Careless drivers overtaking cyclists in Cambridge face fines

[akirk]

otolith said:

akirk said:

So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...

If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.

pictures are an artists interpretation - the text is the legal bit...

[delta0]

otolith said:

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...

If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.

This statement has always been confusing. If I left that much gap overtaking a car I would be on the grass verge.

[otolith]

delta0 said:

This statement has always been confusing. If I left that much gap overtaking a car I would be on the grass verge.

Indeed. Which makes it clear that “space” means “space” and not “gap” or “clearance”.

[MC Bodge]

otolith said:

delta0 said:

This statement has always been confusing. If I left that much gap overtaking a car I would be on the grass verge.

Indeed. Which makes it clear that “space” means “space” and not “gap” or “clearance”.

Indeed. Pass as if there is a car there.ie. If the bike covered the same width as the car.

[DonkeyApple]

akirk said:

otolith said:

akirk said:

So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...

If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.

pictures are an artists interpretation - the text is the legal bit...

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

[Rawwr]

DonkeyApple said:

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

Look at the image again but imagine that the Audi went the wrong way around the roundabout at twice the speed limit.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rawwr said:

DonkeyApple said:

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

Look at the image again but imagine that the Audi went the wrong way around the roundabout at twice the speed limit.

But they're INDICATING!

[CambsBill]

G321 said:

I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw a cyclist jump a red light (Not saying it doesn't happen). However I saw 3 motorists jump red lights on my commute this morning maybe the police need to concentrate on them?

Then you haven't visited Cambridge . . .

[Rawwr]

TooMany2cvs said:

Rawwr said:

DonkeyApple said:

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

Look at the image again but imagine that the Audi went the wrong way around the roundabout at twice the speed limit.

But they're INDICATING!

Only by accident, as she wrestled the car out of terminal understeer, she knocked the indicator on. She then proceeded to drive with the indicator on for the next 17 miles.

[DoubleD]

DonkeyApple said:

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

Exactly. And the cyclist has hi viz, lights and a helmet.

Never going to happen

[CambsBill]

Ed/L152 said:

??? Buses dramatically reduce traffic (unless that was your point?)

Edited by Ed/L152 on Thursday 22 February 17:19

I'm guessing you also haven't visited Cambridge recently, as the bus-stops on some of the main arteries have been repositioned seemingly deliberately to hold up the rest of the traffic. And no, they aren't luring very many people out of their cars either 'cause they're too expensive.

I drive and cycle in Cambridge - there are muppets on both sides and a bit of police action would be nice to see for a change. It will be interesting, however, to see if this is a 9 to 5 operation only or whether they'll be out at night for the (many) cyclists who don't bother with lights.

[G321]

CambsBill said:

G321 said:

I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw a cyclist jump a red light (Not saying it doesn't happen). However I saw 3 motorists jump red lights on my commute this morning maybe the police need to concentrate on them?

Then you haven't visited Cambridge . . .

This has already been said. No I haven't, however I see terrible driving everyday where I am which suggests the problem of poor driving standards is more wide spread than any issued caused by people cycling

[DonkeyApple]

TooMany2cvs said:

Rawwr said:

DonkeyApple said:

Clearly faked. Who’s going to believe a fat unit in an Audi on a Bovis estate is going to give away that much of their own tarmac to an inferior creature like a cyclists?

Look at the image again but imagine that the Audi went the wrong way around the roundabout at twice the speed limit.

But they're INDICATING!

Clearly because after going the wrong way round the roundabout they’re now turning left in front of the scum who should be on a bus.

[Toltec]

MC Bodge said:

Indeed. Pass as if there is a car there.ie. If the bike covered the same width as the car.

Which is often the case if they are riding two or three abreast. If you move over to the opposite lane then you have given the cyclists space, after all if they wander far enough over to collide with you then they could have just as easily hit an oncoming car instead. To put it another way would you expect to have to move left to give an oncoming cyclist close to the centreline a miniumum 1.5 m? If you pass using a different lane then I doubt the 1.5m gap would be used, this more about impatient idiots squeezing past in lane or by using as little of the opposite lane as possible due to oncoming traffic.

[saaby93]

bigdom said:

It's obviously taken a while to get to that part of the country, it's nothing new.

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/news/general/give-...

They seem to have spoken to more cyclists than drivers

The 1.5metre thing - is it in the Highway Code?
Surely its like the overtaking a 10mph slow moving vehicle on a double white line.
No-one is actually going to measure the distance or the speed, it's just if an officer wants to use their powers in a particular instance they can say X driver passed closer than 1.5metres same as Y driver overtook at more than 10mph.

[otolith]

saaby93 said:

The 1.5metre thing - is it in the Highway Code?

They're just issuing a guideline for what is likely to trigger prosecution under due care and attention.

[saaby93]

otolith said:

akirk said:

So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...

If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.

That photo shows a driver leaving a cyclist at least as much clearance as they would when passing a car
If the photo had a less distance it could still hold
The photo doesnt say 'this is the minimum distance in all circumstances'

(Neither can we take from it that everyone should dress like the driver or cyclist , nor that the bike should be that far from the kerb)

[Plug Life]

Is that Demis Roussos behind the Audi's wheel?

[thiscocks]

Camelot1971 said:

I take it cyclists will be fined for overtaking slow moving cars too closely?

Afterall, the law should be applied equally.

Yeah because it really endangers the life of the driver if a cyclist gets too close to a car doesn't it?

[otolith]

saaby93 said:

otolith said:

akirk said:

So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...

If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.

That photo shows a driver leaving a cyclist at least as much clearance as they would when passing a car
If the photo had a less distance it could still hold
The photo doesnt say 'this is the minimum distance in all circumstances'

(Neither can we take from it that everyone should dress like the driver or cyclist , nor that the bike should be that far from the kerb)

Personally, I don't think that the wording of the highway code is ambiguous, though some do. The fact that it is accompanied by a photograph of someone doing exactly what the most obvious interpretation of the wording says should be a bit of a giveaway, but if people want to interpret it as meaning what they want it to mean along with an unrelated photograph, well, you can lead a horse to water...

It's not law, though. You won't be prosecuted for "not giving enough space", you'll be prosecuted for one of the more general offences - careless or dangerous, or if you are really unlucky and the guy ends up under your wheels, death by one of those.