How to overtake cyclists video

[monthefish]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

In the video, a driving instructor gives a demonstration on how to overtake cyclists.
The problem is, when he actually does the overtake, it's just before on a fairly blind brow of a hill (where a recumbent cyclist coming the other way couldn't be seen) and with side roads to the left and right!

Arguably the point where he decides not to overtake them (at 1:41), he actually has a clearer view of the road ahead and would probably have been a better overtake (aside from the presence of double white lines)

[monthefish]

otolith said:

It means as much space as a small car occupies, not as much clearance as you give a car.

How does that work on a B road when they're riding 2/3 up and the 'outside' cyclist is close to the centreline?

[monthefish]

otolith said:

monthefish said:

otolith said:

It means as much space as a small car occupies, not as much clearance as you give a car.

How does that work on a B road when they're riding 2/3 up and the 'outside' cyclist is close to the centreline?

You give them that amount of space. Where they position themselves within it is up to them.

Surely if you give the outside cyclist 'as much space as a small car occupies' you would be off the road/in the verge on the other side of the road.

e.g. on the following poster, put the bike just to the left of the white line (as they often are), if the car gives the cyclist the requested amount of space, he's off the road on the RHS

[monthefish]

Artey said:

Johnnytheboy said:

monthefish said:

Surely if you give the outside cyclist 'as much space as a small car occupies' you would be off the road/in the verge on the other side of the road.

e.g. on the following poster, put the bike just to the left of the white line (as they often are), if the car gives the cyclist the requested amount of space, he's off the road on the RHS

Treat a cyclist like a car, i.e. imagine they are the width of a car. Simple.

If they want to ride further towards the middle of the road or two abreast, they are making a choice to be passed more closely. Simple.

No it's not simple. Treat a cyclist like a car assumes, as shown on the above picture, that cyclists stick to the left and you are in the opposite lane which creates the required 1-1.5m gap. Now, what happens if two cyclists ride abreast? If you overtake the gap will be nowhere near 1m which will result in public naming and shaming and videos on youtube. So are you not supposed to overtake? Or are cyclists allowed to pick and choose and create rules on the fly whenever they suite them.

Exactly.

otolith said:

Luckily, the nice people in the government have provided a picture for people who have trouble understanding the text.



OK. So we have two possible interpretations. Either it means "overtake so they have as much space as a car has" or it means "overtake with the gap you leave to a car".

Look at the gap there between the cyclist and the car.

If that was the gap you had to leave when you overtake a car, you would never overtake a car on a single carriageway. The road would not be wide enough.

So it does not, cannot, mean leave the same gap.

So why is is OK to leave a smaller gap when the cyclists a cycling two or three abreast? As we've established, it's unavoidable, but why is it suddenly now not a risk to cyclists?

(Does the presence of other cyclists embarrass them into cycling in a straight line perhaps? )