to think Bicycles should have wing mirrors?

[SlightlyJaded]

I have always had a bike but used it mostly for pootling about / park and whatnot.

We have recently started doing the school run and more shopping on bikes in the interests of Doing My Bit.

The school run is a death race. I now understand why I have spent my whole life driving around and cursing cyclists. It's because they can't see what the fuck is happening on the road. As far as I can tell it's eyes front and hope for the best

If you do want to know whether you can swerve round a parked car or turn or whatever, you crane your neck back - instantly wobbling your course - and cycling blind for as long as you are checking behind you.

Obviously my in-built twatometer stops be attaching wing mirrors to my handlebars but actually I can't understand why bikes don't have wing mirrors.

Can anyone tell me?

YABU.
They are useless.

My nice aero roadbike is not being wrecked by a lump of metal.
Looking over your shoulder is not difficult.

CaptainKirk In that case, at no point did the cyclist go into your lane, he was in his own and only lane. Remember when you overtake a cyclist or motorbike you give them enough room specifically so they can swerve if necessary. See Rules 213 and 163 of the highway code.

Of course anyone who changes direction in any vehicle without looking is an idiot, but that's why you need to take extra care around all road users.

Bike lanes are shite minimisschief. They consign you to the most difficult part of the road to ride on, they have no parking restrictions generally and plant you back out in the general traffic at a moment's notice as you avoid dodgy drainage. Pavement cycle lanes are worse because the priority at junctions is either poorly marked or badly understood by both cyclists and drivers alike and again puts the cyclist in mortal danger.

We just need a bit more awareness and consideration on both sides.

captainkirk

Just to reiterate that point, that cyclist was in the right, it was never 'your' lane. I think it would have been prudent for the cyclist to look around in case, as demonstrated, there are sadly many drivers who don't give cyclists the due space and care they deserve on the road.

Maybe I phrased it wrong calling it "my" lane. I was giving them enough room when I passed them until the nutter swerved out in front of me without looking. I then had to swerve myself as I didn't have enough time to brake. He's just lucky I was watching him and that there were no oncoming cars.

You really need to practice more

Looking over your shoulder shouldn't cause you to wobble

CaptainKirk read the Highway code rules again - you have to give all 2 wheeled vehicles enough room to swerve. Whilst this guy was doing it because he was an idiot, other cyclists and motorbikes would be doing it for reasonable reasons. The problem is potholes and debris, holes that a car hitting would be absorbed with a bump and nothing else can bring a 2 wheeled vehicle down. This means the riders have to either swerve to miss them, or hit them risk collapsing in a pile. Either of those things mean you cannot be overtaking close as if they do you run over them.

So you overtake with enough room that the bike or scooter or motorbike could lie sideways, that's the same width as if you were overtaking a car.

When both vehicles are at low speed, it's less of an issue, and you can overtake more carefully and closer, but not at 40mph.

Whilst he was lucky he didn't get hit, you were lucky you didn't get a criminal conviction for hitting him.

That's ridiculous. It's also completely unworkable in a real world driving situation. That would mean that if I was to pass a cyclist on a busy road I would have to stay behind him holding everyone up until the oncoming lane was completely clear long enough for me to move over fully into the other lane to pass. That just wouldn't work. I don't believe for a minute that one cyclist should hold up a whole lane of traffic. The CO2 they save by riding would be hugely overshadowed by the CO2 expelled by all the cars idling behind him. It's madness.

You are talking utter bollox. Is that your attitude if there is eg a horse and rider or a slow moving vehicle in front of you. The cyclist is probably holding you up for 10 seconds of your v.busy life assuming you can't safely overtake. You may even find that overtaking the cyclist just leads to you waiting at the next set of lights for even longer. Worried about CO2? Don't drive a car. The queue wouldn't be idling, they would just be going slower which means changing down and taking some pressure off the accelerator therefore using less fuel.

Shame this is starting to turn into a bun fight :(

CaptainKirk, all I want to say wrt your last post is this:

You might find it ridiculous to move right over all the time. Plenty of people agree with you. But in the instance you describe, there was no oncoming traffic. In those kind of situations it is better for all concerned if you do move over a bit more. It doesn't really cost you anything, just a flick of the wheel really. And that extra metre or so gives you breathing space if something unexpected happens.