Passing Cyclists in UK with a car Genuine help question

[Lons]

Vehicles travelling in the opposite direction will never stop. Scenario, country A roads, favourite haunts for cyclists all over the UK, riding 2 or more abreast, often in groups and therefore fairly close to the white line given the distances they need between each other and the kerb, HGVs, buses, tractors, caravans etc. taking up most of the oncoming lane is the reality, they ain't going to stop and if the cyclists are concerned then they should ride single file or be the ones to stop.

There's not a hope in **** of me stopping though of course as always I would stay as near the kerb as is safe, stay well within the speed limits and observe what they're doing very carefully. Neither is there a hope in **** of me handing in my licence and I strongly suspect there will be very few drivers ever prosecuted for continuing their journey in the face of cyclists travelling in the opposite direction.

Responsible cyclists of which there are as many are not an issue, the others can be and MOTs for cycles and compulsory 3rd party insurance should be law

 

[Jacob]

..... I don’t actually understand what is required? ...

Can't be bothered to read anymore of this stuff.
What is required is that you drive safely. If you don't understand it it's time to hand in your licence.

 

[deema]

Can't be bothered to read anymore of this stuff.
What is required is that you drive safely. If you don't understand it it's time to hand in your licence.

I assume you will be ahead of me in the queue handing in your licence?
I was an engineer, so words and specifications have meaning, you have to specify clearly, succinctly and without ambiguity if you want others to follow your intentions.

 

[Blackswanwood]

As I read it the Highway Code says that you should leave 1.5 metres when overtaking so this deals with passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction. It’s not the law but as it’s in the Highway Code as a “should” I need to be able to justify it as being safe if I choose to do something different.

As far as passing a cyclist travelling in the opposite direction is concerned there is no specific guidance that I can see. I need to determine what is a safe distance by being alert and taking account of the individual circumstances. Clearly passing at 30mph and leaving a 1cm gap would be dangerous and I’d expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving. I’m not sure we need a specific recommended gap for this scenario.

Am I missing something?

 

[Jacob]

I assume you will be ahead of me in the queue handing in your licence?
I was an engineer, so words and specifications have meaning, you have to specify clearly, succinctly and without ambiguity if you want others to follow your intentions.

........and that allows you to drive within 1cm of an oncoming cyclist? Tell that to the magistrate!
There are hundreds of possible scenarios where there is an assumption that common sense and judgement should come into play and that there is no need to explain them. For instance there is no rule about what to do if somebody is "sitting in the middle of the road" or a thousand other stupid things. Do you feel that you would need guidance on this or would you just run over them because there's nothing in the book?

 

[Blackswanwood]

Can't be bothered to read anymore of this stuff.
What is required is that you drive safely. If you don't understand it it's time to hand in your licence.

I see you lasted 28 minutes of not being bothered

 

[deema]

As I read it the Highway Code says that you should leave 1.5 metres when overtaking so this deals with passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction. It’s not the law but as it’s in the Highway Code as a “should” I need to be able to justify it as being safe if I choose to do something different.

As far as passing a cyclist travelling in the opposite direction is concerned there is no specific guidance that I can see. I need to determine what is a safe distance by being alert and taking account of the individual circumstances. Clearly passing at 30mph and leaving a 1cm gap would be dangerous and I’d expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving. I’m not sure we need a specific recommended gap for this scenario.

Am I missing something?

It might just be me! If cyclists should be given 1.5m passing distance, to me, what does it matter in what direction the vehicle is travelling that passes? If it is on coming, the actual passing speed relatively will be higher by twice the cyclists speed as opposed to vehicles travelling in the same direction. If we take bikes ride at say 15 miles an hour, thats 30mph speed increase WRT the bike for on coming traffic.

 

[Jacob]

It might just be me! If cyclists should be given 1.5m passing distance, to me, what does it matter in what direction the vehicle is travelling that passes? If it is on coming, the actual passing speed relatively will be higher by twice the cyclists speed as opposed to vehicles travelling in the same direction. If we take bikes ride at say 15 miles an hour, thats 30mph speed increase WRT the bike for on coming traffic.

Good, you seem to be getting the idea at last! It's called "thinking for yourself".

 

[deema]

........and that allows you to drive within 1cm of an oncoming cyclist? Tell that to the magistrate!
There are hundreds of possible scenarios where there is an assumption that common sense and judgement should come into play and that there is no need to explain them. For instance there is no rule about what to do if somebody is "sitting in the middle of the road" or a thousand other stupid things. Do you feel that you would need guidance on this or would you just run over them because there's nothing in the book?

That’s the point, magistrates will look to the highway code to determine how culpable a vehicle driver is. If 1cm isn’t acceptable what is? And we go back to the highway code which suggests 1,5m.

 

[deema]

Good, you seem to be getting the idea at last! It's called "thinking for yourself".

That means that if a cyclists cycles in the middle of a road, lorry’s and large vehicles should stop when seeing a bike coming in the opposite direction as they can’t physically give enough space to the bike. For bikes riding two abreast, all on coming cars must stop as they also can’t leave enough space and cars can’t overtake. Thats not what I see happening on the roads, and hence the dissidence of understanding, something I’d advocate we all share.

 

[Jacob]

That’s the point, magistrates will look to the highway code to determine how culpable a vehicle driver is.

Not if it's not in the book.
There is no "Rule 1,000,001 Do not run over people sitting in the middle of the road." etc etc

 

[Blackswanwood]

It might just be me! If cyclists should be given 1.5m passing distance, to me, what does it matter in what direction the vehicle is travelling that passes? If it is on coming, the actual passing speed relatively will be higher by twice the cyclists speed as opposed to vehicles travelling in the same direction. If we take bikes ride at say 15 miles an hour, thats 30mph speed increase WRT the bike for on coming traffic.

Isn’t it fair to say though that when overtaking the cyclist doesn’t see the car until it’s actually passing them. When the two are travelling in the opposite direction and pass there is no surprise.

 

[Jacob]

Isn’t it fair to say though that when overtaking the cyclist doesn’t see the car until it’s actually passing them. When the two are travelling in the opposite direction and pass there is no surprise.

Don't encourage him!

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Let's see. Eleven pages, mostly stupid back and forth crapola.

Cyclists? Simple. Give them room. I can't see what's so hard about that.

Yes, I cycle, and I drive. I cycle a few miles for fun when I get chance. I'm no MAMIL, I'm more of an OMIB (Old Man in Baggies), and I just pedal along, helmetless and innocuously. There are stupid ar seholess to be found in cars (and other vehicles) and on bikes.

The levels of idiocy I'm seeing in this thread match the levels of idiocy and self righteousness I see on the road as both a driver and a cyclist.

I think you all need to get a grip of yourselves and put your willies back in your pants, and stop waving them about for all to snigger at. Slainte.

 

[TRITON]

The levels of idiocy I'm seeing in this thread match the levels of idiocy and self righteousness I see on the road as both a driver and a cyclist.

See to be honest. I've yet to se this arrogance you speak of amongst cyclists. Al I ever hear of it is from the anti-cycling brigade. Its almost like they are transferring their own hate onto cyclists as an excuse.

This is too nice a forum, with liberal attitudes that really prevent some users calling out other users for their silliness.

To those who think they have a point to make on cycling, please pop over to STW- Single Track World(A popular bike forum) and post your thoughts, but beware, over there they play rough, and chances are you'll be laughed out the place.
But they arent a bunch of knuckle draggers, so if your argument has merit, it will be treated as such.

 

[Lons]

Isn’t it fair to say though that when overtaking the cyclist doesn’t see the car until it’s actually passing them. When the two are travelling in the opposite direction and pass there is no surprise.

Then perhaps it's also time that all cycles had to be fitted with mirrors.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

See to be honest. I've yet to se this arrogance you speak of amongst cyclists.

Don't fool yourself. There are more than enough of inconsiderate and self important tw ats on bicycles. I've had groups of them, all MAMILed up try to intimidate me and my gentle pedalling on my lowly old not racer, not mountain bike, Raleigh.

Then there are the blind, idiotic car (or any other vehicle you care to think of) drivers that think that the slight blur on the side of the road (either side) and that they can't really see couldn't possibly be a fragile body on some slender bits of metal and rubber. Slainte.

 

[stuart little]

A bit off topic, but, IMO you can’t pick and choose what laws you want to comply with. The answer for a cyclist who doesn’t feel the road is safe to ride on is to get off, and walk with the bike on the footpath legally. A few more minutes getting to their destination shouldn’t be a concern and they need to have more patience. Risking injury to people walking on the footpath due to a cyclists haste and impatience to get somewhere isn’t reasonable or fair. You can’t for instance always determine what physical or mental challenges a footpath user might have, you can’t anticipate what they might do, or how to pass them safely on a bike.

Stick yer walking stick in their front wheel!

 

[stuart little]

and the same couldn't be said for cyclists???

At least I can stand up & say; "I'm neither

 

[Rewound]

It might just be me! If cyclists should be given 1.5m passing distance, to me, what does it matter in what direction the vehicle is travelling that passes? If it is on coming, the actual passing speed relatively will be higher by twice the cyclists speed as opposed to vehicles travelling in the same direction. If we take bikes ride at say 15 miles an hour, thats 30mph speed increase WRT the bike for on coming traffic.

You can see stuff coming in the opposite direction and avoid when nesisary. Folk overtaking, it is far less obvious what they might do. Esp so when riding into a strong wind and can't pick up the tell tale sounds of what the drivers attitude/style is.

That is why the highway code focuses on "Overtaking"

As for getting caught in the middle of the road when wishing to turn right (mentioned earlier in the thread) I guess this could be argued as 'undertaking'? But whatever, it is a scary situation to find yourself in. In such circumstances, if I deem the road to be busy and possibilities of having to wait in that precarious position, I may just stop on the left then walk the bike over.