling longer distances to work and to get bulk household shopping. We have to buy in bulk because it's too expensive not to and because families depend on both parents working too. For women to work they can't just shop each day for a family. Are you ignoring all of the out of town shopping precincts several miles off and how busy they are? Do you think this is considered a luxury? It's part of the daily and weekly chores. So no the economy is very much based on the private car and has been created by society. We cannot go backwards without a mass cull. So who's going to volunteer to be first for that? The Greens? The cyclists? But isn't amazing. Where's all your evidence about these so called unnecessary car trips. You see, you are allowed to make assumptions and statements without any evidence or science to them yet I cannot make simple observations of fact. But you forget the such transport has been available & essential for hundreds of years. Some people never left farms & hamlets & households in the past because they didn't have transport but those that did would use their pony & trap to meet the train or their staff were carried with all their goods in them. But those who could afford it, had a horse or travelled around in carts. They were dependent on them then for supplies, so it's not new.

  20. 4

    My only interest is fairness for drivers and for genuine profit free expert based road safety. Those that I expose, and ridicule openly, I am able to prove and do so are actually on the make. Some very big names are on the site including royalty. Have I been sued yet? No. Has any organisation, police or otherwise challenged or sought to alter any of my statements? No. So what you call lack of evidence, has never been even denied let alone challenged.

    I have now given you ample exposure and full responses added to which there is all the comment on this topic alone for more answers. This is because I dared to go so far as to explain why drivers bump into cyclists? Look at your own accusations. Here is evidence that no-one can dare be positive or talk for drivers or provide expert explanation on any aspect without having whole tomes of attack. How bad is that?

  21. "You still do not accept that all your vital services depend on private car use."

    How, exactly?

    "Cycling is no more crucial than mountain climbing is. Mountain climbers threaten no-one with their activity in terms of liability & jail but cyclist are a threat to drivers."

    Cycling is affected by a people-controlled element (other vehicles) and is a form of transport. Comparing commuting to work by cycle and climbing a mountain is beyond tenuous. As for it being dangerous to drivers, I feel you may have missed the point of this discussion by a country mile. Do you also believe that mice are a danger to cats, just in case a cat chokes on a mouse bone?

    "Motor transport isn't a luxury it's a necessity and a massive drain and struggle for most people."

    So it is a luxury then, in the same way that if you have a Bollinger '69 habit or like to wear expensive shoes. Expensive = luxury. Cheap = not a luxury.

    "Now our economy is based on travelling longer distances to work and to get bulk household shopping."

    So we need cars to go shopping? Well, that's the argument settled. There can be no response to that. I'll cancel my Tesco delivery now.

  22. Devine Pimp. The answers are already contained in lengthy previous replies. Read it all there.

    I do not say cyclists are a danger to drivers but a liability. And do you think Tesco can run staffed by cyclists? That their IT is totally staffed by cyclists? That their delivery driver cycles to work? Their goods are brought to them by people who cycle to their lorries? Let me guess your demographic. Thin, wears specs, has no spouse or family or house and lives a long way from work & probably still living with mum. Only, any other demographic, wouldn't think as you do! :-))

  23. Basically, you're saying a cyclist has no right to be safe on the road. The driver's need to get past at all costs trumps cyclists safety. You hateful, nasty piece of work.

  24. It seems that your hatred of drivers is such that a reasonable explanation of the mechanics of it brings out the worst in you. At low speeds, 5/8/10/12 mph, drivers do pass things closely quite safely. It's cyclists demanding more clearance because they feel unsafe. And yes why not? You are placing yourself in a dangerous place so the feeling is quite natural. Don't get angry about it. Just stop doing it and there's no problem.

  25. Oh, if drivers ALWAYS looked far ahead of them when driving, why do I see so many distracting themselves by using the phone, reading books, reading maps, eating, drinking, etc while they're driving?

    1. I think 'so many' is a very wild exaggeration. I don't see it very often so that when I do it is very noticeable and noteworthy. But in most of those activities I am not sure why they wouldn't still be looking ahead? Reading books and maps? I have yet to see that. But you seem to be looking more at drivers than the road and where you are going. :-)

    2. Saw several drivers using the phone while driving today and even with a frightfully strong head wind, I was still able to travel 4 miles in the same amount of time as a car would take because all the drivers I saw, were holding each other up and I decided to use the shared path to avoid the traffic, I rejoined the road near the end of the shared facility because carrying on along the next bit of cycle path would have taken me the wrong way, also saw lots of people eating, drinking, smoking and doing/reading paperwork at the wheel.

  26. MA. I have no mandate or like any form of drivers distraction. The explanation however is assuming that the situation is the normal one and not with some other unacceptable circumstance as you describe. But your not really interested in the mechanics of passing bikes safely at all. You are anti driver in that drivers are automatically to blame for your chosen danger.

    I can say that because on a personal level, you attack me and refer to my posts as 'bile'. So anything you don't like in defence of drivers is 'bile' in your mind.

    You are a classic example of the war against drivers.

    From now on your posts will be rejected since I don't have the time to ping pong with fools.