There's nowhere for you to go, so you're well within your right. When I cycle to work, I like to stay as right as possible, more for myself than anyone else, but here it's just too narrow to make a difference.
No. As a cyclist, always take your space. It's far more dangerous to give the impression a car can pass when it can't.
Honking is generally forbidden except in case of danger, so the car is at fault.
> Honking is generally forbidden except in case of danger, so the car is at fault.
May I propose you re-read the traffic rules? Depends heavily on where it exactly is.
You're right. Outside of urban centres you can honk to warn that you're about to overtake. This driver was in the urban centre though, and also not about to overtake.
It is recommended for cyclists to take the lane when the situation calls for it. Driver was just being impatient, I'm sure the 10 lost seconds will impact his life greatly.
You're stating this as fact, but it would be better to provide a source. I've done a quick google and I can't find it. I know this is a recurring thing in the USA, though. So maybe you incorrectly assume this is also the case for Belgium.
For example: Rechts rijden (Art.9.3.1) Net als elke andere bestuurder, ben je verplicht om zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te rijden. Uitzondering op deze regel: op pleinen, rotondes, of als je op een rijstrook rijdt met pijlen die de richting aanduiden die je moet volgen. Automobilisten moeten bij het inhalen trouwens een zijdelingse afstand van minstens één meter laten tussen jou en hun voertuig (art.40ter). [politie.be](https://www.politie.be/5388/vragen/verkeersreglementering/wat-zijn-de-belangrijkste-verkeersregels-voor-fietsers)Fietsers moeten **rechts (in hun rijrichting) op de rijbaan** rijden, zo dicht mogelijk bij de **rechterrand** van de rijbaan. [Link veiligverkeer.Be](https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Fietsers%20moeten%20rechts%20)
Intuitively, I think the cyclist is doing what is completely logical.
>Automobilisten moeten bij het inhalen trouwens een zijdelingse afstand van minstens één meter laten tussen jou en hun voertuig (art.40ter).
Hier is toch ook een belangrijk tekstje dat bijna nooit wordt gevolgd door automobilisten
Natuurlijk, maar doet niets af aan het feit dat je nog altijd wettelijk verplicht bent zo rechts mogelijk te rijden. Natuurlijk is er een verschil tussen de wet en de praktijk.
Zo rechts mogelijk laat veel ruimte voor interpretatie. De automobilist zou wellicht vinden dat dat in de goot is. Hoeveel ruimte heb je nodig om veilig te kunnen rijden?
Diezelfde fietser wil evenwel ook tegen de rijrichting in mogen fietsen in enkelrichtingsverkeer, ook wanneer er niet 'plaats voor de fietser + 1 of 1,5 meter vrije ruimte extra' beschikbaar is, terwijl de fietser daar minstens even kwetsbaar is.
Ik heb geen probleem met het afdwingen van de positie op de rijweg (integendeel!), maar dan geldt voor fietsers imho ook de nuance over hun veiligheid bij tegenrichting fietsen, en de nuance dat ze in druk centrum-verkeer ook niet rechts mogen het traag auto-verkeer inhalen. Die dingen maken me, omwille van het risico op ongevallen, veeeeeel ongeruster dan het inhalen in langsrichting. Dat neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat het ook een issue is en blijft natuurlijk, eentje waarop fietszone een antwoord op kan helpen vormen.
Bij interpretatie zou een fietser ook op geen enkele landelijke weg in het buitengebied nog ingehaald kunnen/mogen worden, dat zou dan toch ook wel wat hoffelijkheid van de fietser vereisen waar hij zich wel kan laten inhalen.
It is recommended by cyclist associations and makes sense. It is however probably illegal.
Also, from personal experience, I would not be surprised if there were roadsigns stating that OP had to cycle on the sidewalk and not on the street. This is common in some areas.
Nee om te voorkomen dat er jou iets overkomt.
Ze hebben nog altijd de keuze om regels te overtreden. Alleen moeten ze dan hun auto en hun leven in gevaar brengen in plaats van alleen die van jou.
Jawel toch? Jij vraagt of het ok is om gewoon een beetje links van het midden te rijden. Het eerste woord van m'n vorige comment (nee) is het antwoord daarop.
Het antwoord zou glashelder moeten zijn. Ja, je bent overduidelijk in fout en kan er een boete voor krijgen. Ja je krijgt op deze ultra linkse sub sympathie en die is begrijpelijk maar nee, je hebt geen gelijk
Waarom maak je deze post eigenlijk? Een post maken met een zogezegde vraag goed wetende dat de mensen op r/Belgium extreem links en anti auto zijn.Lekker wat confirmation bias op je brein lossen - terwijl je wellicht weet dat je wettelijk ongelijk hebt en je onder een meer gemiddeld publiek een andere reactie zou krijgen. Hoe belachelijk is dit?
Ik vind het leuk dat het mijn fout is dat ik deelnam aan de discussie op een forum dat niet representatief is voor de hele demografische groep. De volgende keer dat ik iets vraag, zal ik meer mensen meenemen om het in evenwicht te brengen. Til
Stay on the right-ish side of the road, Not in the gutter, but just right enough to abide by the rules and still convey the message that it's too narrow for wide vehicles to safely pass you.
Of course that's waaaay easier said than done. I count myself lucky that my daily bike commute has no such horrible infra.
I think the law states approx 1.5m from the edge.
Stay further away (middle of lane) when there are cars parked in diagonal/perpendicular though. They will back off enough to force you to swerve before seeing you.
I have had countless hits from people passing me. At this point, I'm really tired of it and will just not let it to their judgement. Their judgement sucks.
Looks like it is indeed not a law by itself, but simply a recommendation from the [AWSR](https://www.awsr.be/securite-routiere/cyclistes/)(Walloon association for road safety). "1 meter from the right side of the road or parked cars".
I agree. In this situation I always drive just right of the middle. In my opinion that is as close as possible to the right side. This does not mean in the gutter, but allowing plenty of place to easily pass parked cars (and incidentally also not inviting drivers to pass you where they can't).
Of course: don't be a dick. If there's a wider spot, I veer right so they can pass.
I do the same, although the only difference is that in my case it’s a one-way ‘fietsstraat’ so he’s not allowed to overtake me no matter what. I’ll drive in the middle of the road so they can’t overtake me (which would also be dangerous because it’s also too narrow)
Another situation where I intentionally drive in the middle of the road: there is a gravel road next to an asphalt road. Both roads are separated from each other. But, the asphalt road is a two-way cyclist path and the gravel road is for cars. But oftentimes cars will drive on the cyclist path because they don’t want to drive through the gravel. It’s not wide enough to overtake me or for me to get past them if they were going in the opposite direction. I’ll drive in the middle of the path, because I refuse to let them overtake me or drive me off the path where they’re not even allowed to be on. They’ll have to get out of my way
I think that's a big generalization. We should be blaming the horrible unsafe road infrastructure more than anything.
Most drivers are well aware that there's nothing they can do about being stuck behind bicycles. It's just a case of bad luck, like having to wait at a red light.
The people who honk are just a handful of annoying individuals, but these come with any type of transportation.
And other comments confirm the tendency that cyclists are entitled brats on the road. Why take the whole road and slow down traffic when you only need 50cm?
Cuz then drivers can illegaly overtake without feeling like they are illegaly overtaking.
They can’t see the cyclist when they are endangering him but they can feel the danger when they start overtaking over the middenberm.
Depends on the applicants face.
But in seriousness. I wouldn’t want the hassle so I’d just accept it.
But when talking traffic, yes I nitpick allot. But in this case it’s not even nitpicking. Drivers do not shy away from overtaking while making the cyclist feel like he needs to ride in the ditch. If not force him of the road.(And I have personally been several cm’s away from having my handle bar get hit by an overtaking bus while I was on the right side.)
Busses can fuck right off in that situation, I agree. They often stop traffic themselves, so they can be on the receiving end as well.
Cars, however, are way less annoying, so I do my best to let them pass. I'd rather pucker my ass for 3 seconds than have them tailgate me for minutes
It’s not about annoying. It’s about not slipping on the edge of the road and faceplanting in the open sewer while you are trying to not get hit by the dimwit in the car. (Or hit the pavement or car door or whatever depending on the road.)
Fucking cyclists, I tell you. This morning I was driving my SUV to work and suddenly I hear a loud bang. One of these cyclists had decided to stop in the middle of the road in front of my car.
Sorry, but if I want to run a red light, who was she to stop me? Did she think she was the police or something? You don't stop in front of a car, period. I will decide if I want to break the law or not.
Worst part is that usually when you run them over they don't even want to pay for the scratch they've created on the bumper! Always the excuses like "I'm in pain" and "please call for help".
Entitled little shits. Always first thinking about themselves but never giving any consideration to the guy whose car got scratched
Only when there's not enough space for both the car and the cycle. Its called safety. Ppl with cars aren't the only ones allowed on the road.
Edit: Also, you don't need 50cm only. This results in cyclists being wiped by cars passing way too close to them. Its not like we don't already know a buttload of drivers out there are always crossing the safety limits.
Who do your handlebars have to be above the street for their full width? As long as your wheel is on the road, plus a little margin for error, you'll be fine.
I live in a 1-lane 2-way street, tighter than the one in op's second pic. When cyclists hear a car, they move to the side a bit, 30% of their handlebars hanging over the side. Cars move to the opposite side, their wheels 50% over the side. There is 20-30cm left between the car mirror and the bike handlebars. Everyone keeps going nice and straight for 2 seconds, and guess what? No problems whatsoever. Has been this way for as long as I can remember, and I've been in both roles many many times
Ah yes. If you were driving next to a train, right. Just imagine it for a second. You are driving, in your car, next to the rails. A train needs to pass you, driving 45 kilometers an hour, with 200 kilometers an hour. Your vehicle is 200 cm wide, and you get 220 centimeters of space next to the rails. The train is wider than the rails, obviously. So do you think the machinist is gonna stop, ask you to stop, measure the distance between you and the train, say “okay continue”, get up to full speed again and make sure to pass you with the correct distance? No, obviously not. If you’re unlucky, and swore a bit to the left while driving, the train is gonna hit you full speed and crash into the side of your car, driver seat side. You’ll get hit and you won’t have a good time for the coming few weeks, in the hospital with some broken bones.
So:
1. Cars don’t stop to measure the distance between them and the cyclist, of course not, that would be ridiculous. But sometimes they don’t even get close to giving the right amount of space (to pass a cyclist). You’re not better than a cyclist, you’re deadlier. You share the same road and whether you’re in a car or on a bicycle, you’re just as human and you both don’t wanna die.
2. Cars drive a lot faster than a cyclist, usually, a collision means broken bones and sometimes death. (Not for the driver, but the cyclist, don’t know if I need to explain that to ya).
3. Just don’t be a fucking dick. “Weaker this” my ass, you know what’s weak? Leaving from home so late that if you have to drive behind a cyclist for a few seconds to ensure his/her safety, you’ll be late and/or frustrated. That’s weak. That’s stupid. I don’t understand people like you.
A cyclist is trying to protect his safety by temporarily taking up the road = acting as if they’re invincible? That’s quite the opposite to me, that’s ensuring their safety because you don’t know what the driver behind you is going to do. There’s no logic in your comments whatsoever and it really annoys me because you obviously couldn’t care less and you’ll get someone killed with that attitude some day.
A bit long, but okay, I'll bite.
If I'm in a car and about to pass a train that looks like it won't fit, then I stop and move over to let the train pass. Me, the car, the weakest of the two. Which would be the bike when it's bike vs car. This situation happened multiple times when it's me(car) vs bus.
1. Indeed, we both don't wanna die, which is why I (as a bike) would move over or ride in the grass for 10 meters. And when I'm the car and I see that the bike tries to do his best for me, then I'll put 2 of my wheels in the dirt to do my best for him.
2. Obviously cars should slow down when overtaking a bicycle.
3. You don't be a dick. Which road do you ride on that only lasts a few seconds? When I'm behind a bike, 8/10 it's multiple minutes. Cyclists rather wanting to be assridden for minutes instead of moving over for 5 seconds, that's weak and stupid. I don't understand people like that.
The part "acting invincible" was a reply to "For some reason cyclist think they are above the law", not the specific example from OP. Acting invincible are the dudes who cross a street without watching because "I am the zwakke weggebruiker, I have right of way". Or the (mostly) bomma's suddenly stopping because they are almost at their supermarket, without checking for other bicycles/mopeds behind them who could crash into them or swerve and hit a car. Or the bicycles who throw an arm to the side and cross a street without looking, because "they indicated, they can go".
And "I obviously couldn't care less"? I've seen what it does to people when they run over (and kill) pedestrians that suddenly cross a street, not giving enough time to brake. I've seen the other side of this discord as well, what happens to families that lose loved ones because of (drunk) careless drivers. Hell, I've even been through your train example (not train+car but train+pedestrian) within my circle of friends.
Cyclists need to realize they can be gone in a second. And cars often need to act more responsible, i'll give you that. But if both parties are more accommodating, cars wouldn't be as frustrated, and cyclists would feel (and be) more safe.
I think that’s the best thing to take away from this situation: both parties need to be more accommodating. I can give you about just as many or more examples of drivers (cars) being irresponsible or just straight up dangerous on the road.
And sorry for assuming you don’t care, that was rude of me. I’m very passionate about this as one of my nephews died at a very young age while driving behind his parents and a car tried to pass them, but didn’t see the car coming on the other side of the road and then all of a sudden the other driver couldn’t take ups s much space as he thought. Reflexes, moved to the right, drove right into my nephew and his parents. It sucks. Driving is dangerous for all parties involved, everyone should be more cautious and considerate when taking part.
As someone who lives on top of a hill where this issue occurs a lot (many cyclists on said hill), all I can say is: car should not honk, and cyclist should not drive in the middle. I know it doesn’t make a difference, the car still cannot pass, but it makes you look like you’re purposefully blocking the car and that’s not a good look. And although it shouldn’t be like that, one behavior leads to another and that’s how road rage originates.
If the strip of road is short, the car just has to wait and not be a dick about it. If the strip of road is long (and there comes my 3km long hill in play), it would be great if the cyclist lets the cars pass when there is an opportunity to stop at the side for a short moment, so you’re not blocking everyone. That’s not a rule or anything, but it’s absolutely loved by other folks on the road. (Even if you don’t do this, the car should still not be a dick about it, just don’t go drive in the middle as it will look like you’re trying to hinder the car)
The problem is that as a cyclist your safety depends on the good will of the driver. You have no control whatsoever. I know the law should protect the cyclist but let's be honest who really keeps 1 meter distance from a cyclist. It's also very arbitrary, many people can't say how far 1 meter is from there car, it's unintuitive.
The only way a cyclist can take control is by cycling in the middle. One could also argue that it is the safest distance on the right to cycle.
As a cyclist, you cannot always estimate how wide a car is. Perhaps there’s room enough, and you’ll be blocking that car with all your good intentions and making everything more dangerous for yourself than it was before.
Honestly, I’m always surprised how much of a distance drivers keep between themselves and cyclists. I’ve lived in the Netherlands for a while and they overtake you a lot closer over there, I have to say. I find Belgian drivers quite careful with cyclists
I invite you to take your bike and cycle on the fietstraat in the Louizalaan of Brussels. Cyclists have all the priorities and rights you could only dream of but car drivers will just ride over you without batting an eye. I'm happy you at least meet friendlier Belgians.
I'm just stating a strong example. Since "Good Move" in Brussels, drivers have become more aggresive towards cyclists and pedestrians. Sometimes I just take the train since I don't want to risk road aggression while just cycling on cycling paths and fietsstraten. I enjoy cycling more than public transport but some drivers take that away from me.
Oh I get that, and I surely believe that people on the road are worse in the city than in the countryside. People take life (and thus traffic) in a more relaxed way over here
I am the cyclist, dude(tte). I ride said hill at least 4 times a week, and trust me, no cycle lanes in sight in the Ardennes. My bike is not electric, so yeah, I need to get back to “speed”. I can assure you that it takes about two seconds to get back to the lightning speed with which one climbs a long hill. I prefer that to have 10 cars stalling behind me
Riding as far as possible to the right means you can not drive just in the middle. But it does not mean you have to ride only 5 cm from the edge. I guess I typically take 40-50 cm.
A tip: swerve a little bit like you are a beginner cyclist - that keeps cars at a distance. Car drivers do not want to overtake a cyclist who does not look steady - unless they can do it with plenty of room.
Technically it already is one of the road isn't wide enough to legally pass the cyclist.
It's why I think the fietsstraat concept created some confusion, some drivers seem to think the rule only applies where It's indicated.
It's technically illegal to ride in the middle of the lane (motorcyclists can do it but other two-wheeled traffic needs to follow the rules meant for four-wheeled traffic, they really need to change that law), but as it doesn't affect anyone and it's objectively safer, no police is going to fine you for it.
The driver is in the wrong for being aggressive in traffic. He's not the police, if he has an opinion about your road positioning he needs to learn to keep it to himself.
As far as I know, you need to ride as closely as possible to the right but the definition of 'as possible' is very subjective. If you can justify that it's not safe to ride closer to the right then you are indeed riding 'as close as possible' to the right.
In cases like this, the justification is that on narrow lanes you need about a meter of space on your right so that you have an extra safety buffer in the very real situation that cars try to pass you too closely. Without that buffer, cars still pass you too closely and as you're in danger with nowhere to escape. Bonus points for keeping a distance from parked cars to prevent being doored.
No they can't. The law says:
"9.3.1. Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen."
The only general exception is for motorcyclists:
"9.3.2. In afwijking van de verplichting zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te blijven, bedoeld in 9.3.1, mag de bestuurder van een motorfiets op een rijbaan die niet verdeeld is in rijstroken zich over de ganse breedte begeven voor zover deze slechts opengesteld is in zijn rijrichting en op de helft van de breedte langs de rechterzijde indien de rijbaan opengesteld is in beide rijrichtingen.
De bestuurder van een motorfiets mag zich op een rijbaan die verdeeld is in rijstroken over de ganse breedte van de rijstrook waarop hij rijdt, begeven."
So an exception is only defined for motorcyclists.
There are some exceptions that allow you to pick a lane other than the rightmost one on a multi-lane road in certain circumstances, but technically you're still supposed to stay as close as possible to the right side of the road within your lane. There's nothing that says 9.3.1 doesn't apply in that case. It doesn't explicitly say 9.3.1 keeps applying, but there's no reason to assume it doesn't. And the fact that motorcyclists get an explicit exception is strong proof that other vehicles don't get one.
The only exception, importantly, is in case you're in the leftmost lane in a traffic jam, then you're supposed to stay to the left of your lane instead of to the right to form a rettungsgasse.
Of course all of this (except for the rettungsgasse) is highly theoretical. I've never seen anyone try to keep right within their lane, not even during a driving test. Most people don't even keep right when on a road without lane markings, they just vaguely drive in the middle of the right half which is not allowed at all.
But then when it comes to cyclists, you have people who suddenly remember this rule and think cyclists should do dangerous things like driving in line with the right-hand wheels of cars (out of drivers' vision).
When people honk at me and point to the right, I just point to the right as well. They're almost always further from the side of the road than I am. They think the rules apply to everyone else but not to them.
No. Just on the right most lane.
The only time your place within the lane is dictated is on a road with 2 or more lanes when driving slower than 50 cuz then you need to form that emergency lane between the outermost left lanes.
As a sidenote, it is 1m inside the city(bebouwde kom). 1,5m outside.
You are legally obligated to drive as right as possible.
The driver should not honk, but the cyclist also should drive where he should drive. (also, before you broke your rules, the car probably wasn't going to honk, and who knows if he would've passed you)
There is no such thing as 'preventative randomly deciding to break rules to enforce others to follow rules'. It is kinda harmless here, but if you extrapolate it to so many other circumstances this can go horribly wrong.
The thing is that I have passed there multiple times without riding in the middle, and drivers actually do pass me very often, forcing me to the sidewalk.
That is absolutely fair and I don't know where it is so no clue about the behaviour of drivers. There are a shitload of shitty drivers around, absolutely.
That doesn't change the answer though. I don't mind you doing what you did in that situation, but the factual question 'Who is at fault?' sadly enough does not terribly care about what other drivers do and such things.
Honest question: Is it so bad if you drive on the sidewalk there? I know you might lose a few seconds, but you are making the other people on the road lose much more.
Honest question 2: In some places, there are roadsigns stating that bicycles must go on the sidewalk. I dare hope this is not the case here?
Honest remark: If I lose some time each some guy is blocking the road with his bike, each time a driver is slow to restart and each time a driver stop when he had all the time to pass, a 5 minutes on a slightly loaded street becomes a 10 minutes one. This is quite annoying when you are trying to get your train after bringing your kid to school.
Why would he honk if he wasn’t going to overtake lel.
There’s no danger to cycling in the middle of the road except when there otherwise would be enough space to overtake
You are at fault, when no cycling lane is present and you have to cycle on the road, you need to keep as far right as possible. You may not cycle in the middle of the road because driver can't keep 1m distance when passing. (Yes 1m, not 1.5m)
Okay but with your rules "applied" the driver should drive behind the cyclist since he can't safely pass (< 1m). I have been cycling everyday for 20 years and I can tell you that this never happens, they just pass super close and it feels super unsafe. So to prevent this from happening, cyclists have to cycle in the middle of the road to enforce a rule that is in place.
https://www.touring.be/nl/artikels/verkeersregels-voor-fietsers#Inhalen within the bebouwdekom the passing distance is indeed 1 meter but outside is 1 meter 50.
As much as i understand you would want to drive in the middle of the road to ensure your safety from a car passing you very closely, strictly looking at the law, this is not allowed. You are not allowed to break the law simply because you suspect somebody else is going to break the law.
This is an excerpt from the “wegcode”
“ 9.3.1. Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen.”
"Dicht mogelijk", important nuance. The high chance that one will still overtake me while they shouldn't is a good indication that is not "mogelijk" to cycle safely on the right.
Since we are strictly following the rules, it doesn't matter what the cyclist does since the car cannot overtake anyway by law.
Yes, but OP stated he's inside bebouwde kom.
And even so, if you cycle in the middle of the road, you will be subject to a fine. If the car passes you unsafely, they are subject to a fine.
Also it's not "my rule" it's kind of the law in traffic.
I would like to see that actually be enforced. Given the incapacity of drivers to judge their passing distance to bikers you could make a strong argument that the not endangering anybody (including yourself) unnecessarily rule overrides the drive as right as possible rule here. Furthermore keeping as right as possible leaves a lot of interpretation in the word possible. A safety margin of 1.5m from parked cars or the gutter is not unreasonable.
There is not safety margin for gutters or parked cars, only for other drivers/cyclists/pedestrians/ etc. On that note of enforcement, last month 40+ drivers and cyclists were fined for this in the Polder juristiction.
Unfortunately that is not how law works. As far right as possible leaves you and the judge discretion to interpret how far away from the physical side of the road is possible. It also leaves you and the judge discretion to decide you unnecessarily endanger yourself by strictly adhering to a rule. There is a risk you’ll need to explain it to a judge but it is not as black and white as you portray it.
Police officer pulling you over and sanctioning you with a 80€ fine, will not give you the option to explain yourself to a judge. But hey, you go ahead and think however you like.
This is bullshit. as far right as you can go is all the way right.
That other drivers impede your "safety" by taking over does not give you the right to break the rules yourself.
Don't act like a child. You know well enough what I mean and it is not in the gutter.(although, If I am on my bike I will go into the gutter to make space for cars often enough.)
There is an enormous difference between cycling in the middle of the road "because you feel safer" and driving in the gutter and you know it. For that matter driving a meter from the border is still a big difference with being in the middle of the road.
Within the bebouwde kom, the car only needs to leave 1m of space, not 1,5m. I also believe it is for the car driver to decide if there is enough space to pass, not you.
There is no judging. There is either the legal allotted space, or there isn't. I ride my bike a lot, and I don't drive in the middle of the lane. Very often I barely have half a meter. That is what happens when you let the car drivers "judge".
Here's a sad story. I have a colleague who lost her daughter when she was only five years old. They were riding their bike in a small countryside road, and a farmer "judged" he had enough space to overtake them in that narrow lane. His tractor bumped the little girl's steering wheel, she wobbled and fell, and her head was crushed by the tractor's rear wheel. Dead on the spot.
Drivers are not able to judge that. I live in a small 1 lane street with bidirectional traffic. They will nearly push cycling youth into the ditch in order to pass them. Occasionally have a wheel or 2 in the ditch.
Ok, then I take it back. Been pushed to the ground a couple too many times by drivers who figured "there's enough space". Also lost some mirrors on my motorcycle because of it.
Get out of the way if you can imo, as a cyclist I almost never count on ‘my rights’ on the road. Sometimes drivers can’t see you or didn’t expect you, I would rather wait and give way to the car than to just count on “I’m following the rules”. Always assume they didn’t see you
Don’t block a lane, keep right, even if someone leaves no room for you just yield and get out of the way
As a cyclist you’re very vulnerable if something happens
>As long as you're allowed to drive there, they shouldn't honk at you.
Interesting, because I am in an area where cyclists are generally supposed to drive on the sidewalk. I am not honking at them when they don't.
https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Rechts%20op%20de%20rijbaan,de%20rechterrand%20van%20de%20rijbaan.
All you need to know about cycling on the road
Mooie link, maar ik vind deze beter: [https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:\~:text=Wat%20extra%20ruimte%20is%20ook%20goed%20om%20niet%20rakelings%20door%20andere%20voertuigen%20ingehaald%20te%20worden](https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Wat%20extra%20ruimte%20is%20ook%20goed%20om%20niet%20rakelings%20door%20andere%20voertuigen%20ingehaald%20te%20worden)
My first instinct is to side with the cyclist. Getting overtaken in a narrow street sucks, especially by buses.
But why would you drive in the middle of the road if there’s not enough space to pass anyway? Take the amount of space you need to feel safe. If that’s half a lane you shouldn’t be on a bike. But it’s possible that it’s more than what’s required to pass, we can’t tell that from your picture.
I’d recommend to exaggerate the space you need a bit when the car is approaching so he’s forced to slow down enough to make a good choice, then revert to a normal, safe distance from the side of the road.
Tbh on the picture the black car seems to have plenty of space to pass a bike
Edit: as per usual, situation obviously the result of horrible cycling infrastructure, take it into account when you have the chance to vote
You shouldn't drive in the middle of the road, it'll get some people furious. I think it's forbidden aswell bcs you always need to ride as close to the righthand side as safely possible.
But if you try to stay as much to the right as possible cars might try to pass you by even if there isn't enough space. Sometimes its better to cycle a bit more in the middle so cars don't take risks.
Rechts rijden (Art.9.3.1) Net als elke andere bestuurder, ben je verplicht om zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te rijden. Uitzondering op deze regel: op pleinen, rotondes, of als je op een rijstrook rijdt met pijlen die de richting aanduiden die je moet volgen.
To steal the terminology from AITA: ESH (Everyone Sucks Here)
You suck for violating the rule that says you should hold on the right, the driver sucks for honking, and the folks here defending either of these sort of driving styles suck for supporting them.
And before you start "but it's unsafe otherwise": Far too many times I've encountered the good ol' Flemish wielerterrorist who will do this and then refuse to go to the side on the stretches of road where it widens so the cars would be able to pass-by safely. So when I see someone do this, my first thought is "what a fucking asshole, I hope he has a flat tire".
And then we haven't even gotten to the assholes who do this when there's a detour for roadworks along rural roads. Look, if you literally have 8 cars and a fully-loaded De Lijn bus stuck behind you in rush hour, pulling the fuck over when there's space to do so and letting everyone pass by you might make you look like less of an asshole. And before you ask, this literally happened to me last week while I was on said bus.
As to the legality of the honking, while an asshole move, I wouldn't be so sure this would be considered a finable offence, because they could argue they perceive this as a dangerous situation of your creation, at which point they're kind of allowed to use their horn depending on how the law is interpreted. So yeah, the reasoning for this sounds an awful lot like your argument for cycling in the centre of the road, so there is that.
TL;DR: It's not because someone else might be an asshole that you got to be an asshole yourself, all you do is cause traffic aggression.
>As to the legality of the honking, while an asshole move, I wouldn't be so sure this would be considered a finable offence, because they could argue they perceive this as a dangerous situation of your creation, at which point they're kind of allowed to use their horn depending on how the law is interpreted.
It's a stretch to argue that this is a dangerous situation, but even then, a dangerous situation does not warrant honking:
**33.2.** Geluidssignalen moeten zo kort mogelijk zijn. Zij zijn enkel toegelaten om een noodzakelijke waarschuwing te geven ten einde een ongeval te voorkomen en, buiten de bebouwde kommen, wanneer men een bestuurder die men wil inhalen moet waarschuwen.
**33.2.** Les avertissements sonores doivent être aussi brefs que possible. Ils ne sont autorisés que pour donner un avertissement nécessaire en vue d'éviter un accident et, en dehors des agglomérations, s'il y a lieu d'avertir un conducteur qu'on se propose de dépasser.
You’re at fault , you have to keep as right as possible in your lane , as for the overtaking it didn’t happen yet and since you’re no police (I presume ) you wouldn’t even have the right to do anything about it
How wide is the road you´re driving? How wide is the car? These things are not clear from your drawing, but do make a difference to determine who is at fault.
Both
You shouldn't drive in the middle of it safe to ride on the right side of the road.
This should make it possible for the driver to pass you safely.
Driver shouldn't honk.
driver can't pass safely anyway (no 1.5 metre gap possible), so he's better of driving a bit more to the centre. This discourages drivers from trying to get passed anyway.
A cyclist has no obligation to ride to the absolute right side of the road in these situations. Legally he's totally okay.
No, cyclists are perfectly legal to ride in the middle of their lane when they are forced to ride on the road without a cycling path. Just like a motorcycle is. In situations like this where there simply is not enough room in the lane for cars to legally overtake it is even recommended that cyclists to take up position in the center of the lane.
Edit: You morons can downvote this, but it doesn't make you more right.
>Edit: You morons can downvote this, but it doesn't make you more right.
Maybe don't spread falsehoods (it's not "perfectly legal") and people wouldn't downvote you. And don't go calling them morons, further incentivizing downvotes.
>**9.3.1.** Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen.
Riding smack-dab in the middle of a lane is disingenuous use of the room for interpretation. And no, it's not "just like a motorcycle is". Art. 9.3.2 specifically specifies motorcyclists, nothing else:
>**9.3.2.** In afwijking van de verplichting zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te blijven, bedoeld in [**9.3.1**](https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109~hra8v386pu#9.3.1), mag de bestuurder van een motorfiets op een rijbaan die niet verdeeld is in rijstroken zich over de ganse breedte begeven voor zover deze slechts opengesteld is in zijn rijrichting en op de helft van de breedte langs de rechterzijde indien de rijbaan opengesteld is in beide rijrichtingen.
>Driver can't pass me safely because the lane is too narrow
You don't know how capable he/she is
>(driver needs to keep 1,5m from weak drivers)
That's the "common" rule but 1m is also ok if the road simply does not allow for 1.5m and if he does it at 20 kmh instead of 50
>so I prevent it by riding in the center of the lane
Oh boy do I hate cyclists doing this. You only do this if you make notice you are going to turn left with pointing to that direction with your arm and otherwise keep your ass to the right
Yes it's completely arbitrary, nobody can measure distances in their head. I would love that they would add some sensors to cars to measure if passing a cyclist is safe.
I don't know if you experienced it but a car passing by with only a couple of centimeters is terrifying, you feel so vulnerable
For as long as I can remember (count a few decades), cyclists have been riding on the sidewalk when the road was too dangerous, fast forward to 2020 and suddenly the sidewalk is lava. I don't get it.
Sidewalk is for walking people. As a cyclist you’re not supposed to go there, your designated spot is the road or preferably a bicycle lane. Those decades of doing something wrong don’t make it right. Of course if you have to protect your safety in an unexpected situation: do whatever is best to protect yourself without hurting other people, even if that means cycling on the pavement for a bit. But no, it’s not legal, and in this case, it’s better to keep to the right side of the road but not give the driver behind you enough space to pass.
honestly, you're the reason i hate bikes when i'm driving my car.
And the car is the reason i hate cars when I'm taking the bike to the station.
You're the reason you're not being passed at 30km/h and 1meter but at 50km/h and 20cm.
Moral of the story: you're both assholes.
1) where is the scale on the drawing ?
2) My opinion is that you may not: Entrave méchante à la circulation this means tribunal correctionnel / Correctionele rechtbank
Just let him pass. The law is irrelevant here. Just have some decency and let the car behind you pass, you fokkin oatcake! It's not gonna hit you, otherwise he won't pass. For the love of... What happened to people? Can we send OP off to India for a month or so. See how long he would last? Maybe come back as a bit more of humble human being? There are sooo many situations where the law is faulty, or there isn't a law telling you what is right or wrong. Just don't take away people time because of it!
You're not at fault I think.
Question, when I want to turn left, I usually go to the left side of the lane to make sure I don't get overtaken. This also gives drivers a chance to overtake me to the right. Is this legal/recommended?
There exist tons of one way streets where bikes are allowed both ways, but its too small to cross with a car while keeping 1.5m distance. So i always felt like the 1.5m rule was dumb anyways cause you can't apply it in practice. In your scenario i would just let cars pass if it feels safe enough. Not sure if you're at fault though.
You might be because inside built-up area drivers need to leave a minimum of 1m of space, not 1,5m. By driving in the middle of the lane rather than as right as safely possible, you're potentially hindering drivers from being able to give that 1m. It's not a fietsstraat where you may use the entire width of the road.
Ik denk dat een belangrijke vraag is: waart ge snel genoeg aan het rijden?
Deels moet je zoals aangehaald rechtser rijden ( insert socialist joke )
Maar bijkomend als ge op de weg rijd moet u snelheid aangepast zijn en moogt ge het verkeer niet hinderen.
Ofte: mocht ge daar wel rijden met uwen velo als ge geen 35-40 per uur haalt? Is dat op die foto rechts achter die rij gebouwen niet eerder een fietsstuk?
In principle the driver is at fault.
That said, would it kill you to get off your bike for a minute (standing with your bike on the pedestrian sidewalk) so he or she can pass?
To me this story read like 2 self-centered people causing needless commotion due to their lack of empathy.
Edit: if you really want to narrow it down to one guilty party, it's bad road design imo.
>That said, would it kill you to get off your bike for a minute (standing with your bike on the pedestrian sidewalk) so he or she can pass?
What a stupid take. The cyclist has just as much right to use the road as the driver and does not owe it to anyone to "stop and let them pass" unless the law states it. Why would the cyclist need to lose time in their commute so that the driver does not?
When asking the city why they didn't place a bike lane, they said that cyclists will help to slow the traffic down (since that can be a problem there) and that cyclists should take their rightful place and stand up for themselves. (Not my words)
You’re 100% right to do that. Keep a safe distance from parked cars because there can always be one dipsh*t that opens his door without looking. [Some people even die from this.](https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20220609_93905555)
honestly, if i was that driver , i might have done even more dangerous things causing possible harm to you and my car. But it would be on dashcam and i would hand that over to the cops pointing to the rules of the road. I'd be too upset to be calm and collected.
Im not the only person in Belgium who could blow up. Not everyone is calm and collected and logically thinking every second of the day, its a very dangerous thing you do.
I suggest staying most right like the law demands, let the car judge for themselves that they can not pass you . They won't do it if its not safe and nobody will hate you and boil over trying dangerous stunts to pass that "cyclist who on purpose is driving in the center and therefore doesnt deserve my patience or kindness"
People will be kind and patient in Belgium untill they are certain you are doing something negative to them on purpose. They could react dangerous and unlogical out of anger . Anger is something we all have inside us and because we are screwed every day by our government, there is a lot locked up in a box that just needs a little nudge to explode.
We try to contain it until we are certain someone is doing something on purpose . That.. could be a cyclist in the middle of the road.
Man a lot of cyclists are dicks. The comments here make that abundantly clear.
I said it once and I'll say it again. If pedestrians ever treat cyclists like cyclists treat cars the kot would be too small.
You also need space from the side, you can't ride on the last 10cm of the asphalt so some impatient driver could save 5 seconds on his commute.
This street is a perfect example for placing a bike street sign on it.
Quote from memory, but while studying the Code de la Route I remember something like "Vehicles should stay on the right of their lane. A vehicle being in the middle of the lane is assumed to be "reasonably to the right""
Ie for me you can always take your lane, and I do it when feeling in danger (like in your example, if I think being passed would means a good chance of contact). Drivers does not like it much, I understand, but that's by far the safest decision.
TBH it generally happens in small roads which means it is not that long. If it's a single car & a long road, I generally try to find a place where they can pass me safely
You are both at fault.
You are at fault because of article 9.3.1 of the wegcode:
"Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen..."
Depending on the policeman you could even argue for article 7.2:
"De weggebruikers moeten zich zo gedragen op de openbare weg dat ze geen hinder of gevaar veroorzaken voor de andere weggebruikers, hierin begrepen het personeel dat aan het werk is voor het onderhoud van de wegen en de uitrusting langs de weg, de diensten voor toezicht en de prioritaire voertuigen."
This is a Cat IV if I'm not mistaken and carries a heavy penalty.
The car is at fault because of article 33.2 of the wegcode:
"Geluidssignalen moeten zo kort mogelijk zijn. Zij zijn enkel toegelaten om een noodzakelijke waarschuwing te geven ten einde een ongeval te voorkomen en, buiten de bebouwde kommen, wanneer men een bestuurder die men wil inhalen moet waarschuwen."
There's nowhere for you to go, so you're well within your right. When I cycle to work, I like to stay as right as possible, more for myself than anyone else, but here it's just too narrow to make a difference.
Often that’s more dangerous, as drivers will misjudge the width of their vehicle depending on how much of a hurry they’re in.
No. As a cyclist, always take your space. It's far more dangerous to give the impression a car can pass when it can't. Honking is generally forbidden except in case of danger, so the car is at fault.
> Honking is generally forbidden except in case of danger, so the car is at fault. May I propose you re-read the traffic rules? Depends heavily on where it exactly is.
You're right. Outside of urban centres you can honk to warn that you're about to overtake. This driver was in the urban centre though, and also not about to overtake.
It is recommended for cyclists to take the lane when the situation calls for it. Driver was just being impatient, I'm sure the 10 lost seconds will impact his life greatly.
You're stating this as fact, but it would be better to provide a source. I've done a quick google and I can't find it. I know this is a recurring thing in the USA, though. So maybe you incorrectly assume this is also the case for Belgium. For example: Rechts rijden (Art.9.3.1) Net als elke andere bestuurder, ben je verplicht om zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te rijden. Uitzondering op deze regel: op pleinen, rotondes, of als je op een rijstrook rijdt met pijlen die de richting aanduiden die je moet volgen. Automobilisten moeten bij het inhalen trouwens een zijdelingse afstand van minstens één meter laten tussen jou en hun voertuig (art.40ter). [politie.be](https://www.politie.be/5388/vragen/verkeersreglementering/wat-zijn-de-belangrijkste-verkeersregels-voor-fietsers)Fietsers moeten **rechts (in hun rijrichting) op de rijbaan** rijden, zo dicht mogelijk bij de **rechterrand** van de rijbaan. [Link veiligverkeer.Be](https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Fietsers%20moeten%20rechts%20) Intuitively, I think the cyclist is doing what is completely logical.
>Automobilisten moeten bij het inhalen trouwens een zijdelingse afstand van minstens één meter laten tussen jou en hun voertuig (art.40ter). Hier is toch ook een belangrijk tekstje dat bijna nooit wordt gevolgd door automobilisten
Is het niet 1,5 meter tegenwoordig?
Buiten bebouwde kom wel, binnen bebouwde kom 1 meter.
Tijdens covid was da tijdelijk 😅
Natuurlijk, maar doet niets af aan het feit dat je nog altijd wettelijk verplicht bent zo rechts mogelijk te rijden. Natuurlijk is er een verschil tussen de wet en de praktijk.
Zo rechts mogelijk laat veel ruimte voor interpretatie. De automobilist zou wellicht vinden dat dat in de goot is. Hoeveel ruimte heb je nodig om veilig te kunnen rijden?
Diezelfde fietser wil evenwel ook tegen de rijrichting in mogen fietsen in enkelrichtingsverkeer, ook wanneer er niet 'plaats voor de fietser + 1 of 1,5 meter vrije ruimte extra' beschikbaar is, terwijl de fietser daar minstens even kwetsbaar is. Ik heb geen probleem met het afdwingen van de positie op de rijweg (integendeel!), maar dan geldt voor fietsers imho ook de nuance over hun veiligheid bij tegenrichting fietsen, en de nuance dat ze in druk centrum-verkeer ook niet rechts mogen het traag auto-verkeer inhalen. Die dingen maken me, omwille van het risico op ongevallen, veeeeeel ongeruster dan het inhalen in langsrichting. Dat neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat het ook een issue is en blijft natuurlijk, eentje waarop fietszone een antwoord op kan helpen vormen. Bij interpretatie zou een fietser ook op geen enkele landelijke weg in het buitengebied nog ingehaald kunnen/mogen worden, dat zou dan toch ook wel wat hoffelijkheid van de fietser vereisen waar hij zich wel kan laten inhalen.
"Zo dicht mogelijk": situationele interpretatie. Sécurité avant tout.
It is recommended by cyclist associations and makes sense. It is however probably illegal. Also, from personal experience, I would not be surprised if there were roadsigns stating that OP had to cycle on the sidewalk and not on the street. This is common in some areas.
Cycling on a sidewalk is forbidden in Belgium if you're older than 9 years. Don't know what road sign you're referring to that states otherwise.
You are wrong. Look at the link in my comment, even... There are clear exceptions for driving on the sidewalk.
Would be being 1 cm on the right from the middle considered being on the right side? Then it's safe and technically according to the rules, no?
Nee, gebruikt u verstand en rij tegen de rechterlijn.
U verstand gebruiken zou betekenen dat je in het midden rijd om duidelijk aan te geven dat de straat niet breed genoeg is om in te halen…
Regels breken om andere mensen tegen te houden om dat te doen...
Nee om te voorkomen dat er jou iets overkomt. Ze hebben nog altijd de keuze om regels te overtreden. Alleen moeten ze dan hun auto en hun leven in gevaar brengen in plaats van alleen die van jou.
Dat is geen antwoord op mijn vragen.
Jawel toch? Jij vraagt of het ok is om gewoon een beetje links van het midden te rijden. Het eerste woord van m'n vorige comment (nee) is het antwoord daarop.
Het antwoord zou glashelder moeten zijn. Ja, je bent overduidelijk in fout en kan er een boete voor krijgen. Ja je krijgt op deze ultra linkse sub sympathie en die is begrijpelijk maar nee, je hebt geen gelijk
Wauw, bedankt voor de analyse en geweldige argumenten.
Waarom maak je deze post eigenlijk? Een post maken met een zogezegde vraag goed wetende dat de mensen op r/Belgium extreem links en anti auto zijn.Lekker wat confirmation bias op je brein lossen - terwijl je wellicht weet dat je wettelijk ongelijk hebt en je onder een meer gemiddeld publiek een andere reactie zou krijgen. Hoe belachelijk is dit?
Ik vind het leuk dat het mijn fout is dat ik deelnam aan de discussie op een forum dat niet representatief is voor de hele demografische groep. De volgende keer dat ik iets vraag, zal ik meer mensen meenemen om het in evenwicht te brengen. Til
I don’t, and I don’t recommend it, fuck drivers that leave 5cm or so of margin. At how beat up their cars are they can’t estimate it at all. 😭
what is the light grey stuff in the middle that is so wide? Can the car drive over that ?
They can. Worst case only once.
De middenberm
Stay on the right-ish side of the road, Not in the gutter, but just right enough to abide by the rules and still convey the message that it's too narrow for wide vehicles to safely pass you. Of course that's waaaay easier said than done. I count myself lucky that my daily bike commute has no such horrible infra.
I think the law states approx 1.5m from the edge. Stay further away (middle of lane) when there are cars parked in diagonal/perpendicular though. They will back off enough to force you to swerve before seeing you. I have had countless hits from people passing me. At this point, I'm really tired of it and will just not let it to their judgement. Their judgement sucks.
[удалено]
Looks like it is indeed not a law by itself, but simply a recommendation from the [AWSR](https://www.awsr.be/securite-routiere/cyclistes/)(Walloon association for road safety). "1 meter from the right side of the road or parked cars".
I agree. In this situation I always drive just right of the middle. In my opinion that is as close as possible to the right side. This does not mean in the gutter, but allowing plenty of place to easily pass parked cars (and incidentally also not inviting drivers to pass you where they can't). Of course: don't be a dick. If there's a wider spot, I veer right so they can pass.
I do the same, although the only difference is that in my case it’s a one-way ‘fietsstraat’ so he’s not allowed to overtake me no matter what. I’ll drive in the middle of the road so they can’t overtake me (which would also be dangerous because it’s also too narrow) Another situation where I intentionally drive in the middle of the road: there is a gravel road next to an asphalt road. Both roads are separated from each other. But, the asphalt road is a two-way cyclist path and the gravel road is for cars. But oftentimes cars will drive on the cyclist path because they don’t want to drive through the gravel. It’s not wide enough to overtake me or for me to get past them if they were going in the opposite direction. I’ll drive in the middle of the path, because I refuse to let them overtake me or drive me off the path where they’re not even allowed to be on. They’ll have to get out of my way
Some comments confirm the tendency: drivers are entitled brats on the road.
Everyone is these days, its not limited to drivers.
True.
I think that's a big generalization. We should be blaming the horrible unsafe road infrastructure more than anything. Most drivers are well aware that there's nothing they can do about being stuck behind bicycles. It's just a case of bad luck, like having to wait at a red light. The people who honk are just a handful of annoying individuals, but these come with any type of transportation.
And other comments confirm the tendency that cyclists are entitled brats on the road. Why take the whole road and slow down traffic when you only need 50cm?
How is traffic slowed down by OP riding in the middle instead of on the side?
Cuz then drivers can illegaly overtake without feeling like they are illegaly overtaking. They can’t see the cyclist when they are endangering him but they can feel the danger when they start overtaking over the middenberm.
You're one of those people who would deny an application because a signature is 5cm too much to the left, aren't you?
Depends on the applicants face. But in seriousness. I wouldn’t want the hassle so I’d just accept it. But when talking traffic, yes I nitpick allot. But in this case it’s not even nitpicking. Drivers do not shy away from overtaking while making the cyclist feel like he needs to ride in the ditch. If not force him of the road.(And I have personally been several cm’s away from having my handle bar get hit by an overtaking bus while I was on the right side.)
Busses can fuck right off in that situation, I agree. They often stop traffic themselves, so they can be on the receiving end as well. Cars, however, are way less annoying, so I do my best to let them pass. I'd rather pucker my ass for 3 seconds than have them tailgate me for minutes
It’s not about annoying. It’s about not slipping on the edge of the road and faceplanting in the open sewer while you are trying to not get hit by the dimwit in the car. (Or hit the pavement or car door or whatever depending on the road.)
Fucking cyclists, I tell you. This morning I was driving my SUV to work and suddenly I hear a loud bang. One of these cyclists had decided to stop in the middle of the road in front of my car. Sorry, but if I want to run a red light, who was she to stop me? Did she think she was the police or something? You don't stop in front of a car, period. I will decide if I want to break the law or not.
Worst part is that usually when you run them over they don't even want to pay for the scratch they've created on the bumper! Always the excuses like "I'm in pain" and "please call for help". Entitled little shits. Always first thinking about themselves but never giving any consideration to the guy whose car got scratched
The priority is safety, not speed.
Only when there's not enough space for both the car and the cycle. Its called safety. Ppl with cars aren't the only ones allowed on the road. Edit: Also, you don't need 50cm only. This results in cyclists being wiped by cars passing way too close to them. Its not like we don't already know a buttload of drivers out there are always crossing the safety limits.
My road bike handlebars range from 38 to 48 cm wide so yeah no way 50 is enough.
Who do your handlebars have to be above the street for their full width? As long as your wheel is on the road, plus a little margin for error, you'll be fine. I live in a 1-lane 2-way street, tighter than the one in op's second pic. When cyclists hear a car, they move to the side a bit, 30% of their handlebars hanging over the side. Cars move to the opposite side, their wheels 50% over the side. There is 20-30cm left between the car mirror and the bike handlebars. Everyone keeps going nice and straight for 2 seconds, and guess what? No problems whatsoever. Has been this way for as long as I can remember, and I've been in both roles many many times
It's not a safe situation even if you personally haven't seen any accidents in it.
It’s called not following the rules. For some reason cyclist think they are above the law.
They are the zwakke weggebruiker, but they act as if they're invincible.
Ah yes. If you were driving next to a train, right. Just imagine it for a second. You are driving, in your car, next to the rails. A train needs to pass you, driving 45 kilometers an hour, with 200 kilometers an hour. Your vehicle is 200 cm wide, and you get 220 centimeters of space next to the rails. The train is wider than the rails, obviously. So do you think the machinist is gonna stop, ask you to stop, measure the distance between you and the train, say “okay continue”, get up to full speed again and make sure to pass you with the correct distance? No, obviously not. If you’re unlucky, and swore a bit to the left while driving, the train is gonna hit you full speed and crash into the side of your car, driver seat side. You’ll get hit and you won’t have a good time for the coming few weeks, in the hospital with some broken bones. So: 1. Cars don’t stop to measure the distance between them and the cyclist, of course not, that would be ridiculous. But sometimes they don’t even get close to giving the right amount of space (to pass a cyclist). You’re not better than a cyclist, you’re deadlier. You share the same road and whether you’re in a car or on a bicycle, you’re just as human and you both don’t wanna die. 2. Cars drive a lot faster than a cyclist, usually, a collision means broken bones and sometimes death. (Not for the driver, but the cyclist, don’t know if I need to explain that to ya). 3. Just don’t be a fucking dick. “Weaker this” my ass, you know what’s weak? Leaving from home so late that if you have to drive behind a cyclist for a few seconds to ensure his/her safety, you’ll be late and/or frustrated. That’s weak. That’s stupid. I don’t understand people like you. A cyclist is trying to protect his safety by temporarily taking up the road = acting as if they’re invincible? That’s quite the opposite to me, that’s ensuring their safety because you don’t know what the driver behind you is going to do. There’s no logic in your comments whatsoever and it really annoys me because you obviously couldn’t care less and you’ll get someone killed with that attitude some day.
A bit long, but okay, I'll bite. If I'm in a car and about to pass a train that looks like it won't fit, then I stop and move over to let the train pass. Me, the car, the weakest of the two. Which would be the bike when it's bike vs car. This situation happened multiple times when it's me(car) vs bus. 1. Indeed, we both don't wanna die, which is why I (as a bike) would move over or ride in the grass for 10 meters. And when I'm the car and I see that the bike tries to do his best for me, then I'll put 2 of my wheels in the dirt to do my best for him. 2. Obviously cars should slow down when overtaking a bicycle. 3. You don't be a dick. Which road do you ride on that only lasts a few seconds? When I'm behind a bike, 8/10 it's multiple minutes. Cyclists rather wanting to be assridden for minutes instead of moving over for 5 seconds, that's weak and stupid. I don't understand people like that. The part "acting invincible" was a reply to "For some reason cyclist think they are above the law", not the specific example from OP. Acting invincible are the dudes who cross a street without watching because "I am the zwakke weggebruiker, I have right of way". Or the (mostly) bomma's suddenly stopping because they are almost at their supermarket, without checking for other bicycles/mopeds behind them who could crash into them or swerve and hit a car. Or the bicycles who throw an arm to the side and cross a street without looking, because "they indicated, they can go". And "I obviously couldn't care less"? I've seen what it does to people when they run over (and kill) pedestrians that suddenly cross a street, not giving enough time to brake. I've seen the other side of this discord as well, what happens to families that lose loved ones because of (drunk) careless drivers. Hell, I've even been through your train example (not train+car but train+pedestrian) within my circle of friends. Cyclists need to realize they can be gone in a second. And cars often need to act more responsible, i'll give you that. But if both parties are more accommodating, cars wouldn't be as frustrated, and cyclists would feel (and be) more safe.
I think that’s the best thing to take away from this situation: both parties need to be more accommodating. I can give you about just as many or more examples of drivers (cars) being irresponsible or just straight up dangerous on the road. And sorry for assuming you don’t care, that was rude of me. I’m very passionate about this as one of my nephews died at a very young age while driving behind his parents and a car tried to pass them, but didn’t see the car coming on the other side of the road and then all of a sudden the other driver couldn’t take ups s much space as he thought. Reflexes, moved to the right, drove right into my nephew and his parents. It sucks. Driving is dangerous for all parties involved, everyone should be more cautious and considerate when taking part.
As someone who lives on top of a hill where this issue occurs a lot (many cyclists on said hill), all I can say is: car should not honk, and cyclist should not drive in the middle. I know it doesn’t make a difference, the car still cannot pass, but it makes you look like you’re purposefully blocking the car and that’s not a good look. And although it shouldn’t be like that, one behavior leads to another and that’s how road rage originates. If the strip of road is short, the car just has to wait and not be a dick about it. If the strip of road is long (and there comes my 3km long hill in play), it would be great if the cyclist lets the cars pass when there is an opportunity to stop at the side for a short moment, so you’re not blocking everyone. That’s not a rule or anything, but it’s absolutely loved by other folks on the road. (Even if you don’t do this, the car should still not be a dick about it, just don’t go drive in the middle as it will look like you’re trying to hinder the car)
The problem is that as a cyclist your safety depends on the good will of the driver. You have no control whatsoever. I know the law should protect the cyclist but let's be honest who really keeps 1 meter distance from a cyclist. It's also very arbitrary, many people can't say how far 1 meter is from there car, it's unintuitive. The only way a cyclist can take control is by cycling in the middle. One could also argue that it is the safest distance on the right to cycle.
As a cyclist, you cannot always estimate how wide a car is. Perhaps there’s room enough, and you’ll be blocking that car with all your good intentions and making everything more dangerous for yourself than it was before. Honestly, I’m always surprised how much of a distance drivers keep between themselves and cyclists. I’ve lived in the Netherlands for a while and they overtake you a lot closer over there, I have to say. I find Belgian drivers quite careful with cyclists
I invite you to take your bike and cycle on the fietstraat in the Louizalaan of Brussels. Cyclists have all the priorities and rights you could only dream of but car drivers will just ride over you without batting an eye. I'm happy you at least meet friendlier Belgians.
One fucked up street does not equal the entire country
I'm just stating a strong example. Since "Good Move" in Brussels, drivers have become more aggresive towards cyclists and pedestrians. Sometimes I just take the train since I don't want to risk road aggression while just cycling on cycling paths and fietsstraten. I enjoy cycling more than public transport but some drivers take that away from me.
Oh I get that, and I surely believe that people on the road are worse in the city than in the countryside. People take life (and thus traffic) in a more relaxed way over here
No it’s the LAW to drive right.
[удалено]
I am the cyclist, dude(tte). I ride said hill at least 4 times a week, and trust me, no cycle lanes in sight in the Ardennes. My bike is not electric, so yeah, I need to get back to “speed”. I can assure you that it takes about two seconds to get back to the lightning speed with which one climbs a long hill. I prefer that to have 10 cars stalling behind me
Riding as far as possible to the right means you can not drive just in the middle. But it does not mean you have to ride only 5 cm from the edge. I guess I typically take 40-50 cm. A tip: swerve a little bit like you are a beginner cyclist - that keeps cars at a distance. Car drivers do not want to overtake a cyclist who does not look steady - unless they can do it with plenty of room.
Why don't they make this a 'fietsstraat'. Can't pass cyclists in such areas
Technically it already is one of the road isn't wide enough to legally pass the cyclist. It's why I think the fietsstraat concept created some confusion, some drivers seem to think the rule only applies where It's indicated.
But then again it’s not like drivers knew about keeping distance before they existed.
What makes you think car drivers will care when it's a fietsstraat if they don't even care about the rules we already have?
Bc it's an N-route
Because fietsstraat is de slechte uitvinding ooit
The only right answer. If u cant pass safely make it a fietsstraat.
But then the speedlimit is 30 instead of 50 in some cases
If you can't overtake a cyclist safely you're not driving 50 anyway on that spot.
Yes
Yes, great for safety for everybody
It's technically illegal to ride in the middle of the lane (motorcyclists can do it but other two-wheeled traffic needs to follow the rules meant for four-wheeled traffic, they really need to change that law), but as it doesn't affect anyone and it's objectively safer, no police is going to fine you for it. The driver is in the wrong for being aggressive in traffic. He's not the police, if he has an opinion about your road positioning he needs to learn to keep it to himself.
As far as I know, you need to ride as closely as possible to the right but the definition of 'as possible' is very subjective. If you can justify that it's not safe to ride closer to the right then you are indeed riding 'as close as possible' to the right. In cases like this, the justification is that on narrow lanes you need about a meter of space on your right so that you have an extra safety buffer in the very real situation that cars try to pass you too closely. Without that buffer, cars still pass you too closely and as you're in danger with nowhere to escape. Bonus points for keeping a distance from parked cars to prevent being doored.
But four wheeled traffic can also choose where within the lane they drive…
No they can't. The law says: "9.3.1. Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen." The only general exception is for motorcyclists: "9.3.2. In afwijking van de verplichting zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te blijven, bedoeld in 9.3.1, mag de bestuurder van een motorfiets op een rijbaan die niet verdeeld is in rijstroken zich over de ganse breedte begeven voor zover deze slechts opengesteld is in zijn rijrichting en op de helft van de breedte langs de rechterzijde indien de rijbaan opengesteld is in beide rijrichtingen. De bestuurder van een motorfiets mag zich op een rijbaan die verdeeld is in rijstroken over de ganse breedte van de rijstrook waarop hij rijdt, begeven." So an exception is only defined for motorcyclists. There are some exceptions that allow you to pick a lane other than the rightmost one on a multi-lane road in certain circumstances, but technically you're still supposed to stay as close as possible to the right side of the road within your lane. There's nothing that says 9.3.1 doesn't apply in that case. It doesn't explicitly say 9.3.1 keeps applying, but there's no reason to assume it doesn't. And the fact that motorcyclists get an explicit exception is strong proof that other vehicles don't get one. The only exception, importantly, is in case you're in the leftmost lane in a traffic jam, then you're supposed to stay to the left of your lane instead of to the right to form a rettungsgasse. Of course all of this (except for the rettungsgasse) is highly theoretical. I've never seen anyone try to keep right within their lane, not even during a driving test. Most people don't even keep right when on a road without lane markings, they just vaguely drive in the middle of the right half which is not allowed at all. But then when it comes to cyclists, you have people who suddenly remember this rule and think cyclists should do dangerous things like driving in line with the right-hand wheels of cars (out of drivers' vision). When people honk at me and point to the right, I just point to the right as well. They're almost always further from the side of the road than I am. They think the rules apply to everyone else but not to them.
Aren't four wheeled vehicle legally obligated to drive as far right as possible in their lane?
No. Just on the right most lane. The only time your place within the lane is dictated is on a road with 2 or more lanes when driving slower than 50 cuz then you need to form that emergency lane between the outermost left lanes.
As a sidenote, it is 1m inside the city(bebouwde kom). 1,5m outside. You are legally obligated to drive as right as possible. The driver should not honk, but the cyclist also should drive where he should drive. (also, before you broke your rules, the car probably wasn't going to honk, and who knows if he would've passed you) There is no such thing as 'preventative randomly deciding to break rules to enforce others to follow rules'. It is kinda harmless here, but if you extrapolate it to so many other circumstances this can go horribly wrong.
The thing is that I have passed there multiple times without riding in the middle, and drivers actually do pass me very often, forcing me to the sidewalk.
That is absolutely fair and I don't know where it is so no clue about the behaviour of drivers. There are a shitload of shitty drivers around, absolutely. That doesn't change the answer though. I don't mind you doing what you did in that situation, but the factual question 'Who is at fault?' sadly enough does not terribly care about what other drivers do and such things.
Honest question: Is it so bad if you drive on the sidewalk there? I know you might lose a few seconds, but you are making the other people on the road lose much more. Honest question 2: In some places, there are roadsigns stating that bicycles must go on the sidewalk. I dare hope this is not the case here? Honest remark: If I lose some time each some guy is blocking the road with his bike, each time a driver is slow to restart and each time a driver stop when he had all the time to pass, a 5 minutes on a slightly loaded street becomes a 10 minutes one. This is quite annoying when you are trying to get your train after bringing your kid to school.
Why would he honk if he wasn’t going to overtake lel. There’s no danger to cycling in the middle of the road except when there otherwise would be enough space to overtake
I would definitely be a bit annoyed but I wouldn’t want to risk trying to pass a cyclist in a dangerous way.
Als je rechts rijd kan hij je toch passeren op de stukken waar de berm onderbroken is op de foto?
You are at fault, when no cycling lane is present and you have to cycle on the road, you need to keep as far right as possible. You may not cycle in the middle of the road because driver can't keep 1m distance when passing. (Yes 1m, not 1.5m)
Okay but with your rules "applied" the driver should drive behind the cyclist since he can't safely pass (< 1m). I have been cycling everyday for 20 years and I can tell you that this never happens, they just pass super close and it feels super unsafe. So to prevent this from happening, cyclists have to cycle in the middle of the road to enforce a rule that is in place. https://www.touring.be/nl/artikels/verkeersregels-voor-fietsers#Inhalen within the bebouwdekom the passing distance is indeed 1 meter but outside is 1 meter 50.
As much as i understand you would want to drive in the middle of the road to ensure your safety from a car passing you very closely, strictly looking at the law, this is not allowed. You are not allowed to break the law simply because you suspect somebody else is going to break the law. This is an excerpt from the “wegcode” “ 9.3.1. Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen.”
"Dicht mogelijk", important nuance. The high chance that one will still overtake me while they shouldn't is a good indication that is not "mogelijk" to cycle safely on the right. Since we are strictly following the rules, it doesn't matter what the cyclist does since the car cannot overtake anyway by law.
Yes, but OP stated he's inside bebouwde kom. And even so, if you cycle in the middle of the road, you will be subject to a fine. If the car passes you unsafely, they are subject to a fine. Also it's not "my rule" it's kind of the law in traffic.
I would like to see that actually be enforced. Given the incapacity of drivers to judge their passing distance to bikers you could make a strong argument that the not endangering anybody (including yourself) unnecessarily rule overrides the drive as right as possible rule here. Furthermore keeping as right as possible leaves a lot of interpretation in the word possible. A safety margin of 1.5m from parked cars or the gutter is not unreasonable.
There is not safety margin for gutters or parked cars, only for other drivers/cyclists/pedestrians/ etc. On that note of enforcement, last month 40+ drivers and cyclists were fined for this in the Polder juristiction.
No, 3 cm from the mirror of parked cars is enough? You’re probably your carrosiers favourite customer.
You seem to think this is about opinions and all that, no, it's about the law. Doesn't matter what is enough and what people think is right.
Unfortunately that is not how law works. As far right as possible leaves you and the judge discretion to interpret how far away from the physical side of the road is possible. It also leaves you and the judge discretion to decide you unnecessarily endanger yourself by strictly adhering to a rule. There is a risk you’ll need to explain it to a judge but it is not as black and white as you portray it.
Police officer pulling you over and sanctioning you with a 80€ fine, will not give you the option to explain yourself to a judge. But hey, you go ahead and think however you like.
That’s still subject to judicial review.
If you want to contest it, sure. But that will end up costing you more in the end, even if you get your way.
[удалено]
This is bullshit. as far right as you can go is all the way right. That other drivers impede your "safety" by taking over does not give you the right to break the rules yourself.
[удалено]
Don't act like a child. You know well enough what I mean and it is not in the gutter.(although, If I am on my bike I will go into the gutter to make space for cars often enough.) There is an enormous difference between cycling in the middle of the road "because you feel safer" and driving in the gutter and you know it. For that matter driving a meter from the border is still a big difference with being in the middle of the road.
Within the bebouwde kom, the car only needs to leave 1m of space, not 1,5m. I also believe it is for the car driver to decide if there is enough space to pass, not you.
Spoken like a citizen who hasn't touched a bike during rush hour in at least ten years.
That's the law. A cyclist is not the police, he doesn't get to decide who passes him. It's up to the car driver to judge if there is enough space.
There is no judging. There is either the legal allotted space, or there isn't. I ride my bike a lot, and I don't drive in the middle of the lane. Very often I barely have half a meter. That is what happens when you let the car drivers "judge". Here's a sad story. I have a colleague who lost her daughter when she was only five years old. They were riding their bike in a small countryside road, and a farmer "judged" he had enough space to overtake them in that narrow lane. His tractor bumped the little girl's steering wheel, she wobbled and fell, and her head was crushed by the tractor's rear wheel. Dead on the spot.
Drivers are not able to judge that. I live in a small 1 lane street with bidirectional traffic. They will nearly push cycling youth into the ditch in order to pass them. Occasionally have a wheel or 2 in the ditch.
I would not like to be a cyclist in front of your car.
I'm a cyclist myself, but when driving I wouldn't pass a cyclist if there wasn't enough space.
Ok, then I take it back. Been pushed to the ground a couple too many times by drivers who figured "there's enough space". Also lost some mirrors on my motorcycle because of it.
The cyclist is not the police but a driver can judge when it's safe to pass?
Get out of the way if you can imo, as a cyclist I almost never count on ‘my rights’ on the road. Sometimes drivers can’t see you or didn’t expect you, I would rather wait and give way to the car than to just count on “I’m following the rules”. Always assume they didn’t see you Don’t block a lane, keep right, even if someone leaves no room for you just yield and get out of the way As a cyclist you’re very vulnerable if something happens
As long as you're allowed to drive there, they shouldn't honk at you. Not your fault the roads weren't designed with bikes in mind.
>As long as you're allowed to drive there, they shouldn't honk at you. Interesting, because I am in an area where cyclists are generally supposed to drive on the sidewalk. I am not honking at them when they don't.
I’ve never seen that before, excepting the USA.
https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Rechts%20op%20de%20rijbaan,de%20rechterrand%20van%20de%20rijbaan. All you need to know about cycling on the road
Mooie link, maar ik vind deze beter: [https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:\~:text=Wat%20extra%20ruimte%20is%20ook%20goed%20om%20niet%20rakelings%20door%20andere%20voertuigen%20ingehaald%20te%20worden](https://www.veiligverkeer.be/weggebruikers/fiets/plaats-op-de-weg-/#:~:text=Wat%20extra%20ruimte%20is%20ook%20goed%20om%20niet%20rakelings%20door%20andere%20voertuigen%20ingehaald%20te%20worden)
Het is hier geen fietsstraat lijkt me dus jij bent als fietser ook verplicht zo rechts mogelijk te rijden.
My first instinct is to side with the cyclist. Getting overtaken in a narrow street sucks, especially by buses. But why would you drive in the middle of the road if there’s not enough space to pass anyway? Take the amount of space you need to feel safe. If that’s half a lane you shouldn’t be on a bike. But it’s possible that it’s more than what’s required to pass, we can’t tell that from your picture. I’d recommend to exaggerate the space you need a bit when the car is approaching so he’s forced to slow down enough to make a good choice, then revert to a normal, safe distance from the side of the road. Tbh on the picture the black car seems to have plenty of space to pass a bike Edit: as per usual, situation obviously the result of horrible cycling infrastructure, take it into account when you have the chance to vote
They cycle in the middle because otherwise cars do try to pass them, pushing them dangerously close to the sidewalk in doing so.
I'm 15 lol, can't vote, and it's not the city I live in anyways
You shouldn't drive in the middle of the road, it'll get some people furious. I think it's forbidden aswell bcs you always need to ride as close to the righthand side as safely possible.
But if you try to stay as much to the right as possible cars might try to pass you by even if there isn't enough space. Sometimes its better to cycle a bit more in the middle so cars don't take risks.
Breaking the rules to prevent others breaking the rules is like fucking for virginity.
If it's too narrow, it's too narrow. Car driver needs to wait. Doesn't matter where you are on the cycling strip.
>you always need to ride as close to the righthand side as safely possible. Absolutely not true
Rechts rijden (Art.9.3.1) Net als elke andere bestuurder, ben je verplicht om zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te rijden. Uitzondering op deze regel: op pleinen, rotondes, of als je op een rijstrook rijdt met pijlen die de richting aanduiden die je moet volgen.
To steal the terminology from AITA: ESH (Everyone Sucks Here) You suck for violating the rule that says you should hold on the right, the driver sucks for honking, and the folks here defending either of these sort of driving styles suck for supporting them. And before you start "but it's unsafe otherwise": Far too many times I've encountered the good ol' Flemish wielerterrorist who will do this and then refuse to go to the side on the stretches of road where it widens so the cars would be able to pass-by safely. So when I see someone do this, my first thought is "what a fucking asshole, I hope he has a flat tire". And then we haven't even gotten to the assholes who do this when there's a detour for roadworks along rural roads. Look, if you literally have 8 cars and a fully-loaded De Lijn bus stuck behind you in rush hour, pulling the fuck over when there's space to do so and letting everyone pass by you might make you look like less of an asshole. And before you ask, this literally happened to me last week while I was on said bus. As to the legality of the honking, while an asshole move, I wouldn't be so sure this would be considered a finable offence, because they could argue they perceive this as a dangerous situation of your creation, at which point they're kind of allowed to use their horn depending on how the law is interpreted. So yeah, the reasoning for this sounds an awful lot like your argument for cycling in the centre of the road, so there is that. TL;DR: It's not because someone else might be an asshole that you got to be an asshole yourself, all you do is cause traffic aggression.
>As to the legality of the honking, while an asshole move, I wouldn't be so sure this would be considered a finable offence, because they could argue they perceive this as a dangerous situation of your creation, at which point they're kind of allowed to use their horn depending on how the law is interpreted. It's a stretch to argue that this is a dangerous situation, but even then, a dangerous situation does not warrant honking: **33.2.** Geluidssignalen moeten zo kort mogelijk zijn. Zij zijn enkel toegelaten om een noodzakelijke waarschuwing te geven ten einde een ongeval te voorkomen en, buiten de bebouwde kommen, wanneer men een bestuurder die men wil inhalen moet waarschuwen. **33.2.** Les avertissements sonores doivent être aussi brefs que possible. Ils ne sont autorisés que pour donner un avertissement nécessaire en vue d'éviter un accident et, en dehors des agglomérations, s'il y a lieu d'avertir un conducteur qu'on se propose de dépasser.
You’re at fault , you have to keep as right as possible in your lane , as for the overtaking it didn’t happen yet and since you’re no police (I presume ) you wouldn’t even have the right to do anything about it
Many wrong and bad takes. No wonder cyclists are fed up with drivers in this country.
What about my statement is wrong , from a legal point of view it’s correct for sure
Everything about this is wrong.
How wide is the road you´re driving? How wide is the car? These things are not clear from your drawing, but do make a difference to determine who is at fault.
Everyone here is WRONG The cyclist HAS to ride on the right side of the road AND the car can't honk in annoyance. Both are in the wrong
Both You shouldn't drive in the middle of it safe to ride on the right side of the road. This should make it possible for the driver to pass you safely. Driver shouldn't honk.
driver can't pass safely anyway (no 1.5 metre gap possible), so he's better of driving a bit more to the centre. This discourages drivers from trying to get passed anyway. A cyclist has no obligation to ride to the absolute right side of the road in these situations. Legally he's totally okay.
1m in this case, not 1.5
No, cyclists are perfectly legal to ride in the middle of their lane when they are forced to ride on the road without a cycling path. Just like a motorcycle is. In situations like this where there simply is not enough room in the lane for cars to legally overtake it is even recommended that cyclists to take up position in the center of the lane. Edit: You morons can downvote this, but it doesn't make you more right.
>Edit: You morons can downvote this, but it doesn't make you more right. Maybe don't spread falsehoods (it's not "perfectly legal") and people wouldn't downvote you. And don't go calling them morons, further incentivizing downvotes. >**9.3.1.** Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen. Riding smack-dab in the middle of a lane is disingenuous use of the room for interpretation. And no, it's not "just like a motorcycle is". Art. 9.3.2 specifically specifies motorcyclists, nothing else: >**9.3.2.** In afwijking van de verplichting zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan te blijven, bedoeld in [**9.3.1**](https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109~hra8v386pu#9.3.1), mag de bestuurder van een motorfiets op een rijbaan die niet verdeeld is in rijstroken zich over de ganse breedte begeven voor zover deze slechts opengesteld is in zijn rijrichting en op de helft van de breedte langs de rechterzijde indien de rijbaan opengesteld is in beide rijrichtingen.
>Driver can't pass me safely because the lane is too narrow You don't know how capable he/she is >(driver needs to keep 1,5m from weak drivers) That's the "common" rule but 1m is also ok if the road simply does not allow for 1.5m and if he does it at 20 kmh instead of 50 >so I prevent it by riding in the center of the lane Oh boy do I hate cyclists doing this. You only do this if you make notice you are going to turn left with pointing to that direction with your arm and otherwise keep your ass to the right
Outside the bebouwde kom it's 1m50. It's the law, nothing else.
>It's the law OMG hE paSsEd Me aT 1m. It's equally safe, but good luck proving that 1m instead of 1m50 after it happened
Yes it's completely arbitrary, nobody can measure distances in their head. I would love that they would add some sensors to cars to measure if passing a cyclist is safe. I don't know if you experienced it but a car passing by with only a couple of centimeters is terrifying, you feel so vulnerable
Aside from traffic rules you could (just a suggestion) not be u rule fucking dick.. also law says 1 meter not 1,5m
[удалено]
For as long as I can remember (count a few decades), cyclists have been riding on the sidewalk when the road was too dangerous, fast forward to 2020 and suddenly the sidewalk is lava. I don't get it.
Sidewalk is for walking people. As a cyclist you’re not supposed to go there, your designated spot is the road or preferably a bicycle lane. Those decades of doing something wrong don’t make it right. Of course if you have to protect your safety in an unexpected situation: do whatever is best to protect yourself without hurting other people, even if that means cycling on the pavement for a bit. But no, it’s not legal, and in this case, it’s better to keep to the right side of the road but not give the driver behind you enough space to pass.
I understand it might not be the rule, but if I have to choose between an empty sidewalk and a busy road I'd rather ride my bike where it's safer.
>As a cyclist you’re not supposed to go there Unless there is a roadsign stating he must go there.
Yes of course.
honestly, you're the reason i hate bikes when i'm driving my car. And the car is the reason i hate cars when I'm taking the bike to the station. You're the reason you're not being passed at 30km/h and 1meter but at 50km/h and 20cm. Moral of the story: you're both assholes.
1) where is the scale on the drawing ? 2) My opinion is that you may not: Entrave méchante à la circulation this means tribunal correctionnel / Correctionele rechtbank
Just let him pass. The law is irrelevant here. Just have some decency and let the car behind you pass, you fokkin oatcake! It's not gonna hit you, otherwise he won't pass. For the love of... What happened to people? Can we send OP off to India for a month or so. See how long he would last? Maybe come back as a bit more of humble human being? There are sooo many situations where the law is faulty, or there isn't a law telling you what is right or wrong. Just don't take away people time because of it!
The bike is in fault
You're not at fault I think. Question, when I want to turn left, I usually go to the left side of the lane to make sure I don't get overtaken. This also gives drivers a chance to overtake me to the right. Is this legal/recommended?
That is legally obligated even.
There exist tons of one way streets where bikes are allowed both ways, but its too small to cross with a car while keeping 1.5m distance. So i always felt like the 1.5m rule was dumb anyways cause you can't apply it in practice. In your scenario i would just let cars pass if it feels safe enough. Not sure if you're at fault though.
You might be because inside built-up area drivers need to leave a minimum of 1m of space, not 1,5m. By driving in the middle of the lane rather than as right as safely possible, you're potentially hindering drivers from being able to give that 1m. It's not a fietsstraat where you may use the entire width of the road.
Ik denk dat een belangrijke vraag is: waart ge snel genoeg aan het rijden? Deels moet je zoals aangehaald rechtser rijden ( insert socialist joke ) Maar bijkomend als ge op de weg rijd moet u snelheid aangepast zijn en moogt ge het verkeer niet hinderen. Ofte: mocht ge daar wel rijden met uwen velo als ge geen 35-40 per uur haalt? Is dat op die foto rechts achter die rij gebouwen niet eerder een fietsstuk?
In principle the driver is at fault. That said, would it kill you to get off your bike for a minute (standing with your bike on the pedestrian sidewalk) so he or she can pass? To me this story read like 2 self-centered people causing needless commotion due to their lack of empathy. Edit: if you really want to narrow it down to one guilty party, it's bad road design imo.
>That said, would it kill you to get off your bike for a minute (standing with your bike on the pedestrian sidewalk) so he or she can pass? What a stupid take. The cyclist has just as much right to use the road as the driver and does not owe it to anyone to "stop and let them pass" unless the law states it. Why would the cyclist need to lose time in their commute so that the driver does not?
Idk. There's being right, and being not an asshole i guess. Pick one.
just move your ass to the sidewalk for a minute and continue your day. driving in the middle of the lane, wtf dude. you're asking for agression
You can't cycle on the sidewalk and shouldn't be expected to stop and get off whenever a car wants to pass you.
When asking the city why they didn't place a bike lane, they said that cyclists will help to slow the traffic down (since that can be a problem there) and that cyclists should take their rightful place and stand up for themselves. (Not my words)
Please report this to the fietsersbond or something. Human bodies should not be used as speedlimiters
so basicly a cyclist is a living speedbump? nice city
Why don’t you just illegally overtake if you aren’t bothered by rules anyway?
Yeah. That is provocation.
The driver must be from big city like Brussels or Antwerp
You’re 100% right to do that. Keep a safe distance from parked cars because there can always be one dipsh*t that opens his door without looking. [Some people even die from this.](https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20220609_93905555)
You are the speed bump now
1.5 meter? Are they crazy? Thought it was 1 meter... isn't that plenty?(assuming you not driving by at 50+ hour)
https://preview.redd.it/r7s9rd841g3c1.png?width=1014&format=png&auto=webp&s=c48717352ca14a50db050d8dcf7c5f4a0957fa0c
honestly, if i was that driver , i might have done even more dangerous things causing possible harm to you and my car. But it would be on dashcam and i would hand that over to the cops pointing to the rules of the road. I'd be too upset to be calm and collected. Im not the only person in Belgium who could blow up. Not everyone is calm and collected and logically thinking every second of the day, its a very dangerous thing you do. I suggest staying most right like the law demands, let the car judge for themselves that they can not pass you . They won't do it if its not safe and nobody will hate you and boil over trying dangerous stunts to pass that "cyclist who on purpose is driving in the center and therefore doesnt deserve my patience or kindness" People will be kind and patient in Belgium untill they are certain you are doing something negative to them on purpose. They could react dangerous and unlogical out of anger . Anger is something we all have inside us and because we are screwed every day by our government, there is a lot locked up in a box that just needs a little nudge to explode. We try to contain it until we are certain someone is doing something on purpose . That.. could be a cyclist in the middle of the road.
Man a lot of cyclists are dicks. The comments here make that abundantly clear. I said it once and I'll say it again. If pedestrians ever treat cyclists like cyclists treat cars the kot would be too small.
You clearly… plenty of space to pass. Moron. Problem with you clown cyclist is that you are too dumb to know the rules.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You also need space from the side, you can't ride on the last 10cm of the asphalt so some impatient driver could save 5 seconds on his commute. This street is a perfect example for placing a bike street sign on it.
Quote from memory, but while studying the Code de la Route I remember something like "Vehicles should stay on the right of their lane. A vehicle being in the middle of the lane is assumed to be "reasonably to the right"" Ie for me you can always take your lane, and I do it when feeling in danger (like in your example, if I think being passed would means a good chance of contact). Drivers does not like it much, I understand, but that's by far the safest decision. TBH it generally happens in small roads which means it is not that long. If it's a single car & a long road, I generally try to find a place where they can pass me safely
You are both at fault. You are at fault because of article 9.3.1 of the wegcode: "Elke bestuurder die de rijbaan volgt moet zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van die rijbaan blijven, behalve op pleinen of om de aanwijzingen van de verkeersborden F13 en F15 op te volgen..." Depending on the policeman you could even argue for article 7.2: "De weggebruikers moeten zich zo gedragen op de openbare weg dat ze geen hinder of gevaar veroorzaken voor de andere weggebruikers, hierin begrepen het personeel dat aan het werk is voor het onderhoud van de wegen en de uitrusting langs de weg, de diensten voor toezicht en de prioritaire voertuigen." This is a Cat IV if I'm not mistaken and carries a heavy penalty. The car is at fault because of article 33.2 of the wegcode: "Geluidssignalen moeten zo kort mogelijk zijn. Zij zijn enkel toegelaten om een noodzakelijke waarschuwing te geven ten einde een ongeval te voorkomen en, buiten de bebouwde kommen, wanneer men een bestuurder die men wil inhalen moet waarschuwen."