Passing Cyclists in UK with a car Genuine help question

[deema]

I’m a little unsure of the law with regard to passing cyclists. I’ve tried to read up about it and I’m more confused than ever. So the highway code states that if passing a cyclist to leave 1.5m if travelling at under 30mph and more if at higher speeds. However, what do you do in the following circumstances?

1. Cyclist cycling on the footpath next to the road. Do I leave the safe distance?
2. Cyclist cycling in a designated cycle lane. I see that police are sometimes prosecuting and others say it’s a separate lane so you don’t have to leave the designated distance. What’s the law?
3. Cyclist in the middle of the road / multiple cyclists taking up the entire lane, to overtake on the entire opposite side of the road does not leave the designated distance, but on coming traffic equally won’t provide the designated distance.
4. Like 3, two lane road, with white road markings where overtaking by fully being on the opposite side of the road won’t leave the designated space, however, cars travelling in the opposite direction equally won’t leave the designated space.
5. Cyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling in opposite direction, distance between car and cycle less than designated space, do I stop?

 

[Jacob]

I’m a little unsure of the law with regard to passing cyclists. I’ve tried to read up about it and I’m more confused than ever. So the highway code states that if passing a cyclist to leave 1.5m if travelling at under 30mph and more if at higher speeds. However, what do you do in the following circumstances?

1. Cyclist cycling on the footpath next to the road. Do I leave the safe distance?

Yes obviously. Some people don't get this and come too close. This is a good reason for advising people to cycle on the road instead and take up more space more assertively.

2. Cyclist cycling in a designated cycle lane. I see that police are sometimes prosecuting and others say it’s a separate lane so you don’t have to leave the designated distance. What’s the law?

Leave a safe distance obviously.

3. Cyclist in the middle of the road / multiple cyclists taking up the entire lane, to overtake on the entire opposite side of the road does not leave the designated distance, but on coming traffic equally won’t provide the designated distance.

Wait until there is room

4. Like 3, two lane road, with white road markings where overtaking by fully being on the opposite side of the road won’t leave the designated space, however, cars travelling in the opposite direction equally won’t leave the designated space.

Ditto

5. Cyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling in opposite direction, distance between car and cycle less than designated space, do I stop?

Yes.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/motoring/warning-drivers-highway-code-minimum-22848383

 

[deema]

@Jacob, I’m looking for an understanding of the law, rather than feelings and what people think should be the case. Thanks for your input.

 

[Jacob]

@Jacob, I’m looking for an understanding of the law, rather than feelings and what people think should be the case. Thanks for your input.

The law says 1.5m. This is advisory - you should as distinct from you must.
If you were in an accident your distance might have to be considered in any of those cases.

 

[Phill05]

Deema, I think you are asking in the wrong place you will only get different opinions here you need to ask the people that make these laws.

The worst I have seen here in Derbyshire was a group of 12 or more cyclists riding in a block 3 side by side and a tailback of 10 lorries and more cars following no one could overtake safely so creates more and more frustration why can't the law makers see this?

 

[Jacob]

Deema, I think you are asking in the wrong place you will only get different opinions here you need to ask the people that make these laws.

The worst I have seen here in Derbyshire was a group of 12 or more cyclists riding in a block 3 side by side and a tailback of 10 lorries and more cars following no one could overtake safely so creates more and more frustration why can't the law makers see this?

3 side by side isn't mentioned but would count as careless if an accident was involved. Very unlikely anyway, not something you ever see. 2 side by side is OK if there is room.
A group rather than a strung out line is generally safer because overtaking is constrained to one manoeuvre when safe to do so, rather than a series.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I assume if you have to leave 1.5m between your car and a cyclist on the pavement for safety reasons, you should drive 1.5m from the pavement if there's a pedestrian on it, also for safety reasons?

 

[Jacob]

I assume if you have to leave 1.5m between your car and a cyclist on the pavement for safety reasons, you should drive 1.5m from the pavement if there's a pedestrian on it, also for safety reasons?

There's no "have to" about it, the rule is advisory. You have to use common sense. If in doubt of your judgement then leave 1.5m or more! Obvious really.

 

[Hornbeam]

I think that Jacob has nailed it. While the law/highway code may state certain things you as a driver have to interpret those in the current situation
On that basis

1. Cyclist cycling on the footpath next to the road. Do I leave the safe distance?

The cyclist is not technically on the road but you still have a duty of care towards them and a safe interpretation would be a minimum gap of 1.5m

2. Cyclist cycling in a designated cycle lane. I see that police are sometimes prosecuting and others say it’s a separate lane so you don’t have to leave the designated distance. What’s the law?

This would again depend upon the nature of teh cycle lane but assuming it is just a lane marked at the side of the road with white paint then you still have a duty of care towards them and a safe interpretation would be a minimum gap of 1.5m. This is really no different to overtaking a car on a dual carriageway. If you were overtaking a car which was right out but just in lane 1 you would not overtake as close as possible in lane 2 on the basis that you your duty of carewere still in your lane

. Cyclist in the middle of the road / multiple cyclists taking up the entire lane, to overtake on the entire opposite side of the road does not leave the designated distance, but on coming traffic equally won’t provide the designated distance.

While the Highway code states that cyclists should not ride more than 2 abreast, 2 wrongs do not make a right. There are many arguments for/against riding 2 abreast. The key point again is your duty of care. If there isnt enough space wait

4. Like 3, two lane road, with white road markings where overtaking by fully being on the opposite side of the road won’t leave the designated space, however, cars travelling in the opposite direction equally won’t leave the designated space.

A little bit more tricky but if the road isnt wide enough and you cannot give the required space. Wait

5. Cyclist travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling in opposite direction, distance between car and cycle less than designated space, do I stop?

Slow down and if necessary stop

As a regular cyclist and car driver for 40 years, I know that there are a lot of cyclists that can be a PITA but in any collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist, it is always teh cyclist who ends up worse off. I have lost several close friends.
I have been a cyclist for 40 plus years and have had too many close incidents myself. Put yourself in the cyclists position . A 2 tonne lump of metal at 30 plus miles an hour vs soft squidgy person
Ian

 

[aet1]

I assume if you have to leave 1.5m between your car and a cyclist on the pavement for safety reasons, you should drive 1.5m from the pavement if there's a pedestrian on it, also for safety reasons?

Is there an assumption that pedestrians walk in a straight line and cyclists wobble about, or that cyclists fall off regularly?

 

[Jacob]

Is there an assumption that pedestrians walk in a straight line and cyclists wobble about, or that cyclists fall off regularly?

Cyclists have to wobble. That's how they stay up - controlled swoops to one side and then the other. You can see it on bike trails on wet roads. The faster you go the nearer you get to a straight line.
Yes and cyclists may well fall off, much more likely than a pedestrian falling over.

 

[Rewound]

Here is what a barrister has to say on the matter

as usual it is all very inconsistent.

And I (as an obsessive cyclist averaging over a 125 mile per week for about the last 7 years) hate these dedicated cycle lanes, if you want a horrible close pass, cycle in one. drivers give you far more room where these silly little lanes don't exist.

 

[Jameshow]

Is there an assumption that pedestrians walk in a straight line and cyclists wobble about, or that cyclists fall off regularly?

No the opposite, cyclists cannot move side to side, stop pick something up have a dog/ toddler on a lead.

Common sense should prevail so as not to get to close.

 

[Jacob]

Here is what a barrister has to say on the matter

as usual it is all very inconsistent.

And I (as an obsessive cyclist averaging over a 125 mile per week for about the last 7 years) hate these dedicated cycle lanes, if you want a horrible close pass, cycle in one. drivers give you far more room where these silly little lanes don't exist.

Similarly with narrow pavements. Some drivers think they own the road right up to the kerb and can be only inches away from pedestrians on the pavement. It's like that in our village and there's a strong as argument for a 20 limit or lower, where there are narrow or non existent pavements. 30mph is fast when something is passing inches away from your elbow.

 

[Rewound]

Similarly with narrow pavements. Some drivers think they own the road right up to the kerb and can be only inches away from pedestrians on the pavement. It's like that in our village and there's a strong as argument for a 20 limit or lower, where there are narrow or non existent pavements. 30mph is fast when something is passing inches away from your elbow.

This is a pet peeve of mine, when I'm driving if there is someone on a narrow pavement I may well move out to give them more space or slow down, or indeed both. And particularly so if that person is a young child or looks a little unpredictable in some way. But so many times I will see other drivers just whizz past with out any apparent care or thought - presumably if that child was to run out, they would just start shouting, I was in my rights!

I think pedestrians are treated worse than cyclist, presumably motorists area little more feared of the legal implications surrounding cyclists? Sadly there are a lot of unthinking morons driving

 

[Sideways]

The entire legal question misses the point.

Nothing substitutes for common sense and being reasonable.

Ever stood on the hard shoulder of a motorway or the inner lane of a dual carriageway during a breakdown and felt the wind blast from vehicles driving by at 70mph ? It's strong enough to knock you over had you been on a pushbike. At those speeds, allowing a cyclist just some legal 1.5m clearance is plain d*mn dangerous and I'd argue there was a strong case for a dangerous driving prosecution.

Wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic and overtake (at least substantially) on the opposite side of the road just like you would another car or a horse ....
You are in a warm, comfortable tin box. Waiting even a couple of minutes for a safe gap won't discomfort you or materially affect your journey time.
Pedestrians, horses, cyclists, even traction engines were all here before they invented the car....
Even at sea "steam gives way to sail" - pedestrians, bikes, etc SHOULD have priority and due consideration.
And vehicle road tax by no means pays for the cost of the road network and associated pollution and road deaths, etc so any argument that car drivers should have some higher right because they pay for it and cyclists don't is fatuous.

Yes, some cyclists are a pain in the proverbial, but it's an unfair fight between a car and a bike. Let it go.

Rant over.

(and I'm not even a regular cyclist...)

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sadly there are a lot of unthinking morons driving

You could have stopped at morons.

 

[Jacob]

....

Yes, some cyclists are a pain in the proverbial, ...

No more than any other road user.
@Phill05 says he's seen "....a group of 12 or more cyclists riding in a block 3 side by side and a tailback of 10 lorries and more cars following no one could overtake safely..."
Assuming he is not "exaggerating" I must say this looks very improbable. I've been cycling for 70 years, driving for 60 and have never seen anything like that. Very rarely you might get 3 abreast briefly on a quiet and clear country lane. Maybe there was a special event going on?

​

 

[ajs]

I haven't read the code recently but yes my understanding was that the distance was advisory, others have pointed out circumstances alter what should be given. As a cyclist I'm typically happy with 2-3 ft for cars on typical urban roads. High sided vehicles, e.g. vans, lorries, buses or even large SUVs need more - in general I'd say anything taller than the cyclist can see over. Partly because they're more intimidating, also they do have more wake around them which is more apparent than you might expect on what is an intrinsically unstable vehicle.

A lot of the "edge" conditions you enumerate are not really but proceed from a false premise, there is some kind of expectation or "right" to overtake a cyclist. You don't. If it isn't safe, you can't leave enough space or whatever, you cannot overtake but must stay behind.

As for riding in the middle of a lane - I do that at times for the express reason I don't want you to overtake. I can think of two junctions I always do it. One is a T junction where I'm taking a left immediately followed by a right, plonking myself in the centre prevents anything coming alongside before I cross the lane. The other is defensive riding against inconsiderate drivers - it's a crossroads where straight on is covered by Evel Knievels. Drivers tend to mentally filter those as "no entry" and can be taken by surprise if you go straight on. If I allow the driver alongside and they are turning right, it's a non issue, but I can't risk the possibility you are turning left and will try to overtake me as I go straight on.

 

[Lons]

No more than any other road user.
@Phill05 says he's seen "....a group of 12 or more cyclists riding in a block 3 side by side and a tailback of 10 lorries and more cars following no one could overtake safely..."
Assuming he is not "exaggerating" I must say this looks very improbable. I've been cycling for 70 years, driving for 60 and have never seen anything like that. Very rarely you might get 3 abreast briefly on a quiet and clear country lane. Maybe there was a special event going on?

​

Well I definitely encountered that and in your part of the world no less in 2021. I was in no hurry as on holiday but still frustrating.
I agree plenty of moron drivers but also a fair number of moron riders.