Passing Cyclists in UK with a car Genuine help question

[Agent_zed]

No it does not follow.

you literally said 'Even if it's a team of clowns on unicycles, juggling as they go' and 'whoever they are, whatever they are doing, whether legal or not.' Which is quite clearly saying you think cyclists should be able to do whatever they want regardless of the safety of it for themselves or other road users. Or have you forgotten that already?

All your arguments apply equally to all road users. Why single out cyclists?

in this instance I was responding specifically to a statement about cyclists. If you read my previous post a few posts above I clearly state 'From my point of view (and as mentioned by many others in this thread) everyone needs to be a bit more considerate'.

 

[Jacob]

.....Which is quite clearly saying you think cyclists should be able to do whatever they want regardless of the safety of it for themselves or other road users.

Nonsense I don't say that at all. If you want to read it that way I can't help you!
I must say though - in nearly 60 years of driving all over Britain, and Europe occasionally, I've never ever had a problem with cyclists. Perhaps a few minutes delay here and there but that's about it. Nothing to get steamed up about.
The ones I do worry about are those who are too timid and hug the kerb. Maybe kids or beginners. This is an open invitation to novice drivers - or our angry brigade , to overtake when there may not be enough space. A wobble takes the cyclist into the kerb and followed by a bigger wobble back out into the road. Or kids on pavements, close to wall on one side and kerb on the other. Drivers need to swing out and give them space and not just belt past as though they are not there.
Cyclists need to assert their road space and not be intimidated by nutters behind them. The Highway Code says so too.
Have been shouted at in France once or twice, usually along the lines of "Vive les vacances à vélo!" You wouldn't get anything like that from a typical miserable angry Brit!

 

[paulrbarnard]

in this instance I was responding specifically to a statement about cyclists. If you read my previous post a few posts above I clearly state 'From my point of view (and as mentioned by many others in this thread) everyone needs to be a bit more considerate'.

Would have been good to make that clear. Not everyone has the ability to remember specifically what someone said in a different post.

Jacob is on my ignor list so I done see anything he has posted.

 

[Agent_zed]

If you want to read it that way I can't help you!

'whoever they are, whatever they are doing, whether legal or not.'

Not sure how to read the above in any other way. What you said literally covers every possible thing someone might want to do. I enjoy a good debate but when you disown your own words it becomes nonsense.

 

[Agent_zed]

Would have been good to make that clear. Not everyone has the ability to remember specifically what someone said in a different post.

Jacob is on my ignor list so I done see anything he has posted.

I guess after 160+ posts in the thread things get a bit lost, including the point of the OP (I accept my part in deviating from the initial point).

coming close to joining you on the second point...

 

[Jacob]

'whoever they are, whatever they are doing, whether legal or not.'

Not sure how to read the above in any other way. What you said literally covers every possible thing someone might want to do. I enjoy a good debate but when you disown your own words it becomes nonsense.

I disown your interpretation.
You should read it as "concentrate on your driving and not whether or not the cyclists are doing the right thing". Think of it like passing a herd of sheep - they are probably cr apping all over the road, but just ignore it! At least cyclists don't do that. Well not very often.

 

[Daniel2]

The antagonism generated is even worse for women cyclists, who get lots of abuse.

Actually, I'm quite happy to sit behind, and follow, certain female cyclists

 

[deema]

I think the most interesting fact is that from a cross section of people there is no consensus of what the new rules actually mean and exactly how they should be interpreted.

 

[Jacob]

I think the most interesting fact is that from a cross section of people there is no consensus of what the new rules actually mean and exactly how they should be interpreted.

Seem pretty clear to me and an improvement on the previous lot. There's loads on line cycling and the new highway code rules - Google Search

 

[paulrbarnard]

I think the most interesting fact is that from a cross section of people there is no consensus of what the new rules actually mean and exactly how they should be interpreted.

I disagree. The rule is very clear. The problem is people not wanting to accept it and then looking for reasons why they shouldn’t follow the rules.

 

[deema]

@paulrbarnard Id be really interested in your view on the five questions I set out in the original opening post, if it’s so clear, I’d appreciated your perspective. So far, the closest I have is the view that ‘only overtake when safe to do so’ is the coverall. However, without it seems case law, the ’view’ is just that, and doesn’t actually define what you must actually do as a respectful law abiding driver in each of the five instances.
Ive searched the WEB and also looked on cycling forums, there does not appear to be any clear perspective to the five questions I’ve asked. I’m genuinely trying to ensure I understand how to interpret the guidance. We will all be judged by it should something terrible happen, I for one would like to try and mitigate its likelihood by knowing how I should drive within the guidance.

 

[paulrbarnard]

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?

As requested
1. Cyclist should not be on the pavement. Treat them identical as you would a pedestrian. And that iprobably needs to be better than most people do today. People are soft and un predictable so slow down and leave space if possible.
2. There is a significant issue with cycle paths being created too narrow so you should leave 1.5 meters gap when passing. In essence exactly the same as you would treat a pedestrian on a pavement. See 1.
3. 1.5 meters minimum or else do not pass. Similar comment to narrow cycle lanes.
4. 1.5 meters or completely over the white line. Also see comment on narrow cycle lanes in 2
5. Simply don’t be a bully. 1.5m or pull over. It is not so widely known but the person going up hill, if it applies, has right of way. It is simply good manners to apply that rigorously for cyclists going up hill.

 

[Daniel2]

@paulrbarnard Id be really interested in your view on the five questions I set out in the original opening post, if it’s so clear, I’d appreciated your perspective. So far, the closest I have is the view that ‘only overtake when safe to do so’ is the coverall. However, without it seems case law, the ’view’ is just that, and doesn’t actually define what you must actually do as a respectful law abiding driver in each of the five instances.
Ive searched the WEB and also looked on cycling forums, there does not appear to be any clear perspective to the five questions I’ve asked. I’m genuinely trying to ensure I understand how to interpret the guidance. We will all be judged by it should something terrible happen, I for one would like to try and mitigate its likelihood by knowing how I should drive within the guidance.

@deema , with all possible respect, the guidance that you're asking for is nothing more than
excercising common sense. How on earth can remote beaurocratic bodies guide you through
the process of passing some cyclists when they are not actually present in that particular
situation ?
It's a little like asking for precise instuctions for brushing your teeth, or going to the toilet.
Some things in life you just need to do on your own, like a grown up. You simply cannot
have precise instructions for every aspect of life. You need to use your own judgement.

 

[deema]

@paulrbarnard
Interesting, thank you. May I highlight the inconsistency in your answers.
1. Cyclist do use footpaths, thats no excuse for hitting them with a car. There is no guidance for passing pedestrians in the Highway code, but there is for cyclists. Vehicle drivers cannot treat them the same.
2. That seems sensible. We just need the police and the local authorities to either change the cycle lane width or remove them and apply the rules consistently.
3 You’ve missed the point, on coming traffic won’t be leaving 1,5m, should they stop if they can’t pass leaving the advisory distance, or can you overtake cyclists leaving less than the 1,5m? The rules have to be consistent. Either it’s 1,5m for all cars or it’s not.
4 Your response is not consistent to your response to 3.
5.Your response is now contrary to 4. You’re now advocating oncoming traffic MUST stop if they can’t leave the 1,5m for a cyclist.

In summary, the guidance is not simple to interpret. Your responses are inconsistent, and contradict each other.

 

[deema]

@deema , with all possible respect, the guidance that you're asking for is nothing more than
excercising common sense. How on earth can remote beaurocratic bodies guide you through
the process of passing some cyclists when they are not actually present in that particular
situation ?
It's a little like asking for precise instuctions for brushing your teeth, or going to the toilet.
Some things in life you just need to do on your own, like a grown up. You simply cannot
have precise instructions for every aspect of life. You need to use your own judgement.

Rules have to be clear and easily comprehensible, that’s the role of the civil servants that create them. A poorly defined rule or guidance won’t be followed if you can’t easily interpret it. Suggesting common sense should prevail is only relevant where it’s clear that the average person would be able to interpret what is intended. In this case, it’s not.
The rules around say changing lanes or what to do a traffic lights is clear and unambiguous as examples of well written rules.

 

[paulrbarnard]

@paulrbarnard
Interesting, thank you. May I highlight the inconsistency in your answers.
1. Cyclist do use footpaths, thats no excuse for hitting them with a car. There is no guidance for passing pedestrians in the Highway code, but there is for cyclists. Vehicle drivers cannot treat them the same.
2. That seems sensible. We just need the police and the local authorities to either change the cycle lane width or remove them and apply the rules consistently.
3 You’ve missed the point, on coming traffic won’t be leaving 1,5m, should they stop if they can’t pass leaving the advisory distance, or can you overtake cyclists leaving less than the 1,5m? The rules have to be consistent. Either it’s 1,5m for all cars or it’s not.
4 Your response is not consistent to your response to 3.
5.Your response is now contrary to 4. You’re now advocating oncoming traffic MUST stop if they can’t leave the 1,5m for a cyclist.

In summary, the guidance is not simple to interpret. Your responses are inconsistent, and contradict each other.

Inevitable…. You are, despite all your protestations, only here to troll. Either that or you simply do not have the capacity to be trusted to navigate 1.5 tons of potential weapon along a road.

Congratulations you are person four on my very exclusive ignore list.

 

[deema]

Inevitable…. You are, despite all your protestations, only here to troll. Either that or you simply do not have the capacity to be trusted to navigate 1.5 tons of potential weapon along a road.

Congratulations you are person four on my very exclusive ignore list.

Wow, what a way to respond when your inconsistency is highlighted!

 

[Jacob]

Wow, what a way to respond when your inconsistency is highlighted!

Go and have some driving lessons Deema. It's never too late. Explain your problems to them.

 

[Rewound]

I don't see the problem in interpenetrating the new rules;

Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds

there is no mention of lanes, or paths, so clearly, even if the cyclist is in a separate lane or on a path, or even on the other side of a barrier, then the 1.5m still applies.
There is also no mention that the cyclist should be actually riding or for that matter have a bicycle with them, So if you are driving and see a pedestrian walking in the same direction, leave them 1.5m as you overtake them (they may very well be a cyclist even if not riding that day)

It is also clear that these rules apply to overtaking, CLUE; you are not overtaking a cyclist travelling in the opposite direction!
definition of Overtake is "to catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction."

Rule No163 could not be clearer.

 

[TRITON]

1. Cyclist should not be on the pavement

- Im not trolling you Paul - Im just confirming what the law says about this.

Oh yes we can, and i do REGULARLY. in fact its the safest place given drivers kill five people every single day.

But yes indeedy, cyclists can legally cycle on the pavement area.
I have cycled numerous times past beat policemen both on foot and passing in their cars. At no time have I been stopped and challenged that I was breaking the law.
Why do you think that is ?.
If the law is broken or infringed upon, it is the legal duty for the police to challenge that person, and they do.

Many people claim to know the laws. When clearly they do not.

A could of weeks ago, i rode to the supermarket, and on that journey it involved crossing at a toucan crossing. I waited, along with another cyclist, and a couple of pedestrians.

Crossing light came on and we all dutifully crossed.
As I got to the other side, the leading car that had stopped and was close to the kerb rolled down his window to challenge me for crossing there, telling me in a loud and confident manner that I was not allowed to cross on this type of crossing.
I politely told him not only was I allowed to do it, but there was a bicycle symbol, next to the pedestrian symbol showing that bikes can use it.

But he vigorously shook his head and insisted I was in the wrong. I told him plainly that I allowed to use it, and this was confirmed int he highway code. He disagreed strongly, shaking his head telling me that the highway code said no such thing.
I KNOW the highway code concerning cycling, and do swot up on these things. its in section 25 under crossings if you are interested.

Now clearly he was uninformed, and was making a complete fool of himself claiming he knew the code, when the point is he didn't. I only wish i had a copy to hand. Maybe I should start carrying photocopies so i could patiently wait and watch his face drop as rapidly as his overblown ego.

But from experience, even showing proof to these people, they wouldn't believe it or more likely would ignore the facts, and believe wholeheartedly that it is their opinion on their interpretation of the rules than matter more than the rules themselves.

Now back to the cycling on the pavement thing.
If a cyclist believes strongly that his/her life is in danger on a road, they can legally cycle on the pavement, but must do so in a safe manner. So a little over walking speed, maybe 7 or 8mph, taking care and consideration of those around you.

Obviously someone riding quickly is not allowed. but with due care and attention there is no problem.
And thats really what it is all about - Due care and attention of other users.

Now when I have to cycle on the road, and most are 2 lane, with one lane taken up by parked cars, i must ride in the primary position, close to the white dividing line. The law and code tell me to do this because that is the safest position for me to ride in.
But I know at my some 15/16 mph that im going to get a build up of traffic behind me, so when i think it safe, or feel that the build up had gotten quite long, I will pull right in and bump up onto the pavement and allow that traffic to clear.
Im not doing that for the benefit of the drivers, who might need to get to their destination 15 seconds quicker, but I do so because in my 3 decades of being a road user I have witnessed countless, i repeat countless times impatient drivers have taken on dangerous maneuvers, which could put me at risk in order to gain those extra precious seconds off their journey.