Passing Cyclists in UK with a car Genuine help question

[Valhalla]

there are a lot of confused and bad tempered drivers

and the same couldn't be said for cyclists???

 

[TRITON]

Obviously you haven't seen some of the "Dilbert's" around London for one Like other day had some Rear end wipe come flying through us on an "illegally" electrically powered cycle nie on 30mph well over 20 weaving in and out felt the draft as went past me and if i'd moved a ft would have had in my back.
"They have overpowered conversion motors shops are doing twice the rated allowed power and don't have to pedal at all some have been lifted in London now and bikes crushed"
Him and others race along pavement with no thought for anyone or anyone coming out of shops as close to shop fronts esp.
Pedestrian crossings are take life in hands as come close to being hit myself three times one got a good poke in ribs for their effort as i was almost on pavement when they rode between me and pavement and others have been hit one an elderly lady and perp didn't stop plus we have three close by that have been killed over last few years.

I think we've long established there are bad motorists, cyclists, taxi drivers, truck drivers and inattentive pedestrians out there.

 

[Jacob]

and the same couldn't be said for cyclists???

Well no it could not be said of cyclists. They tend to be cruising along simply enjoying themselves.
It's exemplified by this thread - kicked off by a nervous driver moaning about cyclists, not the other way around.

 

[Grandad455]

Rule 64​

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

Sorry, but on the Isle of Wight, at lot (too many) pavements are 'designated' as cycleways and I refuse to move over for the idiots that cycle on pavements without a care for pedestrians. Can I add into the current argument illegal and legal electric scooters which also use pavements and roads without a care for other pavement and road users.
As for passing cyclists, when I was taught nearly 60 years ago, I was told to 'Leave them enough room to fall off.'
My daughter was partly coached in driving, by an off duty policeman, who when she told the above to him, he said he had never heard that said before. Having driven to Birmingham several years ago to see her, she insisted on driving us around as she knew the roads. She was a better driver then than I have ever been,

 

[JimJay]

It doesn't really add much to the debate but here in BG the rules regarding cyclists are quite clear and well understood: if you're a cyclist then drivers will (mostly) do their best not to hit you, but only if you don't need to swerve to avoid vanishing into one of the many potholes. Larger motor vehicles also have priority over smaller vehicles when swerving suddenly to avoid those same potholes, and all motor vehicles have priority over anything that is more squishy than they are.

All red traffic lights are optional, not just for cyclists - and it's not unusual to see electric bikes and even stand-on scooters doing close to 50mph on the motorways...

 

[Agent_zed]

It's exemplified by this thread - kicked off by a nervous driver moaning about cyclists, not the other way around.

This is just nonsensical. Because 1 person asked for clarification over the rules when passing a bike it does not make the case that all cyclists are delightful law abiding road users cruising along enjoying themselves, I assume in your picture with a loaf of hovis in their basket whistling as they go.

If you are a cyclist who jumps red lights and weaves in and out of traffic with no regard for anyone why would you start a thread complaining about anyone else?

There are plenty of road cyclists who use the road for time trials and get annoyed if their time is disrupted by those 'inconsiderate' car drivers who have to follow a load of bikes that could, in many cases, be on the cycle way that is right next to the road. But as previous posts have stated some cyclists don't want to go on the provided cycle ways because that would inconvience them, despite being safer for everyone. But car drivers should be inconvienienced because??

As far as I can tell from your replies so far you seem to believe the safety of cyclists lies entirely at the hands of car drivers whatever the cyclists may choose to do. Coupled with the illusion that all cyclists are delightful road users and never cause any issues by their own behaviour.

Everyone on the road has the responsibility to ensure the safety of others. When I bike on the road I do my best to ensure I assist drivers passing me for my safety and theirs. When I drive I ensure I leave enough room to pass safety. The easy ones to pass are the single riders cruising along aware of their surroundings, the hard ones are the peloton riders who don't give a monkeys about letting cars pass.

 

[Jacob]

This is just nonsensical.

No it isn't.
I repeat; this thread was kicked off by a nervous driver moaning about cyclists, not the other way around.
This does not of itself "make the case that all cyclists are delightful law abiding road users cruising along enjoying themselves" and I didn't say it did.
You are having a problem with "dialectics", but don't despair, you just need more practice!
Hope that helps.

 

[Agent_zed]

this thread was kicked off by a nervous driver moaning about cyclists, not the other way around.

this is evidence of nothing! Go on a road biking forum or youtube and I'm sure you'll find plenty of threads ranting/videos about car drivers, but that is also not evidence. You are basing your entire argument on conjecture

They tend to be cruising along simply enjoying themselves.

You have no way of qualifying this statement, this is just your opinion. You are correct that I did add law abiding to your statement so I do retract that part. Although that does leave your statement without clarification as to whether the cyclist cruising along enjoying themselves is in any way law abiding and/or paying the correct attention to what they are doing. And indeed whether you care, although your previous statements that it doesn't matter if a unicyclist were juggling as they go along the road would seem to indicate that you don't believe the rules to be as important for a cyclist.

 

[Jacob]

.... that it doesn't matter if a unicyclist were juggling as they go along the road

I didn't say that. Have a look and try to understand what I actually did say.

 

[Agent_zed]

I didn't say that. Have a look and try to understand what I actually did say.

well just for fun let's clarify your position so I don't get it wrong.

Do you believe that a cyclist has the same requirement to follow the law as a driver? yes/no

Do you believe that cyclists should use cycle paths when provided/available? yes/no

Do you believe that a cyclist that is causing a distraction to other road users is less responsible for their own safety than drivers? yes/no

Do you believe that a cyclist that is breaking the law is less responsible for their own safety than drivers? yes/no

 

[Jacob]

well just for fun let's clarify your position so I don't get it wrong.

Do you believe that a cyclist has the same requirement to follow the law as a driver? yes/no

Do you believe that cyclists should use cycle paths when provided/available? yes/no

Do you believe that a cyclist that is causing a distraction to other road users is less responsible for their own safety than drivers? yes/no

Do you believe that a cyclist that is breaking the law is less responsible for their own safety than drivers? yes/no

Thanks for the offer but I'll clarify my position my own way. Most likely you'd still get it wrong.

 

[Vernon Bright]

A bit off topic, but, IMO you can’t pick and choose what laws you want to comply with. The answer for a cyclist who doesn’t feel the road is safe to ride on is to get off, and walk with the bike on the footpath legally. A few more minutes getting to their destination shouldn’t be a concern and they need to have more patience. Risking injury to people walking on the footpath due to a cyclists haste and impatience to get somewhere isn’t reasonable or fair. You can’t for instance always determine what physical or mental challenges a footpath user might have, you can’t anticipate what they might do, or how to pass them safely on a bike.

Fully Agree Deema but you know it could ALL be so different in this Dystopian Society of Cyclist v Motorist v Highway Code if
this Government were to Have all Cyclists paying licence fee .
But - - -- back to practicals as this is a forum for the Workshop not a a two wheeled blog .

 

[Agent_zed]

Thanks for the offer but I'll clarify my position my own way. Most likely you'd still get it wrong.

Can't blame you! As they say, a bad teacher blames their students. but don't despair, you just need more practice!

 

[Lons]

Can't blame you! As they say, a bad teacher blames their students. but don't despair, you just need more practice!

You do know who you're dealing with click on the pic

 

[John Brown]

You do know who you're dealing with click on the pic

That  is madness. The bike has no chain, and the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt.

 

[TRITON]

1. Cyclist cycling on the footpath next to the road. Do I leave the safe distance?

No. They arent on the road, they're on a pavement(Your use of 'footpath' is noted here.
------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cyclist cycling in a designated cycle lane. I see that police are sometimes prosecuting and others say it’s a separate lane so you don’t have to leave the designated distance. What’s the law?

Again no. They're on a separated lane. If passing a car in a two lane scenario, you would pass as closely without going over the dividing line, the same scenario applies here
------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cyclist in the middle of the road / multiple cyclists taking up the entire lane, to overtake on the entire opposite side of the road does not leave the designated distance, but on coming traffic equally won’t provide the designated distance.

The cyclist, as a road user like any other is using the lane as properly instructed. They are no different to a car, bus,truck,van or any other road user inhabiting that lane. you would need to pull out to overtake if safe to do so,.
-------------------------------------------

4. Like 3, two lane road, with white road markings where overtaking by fully being on the opposite side of the road won’t leave the designated space, however, cars travelling in the opposite direction equally won’t leave the designated space.

By pulling out and crossing the middle lane wholly you will be leaving a safe distance, or do you think this applies if there is a car in front of you. If you feel, that even on the opposite of the road that you cannot overtake a van,car or any other road user, then it would be an unsafe thing to do and you must wait until there is room to do so. But even on a single lane each side, crossing the dividing line would make an overtake safe(if as before the road is clear and straight.

-------------------------------------------------------

5. Cyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling in opposite direction, distance between car and cycle less than designated space, do I stop?

Yes, and immediately turn in your license to the police or other relevant licensing board as clearly you are unfit to be behind the wheel of any sort of automobile.

 

[Fitzroy]

I’m a little unsure of the law with regard to passing cyclists. I’ve tried to read up about it and I’m more confused than ever. So the highway code states that if passing a cyclist to leave 1.5m if travelling at under 30mph and more if at higher speeds. However, what do you do in the following circumstances?

1. Cyclist cycling on the footpath next to the road. Do I leave the safe distance?
2. Cyclist cycling in a designated cycle lane. I see that police are sometimes prosecuting and others say it’s a separate lane so you don’t have to leave the designated distance. What’s the law?
3. Cyclist in the middle of the road / multiple cyclists taking up the entire lane, to overtake on the entire opposite side of the road does not leave the designated distance, but on coming traffic equally won’t provide the designated distance.
4. Like 3, two lane road, with white road markings where overtaking by fully being on the opposite side of the road won’t leave the designated space, however, cars travelling in the opposite direction equally won’t leave the designated space.
5. Cyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling in opposite direction, distance between car and cycle less than designated space, do I stop?

The 1.5m is not a legal requirement (must/must not), so falls within the second paragraph regards highway code wording. This means that it it open to interpretation by yourself, the police, and a judge/jury etc. Unfortunately this means you will have to make your own mind up about it, and any response from all of us it just our interpretation and reflects our own biases/prejudices/behaviours/norms so you will not get consensus, nor agreement, nor truth or fact.

I'm glad to see the conversation on here has remained largely civil on a topic that is full of emotion and opinion, well done all. I personally have had to go and have a much better read of the highway code and think about how it pertains to the law, which has been a good learning moment. I think I also have to put my hand up and admit breaking the law last weekend, I overtook a cyclist (leaving more than 1.5m) but crossing a solid white line and I expect they were going more than 10mph.

Fitz.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introductionMany of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

 

[deema]

Thanks @TRITON appreciate it. I’ve decided it’s simply oxymoron, you leave 1.5m if your travelling in the same direction as a Bike, but it’s irrelevant and you can pass within an centimetre if your travelling in the opposite direction. Now, case law may clarify it, but for now, the obvious discrepancy in treatment is something that those who write the guidance failed to consider.

 

[Jacob]

Thanks @TRITON appreciate it. I’ve decided it’s simply oxymoron, you leave 1.5m if your travelling in the same direction as a Bike, but it’s irrelevant and you can pass within an centimetre if your travelling in the opposite direction.

Wrong.
You are supposed to use your judgement and 1.5m is a suggested safe distance, more it you are travelling fast.
You surely should be able to see that it applies in both directions.
If not you should give driving a break - you are dangerous and could kill someone.

Now, case law may clarify it, but for now, the obvious discrepancy in treatment is something that those who write the guidance failed to consider.

Does the highway code have to spell out every possible contingency even if blatantly obvious?
If it isn't clear then hand in your licence or have some driving lessons - you shouldn't be out on the road.
Driving past a cyclist and allowing only 1cm would very likely cause an accident - they might swerve to avoid you and you would be responsible - imagine standing up in court and saying that you thought 1cm clearance was legal!! What about 1mm? Do you think you'd get away with it?
This thread is utterly crazy!

PS Triton is wrong too. A lane white line doesn't mean you don't have to steer well clear of a cyclist in the other, or away from a kerb for one on the pavement.

 

[deema]

@Jacob, thats exactly what I thought! So now, let’s put some numbers to it. A standard lane in the UK is 12’ wide or 3.65m. A typical car is 1.8m leaving 1.85m of width left in the lane not occupied by the car; that’s approximately 90cm on each side of the vehicle. A lorry has a maximum permit width of 2.9m and a car or a van is 2.55m., the amount of space left is significantly less for them within their lane. So, as I stated, if a cyclist is in the centre of the road indicating to turn right, the on coming traffic will not provide 1.5m of passing space, so you’re advocating they should stop. Now, you suggested I give up my license for not understanding the rules, when in fact I’m highlighting the inconsistency in the rule, and how everyone is interrupting it and applying it. Two people have replied indicating that once over the white line, passing distances don’t apply, a fact that has been applied in some instances by the police so far, and in some cases not And people have been prosecuted, it’s ambiguous. Passing a cycle in cycle lane at the edge of the road, the vehicle and bike are in different lanes, but I’m not aware of any cycle lane that would provide 1.5m separation, and yet this is the instance where people have and have not been prosecuted for failing to give sufficient room. passing separating can be a few centimetres especially if the bike cycles to the outside of the cycle lane to avoid say a gutter.

However, if we were to adopt the 1.5m rule for on coming traffic the photos I took highlight that a number of vehicles on coming won’t be able to pass safety using the minimum distance guidance.

Perhaps you can now appreciating the dichotomy of the rule and why I don’t actually understand what is required? From your responses I’m certain your not clear about it either!