Wales again 1.5metres filming

Wales again 1.5metres filming

Author
Discussion

saaby93

Original Poster:

32,038 posts

178 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
Police out on a bike filming motorists
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45112892

'If the driver does not give the bike 5ft (1.5m) of room as recommended by the Highway Code, nearby colleagues flag them down and offer training on how to pass cyclists safely.'

Has 1.5metres now entered the Highway code or does it still say 'at least as much space as you would when overtaking a car'?

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
It’s positive in a way, but a wholesale change of attitude is what’s needed in respect to cyclists in the UK.

Passing a cyclist at speed at less than a metre isn’t very smart, but happens to me all the time.

Derek Smith

45,659 posts

248 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
There is no minimum distance of course. This is merely the gap that generates a stop and seemingly a course.

1.5m is about right in my opinion. Much closed and a pothole or sunken drain cover might well cause a cyclist to alter course. Is it too much to ask?

However, I'd suggest that it gives rise to some problems with regards enforcement. One assumes that the 1.5m is on an open road at speed.


MalcolmSmith

1,726 posts

75 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Police out on a bike filming motorists
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45112892

'If the driver does not give the bike 5ft (1.5m) of room as recommended by the Highway Code, nearby colleagues flag them down and offer training on how to pass cyclists safely.'

Has 1.5metres now entered the Highway code or does it still say 'at least as much space as you would when overtaking a car'?
What the Highway Code means is including the car, not that you get as close as you would to a car.

I.e. ignore the fact its a bike and give as much space as you would need to give it were it a car.

Its a stupid phrase in the code.

Basically you cant pass a bike without crossing the line.

Pica-Pica

13,788 posts

84 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
So is this 1.5m gap when passing cyclists, the same as cycliste should use when passing on the inside (or outside) in slow traffic?

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
So is this 1.5m gap when passing cyclists, the same as cycliste should use when passing on the inside (or outside) in slow traffic?
In case the cyclist knocks the car over?

Pica-Pica

13,788 posts

84 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
yonex said:
Pica-Pica said:
So is this 1.5m gap when passing cyclists, the same as cycliste should use when passing on the inside (or outside) in slow traffic?
In case the cyclist knocks the car over?
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
A moving car generates a bow wave and a noise.

A cyclist passing a slow moving or stopped car on the left doesn’t suffer either of those.

I’m guessing you don’t ride a bicycle on the roads, right?

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
Dear God, are you serious?

timbo999

1,293 posts

255 months

Thursday 9th August 2018
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

james7

594 posts

255 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
I can see a few badly thought out things with this blanket approach to being forced to use a measurement rather than a bit of common sense.

I assume this 1.5m distance applies all the time to everyone?

So 2or3 abreast cyclists, there still needs to be a 1.5m gap? If not why not? That would make some overtakes impossible due to some road width.
Cyclists riding the other direction, the bow wave would after all be greater, if thats what this is actually about. So stopping your car when a cyclist is coming the other way, and within that distance, then restarting when they have passed.
Central london, lots of cars would be breaking the law because the cyclist decided they wanted to be closer when overtaking, then traffic starts moving etc.

If they put a measurement on it i can see some car drivers treating it as having to leave a 1.5m gap for the cyclist, regardless of where in the lane he is, and passing really close as punishment, or to prove a point.

As pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists how about them? Is there a minimum for driving past one when they are on the pavement? If not why not? Surely the most vulnerable should be catered for first and rules introduced for their safety.

vitesse2000

369 posts

163 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
So on rural roads with solid double white lines I have to estimate the cyclists speed as below 10mph before I can legally cross them to provide the required 1.5m especially when they’re riding two or three abreast? What if they are doing 15mph and they are one of the Police cyclists? Just glad I have dashcams in all the cars in case I’m accused of being 1.4m away...


Edited by vitesse2000 on Friday 10th August 08:23

yellowjack

17,078 posts

166 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
yonex said:
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
Dear God, are you serious?
I'd happily give my spleen to see a sensible, balanced debate about the issue of OVERTAKING cyclists on PH. You'd think, being a site for performance car enthusiasts, there'd be an overwhelming majority of contributors also enthusiastic about applying the highest of standards to their own driving.

But no. You only have to look at the retards currently arguing that the Roadcraft method for overtaking is wrong, and that all you need to do is to "buy more powerrrrrr!" to see that the lunatics have already taken over the asylum.

1. Give cyclists space. If you're unsure how much space is "enough space" then just imagine it's your 8-year-old daughter/niece/sister/cousin on the bike, think about how wobbly she might be, and how vulnerable, then take appropriate action.

2. Look ahead. Not AT the cyclist, but hundreds of yards beyond them. If there is a traffic light, roundabout, or queue ahead, consider holding back to PROTECT that cyclist. Cover his/her six. Whatever phrase you want to use. If you KNOW they'll be shooting up beside the queue along that short length of bike lane at the junction to the advanced stop line, what possible purpose will your overtake achieve. Just the same as passing another car at a risky spot to end up alongside it in a queue at the next lights, if you know, or suspect this to be likely, why bother.

3. PLAN your OVERTAKE properly, just as you would plan to overtake a car (assumption, I know given the "I've got 450bhp on tap so don't need to plan anything" brigade prevalent on PH. This includes observation, positioning and most importantly of all SIGNALLING that you are overtaking. Because you may well have seen the cyclist, and have time to decide to overtake. But the driver behind sees less of the cyclist later, and that "invisibility" from following drivers is compounded the further back in the following traffic a driver is. Avoid late observation of cyclists by leaving larger gaps in traffic if you're not the lead driver too. But know that if you signal, you indicate to following drivers that there is some additional road hazard to be driven round.

4. Always plan to cross the centre line when passing a cyclist. There are, admittedly, some roads with lanes where they're wide enough to pass quite safely indeed without needing to cross the centre line. But they are few and far between. In the main, you will NEED to cross the centre line to mitigate against the risk that the cyclist you are passing may veer from their course or worse, come tumbling off their bicycle. Whether that's their own fault, or via some external influence, you'll still be investigated and possibly charged with causing their injury or death, and from a purely selfish perspective, you just don't need the bother of a court case in your life, even if at the end of it you get found not guilty.

5. If none of the above works, dig out your old bike, buy one, or borrow one. Then go for a ride to get a feel for what it's like to ride in traffic. Now armed with that knowledge, imagine the cyclist you're passing is YOU, and have a little empathy when you're driving near them. That's all it really takes, a little of the milk of human kindness given freely from one to another. So much bile and vitriol is generated on PH by contributors bemoaning the fact that other people exhibit undesirable, uncivilised behaviour. And yet we have thread after thread of cyclist-bashing, and morons describing their own deluded, moronic behaviour around other human beings.


Ultimately it doesn't matter to me, as a cyclist, if you pass at exactly 1.5 metres, or more, or even less. It's all relative really. If I'm riding down the dual carriageway A31 Bentley Bypass, the ideally I'd like you at least 3 metres away, fully in lane 2, after having seen me in good time and signalled right to warn following traffic. I don't make a habit of cycling on 70 mph dual carriageways, but there's a journey I occasionally need to do where there genuinely is no other option than an hour's detour up a series of massive hills. If we're sharing roads in town at barely more than walking pace, then I'm cool with you being quite close to me. After all, if I wobble and fall off in that situation, I fall ONTO your car rather than under it's wheels as I might if you were 1.5 metres away. Each situation judged by it's own merits. It's not as if South Wales Police have arbitrarily invented an offence of "less than 1.5 metres from a bicycle". They're not issuing points/fines for offences. What they are doing is observing driver behaviour, and then challenging behaviour they feel is inappropriate, before giving advice. Far better for a police officer to give that advice than for a driver/cyclist road rage incident to blow up when an individual cyclist challenges an errant driver's behaviour. It's relatively quick, and a relatively efficient way of passing advice on, and if it makes a difference for the better, then PHers ought to be pleased that those same police officers cannot be out pointing hand-held radar guns at "innocent motorist wot is only drivin' to the conditions, innit, bruvv".

BMWBen

4,899 posts

201 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
So is this 1.5m gap when passing cyclists, the same as cycliste should use when passing on the inside (or outside) in slow traffic?
No. coffee

Pica-Pica

13,788 posts

84 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
A moving car generates a bow wave and a noise.

A cyclist passing a slow moving or stopped car on the left doesn’t suffer either of those.

I’m guessing you don’t ride a bicycle on the roads, right?
What has noise got to do with it?

DocJock

8,357 posts

240 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
I always try to leave more than 1.5m. I was taught to leave enough room for the cyclist to fall off, to their right, without you having to move further over.

yellowjack

17,078 posts

166 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
For anyone who hasn't bothered reading the article in full (and unless you're especially thick or have the world's shortest recorded attention span then why wouldn't you, as it's VERY brief)...

the BBC article said:
During a late-morning pilot in Whitchurch, officers stopped six vehicles and also seized one after discovering it was being driven without insurance.
...and...

the BBC article also said:
Operation Close Pass was originally developed by West Midlands Police in September 2016.
Officers say it led to a 20% reduction in cyclists being killed or seriously injured on the roads in just one year.
The scheme is now being piloted for the first time on Welsh roads - where 115 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in 2016.
...so ultimately it's a winner all ends up? Illegal vehicles seized, illegal drivers prosecuted. Uninsured drivers cost those of us who properly insure ours millions in additional premiums annually. There are thousands of them on the roads too, probably tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

West Midlands Police estimated a 20% reduction in KSIs in one year. If true, and the campaign in Wales nets the same sort of results, then that'd be 23 cyclists (or alternatively 23 PEOPLE) NOT killed or seriously injured PER YEAR. On what planet is that NOT a good thing? Even if it delays you from getting home by 40 seconds and you miss the opening credits of Coronation Street?

Anyone who argues against such a campaign must surely be some form of sociopath. But then, when incidents like this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44396411
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wal...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-3642...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-188254...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wal...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foy...

...are far from rare, and are seldom isolated incidents, it's easy to see that there are a large number of mentalist morons who hate cyclists enough to want to cause them harm. At least near me, the "anti-cyclist booby-trap" tends to just be a log dragged onto the trail, but I swear that if I catch someone in the act of deliberately endangering me, or others, then the milk of human kindness that I'm advocating will swiftly run dry...

S11Steve

6,374 posts

184 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
It still amazes me that people, including many police officers, believe the Highway Code is law, rather than just a plain English synopsis of lots of different laws and regulations.


irocfan

40,439 posts

190 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
I'd happily give my spleen to see a sensible, balanced debate about the issue of OVERTAKING cyclists on PH. You'd think, being a site for performance car enthusiasts, there'd be an overwhelming majority of contributors also enthusiastic about applying the highest of standards to their own driving.

But no. You only have to look at the retards currently arguing that the Roadcraft method for overtaking is wrong, and that all you need to do is to "buy more powerrrrrr!" to see that the lunatics have already taken over the asylum.

1. Give cyclists space. If you're unsure how much space is "enough space" then just imagine it's your 8-year-old daughter/niece/sister/cousin on the bike, think about how wobbly she might be, and how vulnerable, then take appropriate action.

2. Look ahead. Not AT the cyclist, but hundreds of yards beyond them. If there is a traffic light, roundabout, or queue ahead, consider holding back to PROTECT that cyclist. Cover his/her six. Whatever phrase you want to use. If you KNOW they'll be shooting up beside the queue along that short length of bike lane at the junction to the advanced stop line, what possible purpose will your overtake achieve. Just the same as passing another car at a risky spot to end up alongside it in a queue at the next lights, if you know, or suspect this to be likely, why bother.

3. PLAN your OVERTAKE properly, just as you would plan to overtake a car (assumption, I know given the "I've got 450bhp on tap so don't need to plan anything" brigade prevalent on PH. This includes observation, positioning and most importantly of all SIGNALLING that you are overtaking. Because you may well have seen the cyclist, and have time to decide to overtake. But the driver behind sees less of the cyclist later, and that "invisibility" from following drivers is compounded the further back in the following traffic a driver is. Avoid late observation of cyclists by leaving larger gaps in traffic if you're not the lead driver too. But know that if you signal, you indicate to following drivers that there is some additional road hazard to be driven round.

4. Always plan to cross the centre line when passing a cyclist. There are, admittedly, some roads with lanes where they're wide enough to pass quite safely indeed without needing to cross the centre line. But they are few and far between. In the main, you will NEED to cross the centre line to mitigate against the risk that the cyclist you are passing may veer from their course or worse, come tumbling off their bicycle. Whether that's their own fault, or via some external influence, you'll still be investigated and possibly charged with causing their injury or death, and from a purely selfish perspective, you just don't need the bother of a court case in your life, even if at the end of it you get found not guilty.

5. If none of the above works, dig out your old bike, buy one, or borrow one. Then go for a ride to get a feel for what it's like to ride in traffic. Now armed with that knowledge, imagine the cyclist you're passing is YOU, and have a little empathy when you're driving near them. That's all it really takes, a little of the milk of human kindness given freely from one to another. So much bile and vitriol is generated on PH by contributors bemoaning the fact that other people exhibit undesirable, uncivilised behaviour. And yet we have thread after thread of cyclist-bashing, and morons describing their own deluded, moronic behaviour around other human beings.


Ultimately it doesn't matter to me, as a cyclist, if you pass at exactly 1.5 metres, or more, or even less. It's all relative really. If I'm riding down the dual carriageway A31 Bentley Bypass, the ideally I'd like you at least 3 metres away, fully in lane 2, after having seen me in good time and signalled right to warn following traffic. I don't make a habit of cycling on 70 mph dual carriageways, but there's a journey I occasionally need to do where there genuinely is no other option than an hour's detour up a series of massive hills. If we're sharing roads in town at barely more than walking pace, then I'm cool with you being quite close to me. After all, if I wobble and fall off in that situation, I fall ONTO your car rather than under it's wheels as I might if you were 1.5 metres away. Each situation judged by it's own merits. It's not as if South Wales Police have arbitrarily invented an offence of "less than 1.5 metres from a bicycle". They're not issuing points/fines for offences. What they are doing is observing driver behaviour, and then challenging behaviour they feel is inappropriate, before giving advice. Far better for a police officer to give that advice than for a driver/cyclist road rage incident to blow up when an individual cyclist challenges an errant driver's behaviour. It's relatively quick, and a relatively efficient way of passing advice on, and if it makes a difference for the better, then PHers ought to be pleased that those same police officers cannot be out pointing hand-held radar guns at "innocent motorist wot is only drivin' to the conditions, innit, bruvv".
thumbup

At this point however civil discussion will end and it'll descend into bickering. frown

Pica-Pica

13,788 posts

84 months

Friday 10th August 2018
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
yonex said:
Pica-Pica said:
No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.
Dear God, are you serious?
I'd happily give my spleen to see a sensible, balanced debate about the issue of OVERTAKING cyclists on PH. You'd think, being a site for performance car enthusiasts, there'd be an overwhelming majority of contributors also enthusiastic about applying the highest of standards to their own driving.

But no. You only have to look at the retards currently arguing that the Roadcraft method for overtaking is wrong, and that all you need to do is to "buy more powerrrrrr!" to see that the lunatics have already taken over the asylum.

1. Give cyclists space. If you're unsure how much space is "enough space" then just imagine it's your 8-year-old daughter/niece/sister/cousin on the bike, think about how wobbly she might be, and how vulnerable, then take appropriate action.

2. Look ahead. Not AT the cyclist, but hundreds of yards beyond them. If there is a traffic light, roundabout, or queue ahead, consider holding back to PROTECT that cyclist. Cover his/her six. Whatever phrase you want to use. If you KNOW they'll be shooting up beside the queue along that short length of bike lane at the junction to the advanced stop line, what possible purpose will your overtake achieve. Just the same as passing another car at a risky spot to end up alongside it in a queue at the next lights, if you know, or suspect this to be likely, why bother.

3. PLAN your OVERTAKE properly, just as you would plan to overtake a car (assumption, I know given the "I've got 450bhp on tap so don't need to plan anything" brigade prevalent on PH. This includes observation, positioning and most importantly of all SIGNALLING that you are overtaking. Because you may well have seen the cyclist, and have time to decide to overtake. But the driver behind sees less of the cyclist later, and that "invisibility" from following drivers is compounded the further back in the following traffic a driver is. Avoid late observation of cyclists by leaving larger gaps in traffic if you're not the lead driver too. But know that if you signal, you indicate to following drivers that there is some additional road hazard to be driven round.

4. Always plan to cross the centre line when passing a cyclist. There are, admittedly, some roads with lanes where they're wide enough to pass quite safely indeed without needing to cross the centre line. But they are few and far between. In the main, you will NEED to cross the centre line to mitigate against the risk that the cyclist you are passing may veer from their course or worse, come tumbling off their bicycle. Whether that's their own fault, or via some external influence, you'll still be investigated and possibly charged with causing their injury or death, and from a purely selfish perspective, you just don't need the bother of a court case in your life, even if at the end of it you get found not guilty.

5. If none of the above works, dig out your old bike, buy one, or borrow one. Then go for a ride to get a feel for what it's like to ride in traffic. Now armed with that knowledge, imagine the cyclist you're passing is YOU, and have a little empathy when you're driving near them. That's all it really takes, a little of the milk of human kindness given freely from one to another. So much bile and vitriol is generated on PH by contributors bemoaning the fact that other people exhibit undesirable, uncivilised behaviour. And yet we have thread after thread of cyclist-bashing, and morons describing their own deluded, moronic behaviour around other human beings.


Ultimately it doesn't matter to me, as a cyclist, if you pass at exactly 1.5 metres, or more, or even less. It's all relative really. If I'm riding down the dual carriageway A31 Bentley Bypass, the ideally I'd like you at least 3 metres away, fully in lane 2, after having seen me in good time and signalled right to warn following traffic. I don't make a habit of cycling on 70 mph dual carriageways, but there's a journey I occasionally need to do where there genuinely is no other option than an hour's detour up a series of massive hills. If we're sharing roads in town at barely more than walking pace, then I'm cool with you being quite close to me. After all, if I wobble and fall off in that situation, I fall ONTO your car rather than under it's wheels as I might if you were 1.5 metres away. Each situation judged by it's own merits. It's not as if South Wales Police have arbitrarily invented an offence of "less than 1.5 metres from a bicycle". They're not issuing points/fines for offences. What they are doing is observing driver behaviour, and then challenging behaviour they feel is inappropriate, before giving advice. Far better for a police officer to give that advice than for a driver/cyclist road rage incident to blow up when an individual cyclist challenges an errant driver's behaviour. It's relatively quick, and a relatively efficient way of passing advice on, and if it makes a difference for the better, then PHers ought to be pleased that those same police officers cannot be out pointing hand-held radar guns at "innocent motorist wot is only drivin' to the conditions, innit, bruvv".
Be assured I always pass a cyclist using the other carriageway, where possible, I like to do my bit to retain the gap.