Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing
Discussion
Sid123 said:
I don't know about annoying the minority but it may well surprise a few people to learn the law says you have to leave a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist.
Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
It's a shame it has to come to this. The fact that some road users are incapable of treating others with respect leads to more legislation for all of us. It's needed, but shouldn't be.Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
Blimey, things I've read on this thread this afternoon. 
Nothing can be overtaken on solid whites.
Bikes in Holland have to be registered.
First there was the horse and cart, then the car, roads were never meant for bikes.
In fact, HC rule 129 specifically mentions you can overtake cycles doing less than 10 mph.
Those bazillions of bikes in The Netherlands are emphatically not registered!
First there was the horse and cart, then bikes, then cars. Bikes were on the roads happily before the advent of the motor car, indeed many bike manufacturers went on to become car manufacturers. Rover for one.
Nothing can be overtaken on solid whites.
Bikes in Holland have to be registered.
First there was the horse and cart, then the car, roads were never meant for bikes.
In fact, HC rule 129 specifically mentions you can overtake cycles doing less than 10 mph.
Those bazillions of bikes in The Netherlands are emphatically not registered!
First there was the horse and cart, then bikes, then cars. Bikes were on the roads happily before the advent of the motor car, indeed many bike manufacturers went on to become car manufacturers. Rover for one.
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
But will it stop cyclists filtering in slow moving traffic when there's less than a metre and a half of room?Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Riley Blue said:
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
But will it stop cyclists filtering in slow moving traffic when there's less than a metre and a half of room?Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Riley Blue said:
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
But will it stop cyclists filtering in slow moving traffic when there's less than a metre and a half of room?Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Well, are you OK with cars passing you with the same distance when they're doing 60mph? I mean, the car passing you is exactly the same as you passing the car, right?
Ares said:
DottyMR2 said:
Oh wait, you were serious? See if you take your post and change cyclist for driver and pedestrian for cyclist, you have the argument drivers have had for many years. Cyclist crashes into our car? We foot the bill as we have no way to trace them and they have no insurance. They just ride off. It's up to us to dodge them or we suffer the consequences.
Cyclist pulls out a side street on me when I'm doing 30/40mph? I'll kill them and probably get done for it even though I'm doing nothing wrong, as you know, incident can be inappropriately blamed and regularly seem to favour the more vulnerable roads users in cases with doubt.
Yes some cases can be inappropriately blamed, welcome to the messed up legal system we have in the UK that wants to criminalise everyone and anything. It's why I have a dash cam, have my own video evidence of events.
Let's be honest too, she was hit in East London during the day. London has more CCTV cameras than any other city in the world, nigh on every inch is covered. Plus there would be other pedestrians/drivers/cyclists around when it happened. I'm pretty sure if he's being charged for it they've got evidence of running a red light.
Edited by DottyMR2 on Thursday 15th September 15:41
But how many cyclists pull out in front of a car compared with absent minded pedestrians (usually looking at their phone)?
I can't think I've ever seen a cyclist pull out in front of a car. We tend to avoid big, obvious metal boxes
For the cyclists pulling out in front of cars, quite regularly. Running red lights turning left, cutting across 2 lanes of flowing traffic to turn right without looking, cycling up the inside of people turning left and joining roundabouts without stopping. All of them are pulling out/cutting off people. I don't know if it's because they think if they stick to the kerb it's ok (for the roundabout case) or that they are separate to the normal flowing traffic therefore can cut between it but quite a few place themselves in very compromised positions. Then hurl abuse/kick at cars who have the audacity to peep the horn at them.
To give another side to the pedestrian argument, I see quite a few "pedestrian walked out in front of me" moments when a car is pulling into a side street. Not saying it's something you do but I've had this discussion in another thread (being a pedestrian Monday to Friday for work) and on those occasions a pedestrian already crossing the road has right of way. See rule 170 of the Highway code. Crossing a dotted line when you turn onto that road? Crossing pedestrians have right of way.
I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been run over crossing a small road when a car (not using indicators, so how do I know you're turning?!) comes screetching into the turn, plants the brakes on and the driver hurls abuse. I was already crossing before they got there but a majority of town drivers seem to think that everyone should jump out of their very important way. I can't say I've ever seen someone walk blindly into flowing 30mph traffic. Yes I've seen people misjudge a gap to cross in but really, driver, lift off/tap the brakes and be on your way. You've lost 0.345 of a second on your journey...
As with all problems in our country where people are unable to interact with each other appropriately, it comes down to attitudes. Drivers need to chill the f
k out and accept that there may be some obstructions on their journey home, killing someone just to get home 5 seconds faster isn't a smart idea. Cyclists need to stop trying to break their commute record by 4 seconds and take more responsibility for their own safety and pedestrians should probably cross roads at designated places. I can certainly see the positives of the J walking crimes in quite a lot of countries to force pedestrians to cross at proper crossings. Possibly something we should do? Especially for main road.
yonex said:
Finlandia said:
Is that 1.5m static? There is a world of difference in passing at 1.5m in a small car at 30, or at 56 in a 40t HGV.
It's a question of common sense. Not difficult. yonex said:
Sid123 said:
I don't know about annoying the minority but it may well surprise a few people to learn the law says you have to leave a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist.
Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
It's a shame it has to come to this. The fact that some road users are incapable of treating others with respect leads to more legislation for all of us. It's needed, but shouldn't be.Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
....Is the exact distance of 1.5m formally listed under a statute of law that has been passed via a vote through both houses of parliament in the last three months???
In may 2016, when the government responded to a petition from Tony C Martin - He wrote: "The lack of a clear specification may result in a personal decision what a "plenty of room" means in terms of distance. Therefore, introducing a minimum legal passing distance when overtaking cyclists will considerably reduce the number of cyclist casualties, aiding in a safe cycling practice. Suggestion of 3.28 ft (1 m) when overtaking cyclists on roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph. On roads with higher speed limits, the minimum passing distance should be 4.9 ft (1.5 m)."
The official government response at the time was that, the government: "currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist."
The answer added: "This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.
However, the government, has said that the WILL look at the methods used by other countries like Australia and South Africa.
Therefore (unless it has passed both house of parliament parliament), I don't think the '1.5m distance' is a 'Law' as yet. Even though W.Mids decided that 1.5m is the limit upon which they will pull motorists over for (in the articles words) a warning.
Happy to be proved wrong, if somebody has a link to 'the statute in question'.
will_ said:
Riley Blue said:
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
But will it stop cyclists filtering in slow moving traffic when there's less than a metre and a half of room?Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Well, are you OK with cars passing you with the same distance when they're doing 60mph? I mean, the car passing you is exactly the same as you passing the car, right?
DottyMR2 said:
It does still stand I agree, it's just unfortunately not something that can be solved/regulated. Big lumps of metal are easy to register at purchase because they're to be driven on the road, bikes can't really be given number plates unless we're going to have a national database of small, pink bikes with stabalisers and tassley bits on the handle bars that get ridden round in someone garden.
Horsest. Of course it can be regulated, and without pink kid bikes being involved.Just make it a legal requirement for a registration plate on a cycle used on public roads - problem solved. Not all motorbikes are registered for road use, if they are never going to be used on the road. Many people ride dirt bikes/trials bikes that aren't road registered.
I think it is a good idea. It might make cyclists a bit more careful about how and when they do dangerous things, as many of them don't seem to give a f
k about that right now.Riley Blue said:
Unlike parked cars, slow moving traffic can speed up so that cyclists riding through a narrow gap may find they've ridden into a narrow gap between suddenly accelerating traffic.
Cyclists are higher than most traffic, they can see ahead and react to the acceleration.Parked cars are far more dangerous.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff