Passing cyclists

It has always been inadvisable to pass too closely to a cyclist for safety reasons but you could now be fined if you come within a certain distance while overtaking. Following law changes in March, motorists could be fined for not leaving enough space between a vehicle and a bike. Failure to do so could land you with a £100 fine and three points on your licence. Police forces across the country are being encouraged to penalise those who drive dangerously close to cyclists. The Highway Code states drivers should leave at least 1.5m (4.9ft), which is roughly a car door width.

When I watch Videos of car/bike confruntations it is often, but not always, the case that the cyclist in question is being a complete pratt, almost to the poiunt of deliberately contributing to the video by harrassing motorists to get a reaction when they have probaly just made a simple mistake before being accosted by an irrate biker. I could also argue the case where some old biker like myself collects the fallout from this when these harrassed motorists find a softer target on which to vent their anger..

Yes its dangerous out there.

Yes as car drivers we need to be more aware.

But, as bicycle riders we also need to think more about other road users. (present company excepted)

The problem is that no one respects the basic rules any more. I am witness to constant dangerous high speed driving, especialy in sensitive 30 km/h areas, stop signs not respected, indicators apparently optional, cars parked on bike paths and footpaths...

 

Politicians can write all the laws they wish but if they are not enforced on a day to day basis they are worthless. France and the rest of the EU has a similar 1.5 metre rule but the only place I have seen it respected is in Spain.

Passing cyclists

It has always been inadvisable to pass too closely to a cyclist for safety reasons but you could now be fined if you come within a certain distance while overtaking. Following law changes in March, motorists could be fined for not leaving enough space between a vehicle and a bike. Failure to do so could land you with a £100 fine and three points on your licence. Police forces across the country are being encouraged to penalise those who drive dangerously close to cyclists. The Highway Code states drivers should leave at least 1.5m (4.9ft), which is roughly a car door width.

 

This is part of a two year government program to cut accidents. The measures include encouraging local authorities to spend 15% of their roads budget on measures for cyclist and pedestrian safety to encourage more of those.

 

Targets are to have 20 mph limits in residential areas and clamping down on pavement and other inconsiderate parking.

 

Can't see it having much success though, both police and councils are short of cash and resources. For example:

 

In my very large London borough we now have the 20 limit in all but the through main roads, but the police have officially announced they are not going to enforce it. What's happened in practice is that drivers who used to do 40 have slowed to 30, but the nutters carry on as before at any speed. The police themselves routinely drive the 20 limits at 30 to 35, known since I've followed two routine patrols doing that.

 

And we have no parking enforcement at all. Even if the parking department is sent clear photos, number plate showing, of a car with all four wheels fully on the pavement and blocking the only exit from a building, there's still no action.

.

When I watch Videos of car/bike confruntations it is often, but not always, the case that the cyclist in question is being a complete pratt, almost to the poiunt of deliberately contributing to the video by harrassing motorists to get a reaction when they have probaly just made a simple mistake before being accosted by an irrate biker. I could also argue the case where some old biker like myself collects the fallout from this when these harrassed motorists find a softer target on which to vent their anger..

Yes its dangerous out there.

Yes as car drivers we need to be more aware.

But, as bicycle riders we also need to think more about other road users. (present company excepted)

 

Great post, all very true.

.

This is part of a two year government program to cut accidents. The measures include encouraging local authorities to spend 15% of their roads budget on measures for cyclist and pedestrian safety to encourage more of those.

 

Targets are to have 20 mph limits in residential areas and clamping down on pavement and other inconsiderate parking.

 

Can't see it having much success though, both police and councils are short of cash and resources. For example:

 

In my very large London borough we now have the 20 limit in all but the through main roads, but the police have officially announced they are not going to enforce it. What's happened in practice is that drivers who used to do 40 have slowed to 30, but the nutters carry on as before at any speed. The police themselves routinely drive the 20 limits at 30 to 35, known since I've followed two routine patrols doing that.

 

And we have no parking enforcement at all. Even if the parking department is sent clear photos, number plate showing, of a car with all four wheels fully on the pavement and blocking the only exit from a building, there's still no action.

.

The big thing about pavement parking is that developers in trying to maximise their profit in squashing as many dwellings as they can don't leave enough room for street parking, and with many household having two or more cars the present situation is inevitable..

The big thing about pavement parking is that developers in trying to maximise their profit in squashing as many dwellings as they can don't leave enough room for street parking, and with many household having two or more cars the present situation is inevitable..

 

True, but like so much in our modern life there are complexities,

 

I live on a 3000 home estate designed in the early 1960s and built between 1965 and 1974. Almost every home has a garage in a separate block, just a few exceptions have a car port. Trouble is, cars in the 1950s and early 1960s were much smaller, so the garages only cope with relatively small cars. Today's cars and 4 x 4s are often far too wide, even with mirrors folded, and sometimes too long.

 

Add on those using their garage for storage and those to lazy to walk to them and there's only around 10% at most used for parking cars, all the rest cluttering the streets.

.

and they still make garages that are the same size now. There's a new estate near me where a lot of residents park a long way onto the pavement even though the road is plenty wide enough to actually park on it without causing an issue, a generation growing up having never walked anywhere perhaps?

Was discussing generations last night with family at the pub....apparently there are the boomers (me) and there are also millennials and snowflakes which I have heard of and now I am told about generation z.

and they still make garages that are the same size now. There's a new estate near me where a lot of residents park a long way onto the pavement even though the road is plenty wide enough to actually park on it without causing an issue, a generation growing up having never walked anywhere perhaps?

It's strange how people park with 2 wheels on the path even when it's not necessary..

Was discussing generations last night with family at the pub....apparently there are the boomers (me) and there are also millennials and snowflakes which I have heard of and now I am told about generation z.

 

Don't know what generation name I am, from the mid 1930s.

 

Just history I suppose!

.

Don't know what generation name I am, from the mid 1930s.

 

Just history I suppose!

.

I think the term your searching for is old bstd. My lot refer to me as grumpy grandad

Failure to do so could land you with a £100 fine and three points on your licence. Police forces across the country are being encouraged to penalise those who drive dangerously close to cyclists. The Highway Code states drivers should leave at least 1.5m (4.9ft), which is roughly a car door width.

 

Only might happen if the rare visible plod happens to be in the vicinity otherwise won't happen, unless video footage is taken as evidence. The only time footage evidence is used is when they ask for any in accident cases.

Worst places I find is when approaching lights or junctions , for some time now I've been taking prime position at these places and do so for some 30 - 40m approaching them ensuring I don't get squeezed .

I agree with what Nealh says.

 

I must admit that even as a careful driver very aware of cyclists that I have once or twice misjudged at junctions and squeezed a cyclist more than I should have done. Quite correct cross words from my non-driver cyclist son who was a passenger one time; I don't know if the cyclist said anything. I don't think I was close enough for it to be dangerous; but I wouldn't have pinched (in fact, couldn't have done so) had the cyclist taken prime position a little earlier.

THE DEPARTMENT for Transport has unveiled plans to spend £500,000 training driving instructors to incorporate cycling safety into their lessons for learners.

It follows a clampdown on motorists who drive too close to cyclists.

I only take the prime if it is safe to do so with plenty of time/space for those behind to react in safe manner.

It's only the ar*eh*les/dimwit's you have to worry about who either don't care or don't give a damn and it is those the law need to catch and fine. They are the one's who try to intimidate or undercut any how then realise right at the last minute they can't pass.

I agree with anotherkiwi totally here.

 

Law and order does not come from writing laws down or putting signs up. There has to be an acceptance that the law is valid, a reasonable chance of being caught if you break it and a penalty which you would like to avoid.

 

Little of the above now applies to many motor vehicle drivers and some cyclists too.

 

As soon as any reasonable effort is suggested to enforce the road traffic laws, elements of the press and road lobby cry about "A War on the Motorist".

 

Well I am still waiting for this war on the motorist to begin.

 

As a daily e bike user, I often think, it really is a war on everyone who is not a motorist.

 

Generally speaking you can speed, use a mobile phone, text, drive carelessly and dangerously, harass cyclists, forget insurance etc and etc. Most of the time you will not be caught.

 

Even driving bans are virtually unenforceable. Only a prison cell can really stop a banned driver from driving.

 

As Einstein said "Madness is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result"

As Einstein said "Madness is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result"

 

He never actually said that by the way.

 

The real answer is to properly segregate cyclists from road traffic. As they do in Denmark and Holland. Living in Manchester, I am still appalled that they couldn't be bothered to spend the extra cash to run cycle paths alongside their much vaunted tram network. An opportunity missed if ever there was one.

 

If there is a wide and empty pavement handy, that is also a good practical option in some areas.

 

The alternative is what we were taught in cycling profiency in the 70's. Don't squeeze yourself down the side of traffic in secondary position and ride in the gutter if that makes you feel in any way unsafe.

 

Take primary position and pretend to be a car. Don't feel that you have to be a second class road user.

As a daily e bike user, I often think, it really is a war on everyone who is not a motorist.

 

Very true, particularly for pedestrians as well as cyclists.

 

Motor vehicle drivers are bullies, all others are the bullied.

 

And it's difficult for drivers to opt out of that role, since the roads and rules are constructed in this way. Only this afternoon when driving I saw something I hate seeing, two pedestrians waiting to cross a main road with long traffic streams in both directions, moving quite fast and giving them no chance to cross. It was clear they'd been waiting a long time and I would have liked to stop for them and would have been happy to do so. But I couldn't, firstly due to the traffic in the other direction and secondly I'd probably get an annoyed reaction from the person behind. And I'd also be guilty of obstruction, showing how even the law is balanced against all not driving.

 

If motor vehicles were being invented right now but with the knowledge we already have, I'm sure we'd have handled their introduction much better. And drivers lives would not have been as pleasant as they currently are, playing second fiddle rather than the top dog they are now.

,

Only might happen if the rare visible plod happens to be in the vicinity otherwise won't happen, unless video footage is taken as evidence. The only time footage evidence is used is when they ask for any in accident cases.

Even video is not good enough - I use the A2, which in parts is very narrow, goes up blind hump backed hills with solid white lines. When cycling I am in the nearside wheel-rut (which is kept clear of debris) but means that if a vehicle wants to over take they have to cross the central solid white line.

The highway code says

Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

I recorded vehicles overtaking me & passed them onto Kent Police. I was advised that unless the Police actually saw the overtake they were not interested. If my video showed the overtaking vehicle causing oncoming traffic problems then they would like to receive it. My thought on taking the videos was that the drivers were putting me in danger, as if they met oncoming traffic they would rather hit me that have a head on collision. I was hoping that the Police would warn the drivers & road safety would be improved, but now I know different.

 

So now we have a new definition of close overtaking that again is impossible to enforce, as even if you had a range finder that showed the lateral distance the Police would not be able to accept it, because it is not a Police calibrated & maintained & operated system.

 

My thought is to simply say if overtaking you must be the other side of the central white lines. This could be recorded by video & is simple enough for motorists to follow.

why ride a slow ass ebike on the road ur not a motorbike pmsl and slower than a normal bike with a fit rider so get ur ass on the pavement.

why ride a slow ass ebike on the road ur not a motorbike pmsl and slower than a normal bike with a fit rider so get ur ass on the pavement.

why do you think I am riding slowly!

why do you think I am riding slowly!

 

errr you send vids to plod pmsl

errr you send vids to plod pmsl

No - I sent video to Police because I was going faster than 10mph, hence the vehicles overtaking were breaking the law.

Even when I was using a 250w rear hub going up a 10% hill I exceeded 10mph.

When cars see a cycle the majority want to overtake asap, even when its not safe to do so.

I got the bike cam initially to record close passing but realised it would be impossible to prove. So I then recorded illegal overtaking on a white line, thinking the video is proof, but the law is unenforced; so as usual it comes back on vulnerable road users to drive defensively. So I will ride in the road & be considered as another vehicle & not make myself a target by skulking in the gutter & so leaving a huge inviting gap for vehicles to pass too close.