glennkilshaw10
Member
Once again the UK government simply muddy the waters by changing the highway code in the name of " safety"
The change to the highway code is a guidance which can be referred to in the event of a criminal prosecution, so the police are highly unlikely to prosecute because you only left 1.2m to overtake but in the event of a serious accident if the investigation found you were not the advised distance away it would strengthen their case against you.
Let's face it anyone twisting their ankle and stumbling on the poorly repaired pavements could easily stumble 2m + their height..their head could be under the wheels...
Another example of legislation attempting to remove common sense from the average citizen. I drive a lorry and ride a bicycle, many cyclists annoy me, many lorry drivers annoy me as they lose sight of basic safety common sense and focus on whether they " were in the right or not "
Surely as human beings our first and foremost thought should be " what's the worst that could happen ? " and the most obvious answer to that is the soft squishy thing on the bike could come into contact with the big, fast moving heavy metal object and in this eventuality its of little comfort to anyone who was right or wrong ! I'd hope that living with the knowledge you'd killed someone is a bigger deterrent than 6 points on a license?
So personally...I reduce the risk of being a squishy thing by distancing myself from traffic, if that means slowing down and riding on empty pavements (stopping if pedestrians appear) that is what I'll do as assuming the big metal objects driver has seen me, knows the law or even cares whether he hits me or not is an express ticket to a+e or worse.
That doesn't mean I expect all bike riders to do the same, it's impractical for the lycra brigade but I admit I often question the thought process of a group cycling over woodhead in poor visibility relying on the fact the highway code says that the 42tonnes of metal has to give sufficient passing distance...
Sadly there's an element of the public too reliant on protection from harm by rules and regulations, there's also an element of the public that absolutely couldn't care less about rules and regulations...this fact alone should wake the 1st group up!! Reliance on a rule or law being upheld when there's nobody out there to police it could be seen as borderline lunacy...but I'm veering off on a tangent.
In response to the original post my personal advice would be how much room would you like any driver to afford the cyclist if it was your nearest and dearest??...forget the rule, the law...replace it with common sense...what's the worst that could happen?
The change to the highway code is a guidance which can be referred to in the event of a criminal prosecution, so the police are highly unlikely to prosecute because you only left 1.2m to overtake but in the event of a serious accident if the investigation found you were not the advised distance away it would strengthen their case against you.
Let's face it anyone twisting their ankle and stumbling on the poorly repaired pavements could easily stumble 2m + their height..their head could be under the wheels...
Another example of legislation attempting to remove common sense from the average citizen. I drive a lorry and ride a bicycle, many cyclists annoy me, many lorry drivers annoy me as they lose sight of basic safety common sense and focus on whether they " were in the right or not "
Surely as human beings our first and foremost thought should be " what's the worst that could happen ? " and the most obvious answer to that is the soft squishy thing on the bike could come into contact with the big, fast moving heavy metal object and in this eventuality its of little comfort to anyone who was right or wrong ! I'd hope that living with the knowledge you'd killed someone is a bigger deterrent than 6 points on a license?
So personally...I reduce the risk of being a squishy thing by distancing myself from traffic, if that means slowing down and riding on empty pavements (stopping if pedestrians appear) that is what I'll do as assuming the big metal objects driver has seen me, knows the law or even cares whether he hits me or not is an express ticket to a+e or worse.
That doesn't mean I expect all bike riders to do the same, it's impractical for the lycra brigade but I admit I often question the thought process of a group cycling over woodhead in poor visibility relying on the fact the highway code says that the 42tonnes of metal has to give sufficient passing distance...
Sadly there's an element of the public too reliant on protection from harm by rules and regulations, there's also an element of the public that absolutely couldn't care less about rules and regulations...this fact alone should wake the 1st group up!! Reliance on a rule or law being upheld when there's nobody out there to police it could be seen as borderline lunacy...but I'm veering off on a tangent.
In response to the original post my personal advice would be how much room would you like any driver to afford the cyclist if it was your nearest and dearest??...forget the rule, the law...replace it with common sense...what's the worst that could happen?