Passing clearance for cyclists

[dr_gn]

This may well have been asked before, but here goes. I was using a cycle lane today, and it’s layout seemed to give car drivers no choice but to break the 1.5m clearance rule. Here’s the lane in question (view not the best, but rest assured it’s very narrow):



And an illustration of the guidance:



So basically if the cyclist is within the lane, the car can’t ‘correctly’ pass without hitting the island.

So if a designated lane makes it impossible to comply with the prescribed rule, why have the lane, and/or the rule?

In general, cycle lanes are fairly narrow, and they seem to make the 1.5m rule irrelevant, despite offering zero physical protection for the cyclist.

[giantdefy]

The driver could always not overtake until there is enough clearance after the traffic island.

[SS2.]

Drivers do have a choice - not to pass a cyclist until they are beyond the island.

[Pothole]

giantdefy said:

The driver could always not overtake until there is enough clearance after the traffic island.

Absolutely.

OP, what's your point?

[dr_gn]

My point is there’s a demarcation to separate the traffic, implying that if both road users are in their designated lanes, it should be safe (as it is with broken white lines in the middle of the road). Obviously if you have to cross the line, it’s different.

I should point out that a few metres beyond this island, the cycle lane abruptly stops, for no apparent reason.

[Pothole]

I'm in two minds, as Honda Jazz drivers tend to fall into two camps. When Doreen's driving there's no way she'd be side by side with a cyclist there or be going anywhere near as fast. When Nev's driving he'll do 40 and probably won't see cyclist or island (assuming this is an urban 30 limit stretch as it appears)

[PF62]

The problem is the solution would probably make things worse for the cyclist.

There used to be a cycle lane outside the Brunswick Centre in London - https://goo.gl/maps/1VD12D1MtSB2

The cycling groups complained the cycle lanes were not wide enough, so the solution was simple, remove them - https://goo.gl/maps/ZGsQGH9fhvP2 so now you have cars passing even closer than you did previously.

If there isn't enough space for the cycle lane and the road at the bollard, then I bet if you complained the cycle lane would be removed.

[Antony Moxey]

When approaching traffic islands I move out towards the centre of the lane making it impossible for a car to overtake. Had someone come far too close far too fast a number of years ago to let myself be that at risk again. Negates the OP’s post really.

[dr_gn]

Pothole said:

I'm in two minds, as Honda Jazz drivers tend to fall into two camps. When Doreen's driving there's no way she'd be side by side with a cyclist there or be going anywhere near as fast. When Nev's driving he'll do 40 and probably won't see cyclist or island (assuming this is an urban 30 limit stretch as it appears)

No agenda here, just curious as to why they'd put a short stretch of cycle path adjacent to three islands, then end the path after the third. I was passed by at least four cars during that stretch, none of them moved beyond their designated lane (into the hatched central lines between the islands which effectively fix the widtch of the road to the same as between the islands), so at least they felt they was no need to move over, and I no point did I feel in any danger of being hit by a car.

[Pica-Pica]

Pothole said:

I'm in two minds, as Honda Jazz drivers tend to fall into two camps. When Doreen's driving there's no way she'd be side by side with a cyclist there or be going anywhere near as fast. When Nev's driving he'll do 40 and probably won't see cyclist or island (assuming this is an urban 30 limit stretch as it appears)

My, that is original.

[Foss62]

There’s a stretch of cycle lane in the Lake District (Ambleside I think) where there is no point at which the gap between the outside of the lane and the centre line is wide enough for a car. I suppose it would work for a motorbike, but I’m not sure it was designed with that in mind. Speaking as a cyclist, I see much of this cycling ‘infrastructure’ as utterly pointless.

[Retroman]

Unfortunately it's bad planning like this with cycling infrastructure that many cyclists choose not to use cycle lanes.

If i was cycling and approached that i'd check over my shoulder to make sure no one was about to overtake me then move out to primary position and take the lane so it wouldn't be possible. I haven't cycled on the roads for years now, but when i last did if you didn't take primary position you'd always get someone try and squeeze by sometimes with less than the width of a mirror to spare

If i was driving then i wouldn't overtake a cyclist there even if they are in the cycling lane.

[Graveworm]

dr_gn said:

This may well have been asked before, but here goes. I was using a cycle lane today, and it’s layout seemed to give car drivers no choice but to break the 1.5m clearance rule. Here’s the lane in question (view not the best, but rest assured it’s very narrow):



And an illustration of the guidance:



So basically if the cyclist is within the lane, the car can’t ‘correctly’ pass without hitting the island.

So if a designated lane makes it impossible to comply with the prescribed rule, why have the lane, and/or the rule?

In general, cycle lanes are fairly narrow, and they seem to make the 1.5m rule irrelevant, despite offering zero physical protection for the cyclist.

It makes it impossible for car drivers to comply with the rule alongside the island. Just as in many circumstances elsewhere it is impossible for larger vehicles to pass. I would not try to pass there in a car but I would on a motorbike.

[hutchst]

Where does this "rule" come from? And who published that guidance? Stuff like this is dangerous.

The guidance shows a cyclist riding along the white demarcation line, not in the cycle lane. Anybody thinking that's the correct way to ride your bike on a busy road is going to get into trouble. And what's the purpose of the bloke in the hi-viz jacket standing in the middle of the road? Is he some kind of invincible superhero? Pointless.

[gazza285]

hutchst said:

Where does this "rule" come from? And who published that guidance? Stuff like this is dangerous.

The guidance shows a cyclist riding along the white demarcation line, not in the cycle lane. Anybody thinking that's the correct way to ride your bike on a busy road is going to get into trouble. And what's the purpose of the bloke in the hi-viz jacket standing in the middle of the road? Is he some kind of invincible superhero? Pointless.

Not the only pointless thing around here.

[V8 Fettler]

Cannot the cyclist ride on the pavement?

[dr_gn]

V8 Fettler said:

Cannot the cyclist ride on the pavement?

If you were designing a road system from scratch today, putting cyclists and horses on the same road as cars and heavy goods vehicles would be considered insane from a health and safety point of view.

[Vipers]

dr_gn said:

This may well have been asked before, but here goes. I was using a cycle lane today, and it’s layout seemed to give car drivers no choice but to break the 1.5m clearance rule. Here’s the lane in question (view not the best, but rest assured it’s very narrow):



And an illustration of the guidance:



So basically if the cyclist is within the lane, the car can’t ‘correctly’ pass without hitting the island.

So if a designated lane makes it impossible to comply with the prescribed rule, why have the lane, and/or the rule?

In general, cycle lanes are fairly narrow, and they seem to make the 1.5m rule irrelevant, despite offering zero physical protection for the cyclist.

A car may legally enter a cycle lane if it has a broken line, so the car can legally pass the island without hitting it, possibly why the cycle lane has a broken line.

See rule 140 of the HC.

Edited by Vipers on Monday 25th February 07:39

[BMWBen]

Vipers said:

dr_gn said:

This may well have been asked before, but here goes. I was using a cycle lane today, and it’s layout seemed to give car drivers no choice but to break the 1.5m clearance rule. Here’s the lane in question (view not the best, but rest assured it’s very narrow):



And an illustration of the guidance:



So basically if the cyclist is within the lane, the car can’t ‘correctly’ pass without hitting the island.

So if a designated lane makes it impossible to comply with the prescribed rule, why have the lane, and/or the rule?

In general, cycle lanes are fairly narrow, and they seem to make the 1.5m rule irrelevant, despite offering zero physical protection for the cyclist.

A car may legally enter a cycle lane if it has a broken line, so the car can legally pass the island without hitting it, possibly why the cycle lane has a broken line.

See rule 140 of the HC.

Edited by Vipers on Monday 25th February 07:39

I guess the problem is that it implies to the motorist that it's safe for them to pass the cyclist and the island at the same time (because they both have their own "lanes") even though it's not. You see it a lot and it's a terrible piece of road design. You also regularly find cycle lanes where the only way to cycle a safe distance from the kerb is to ride *on* the white line that marks it.

[Johnnytheboy]

BMWBen said:

I guess the problem is that it implies to the motorist that it's safe for them to pass the cyclist and the island at the same time (because they both have their own "lanes") even though it's not. You see it a lot and it's a terrible piece of road design. You also regularly find cycle lanes where the only way to cycle a safe distance from the kerb is to ride *on* the white line that marks it.

Agree - those narrow painted cycle lanes should be removed for exactly the reason in the OP, or terminate where it isn't wide enough to pass.