give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a

[Yorkshireman]

"uk.rec.cycling" and "decide" are basically incompatible concepts. Too many trolls and too many people only there to argue the toss

Indeed. A bit like Politics and Life on here ... (but with no holds barred)). Selective use of ones 'bozo bin' reduces a lot of the background noise though .

 

[meenaghman]

Its a culture thing. I remember my driving instructor basically saying it needs to be 6ft min as he said an average person is 6ft tall so therefore if they fell over thats how far they'll be in the lane. Toured the Alps in 2007..only 2 cars cut me up.. both GB reg. The French may overtake you on what you might consider a dangerous bend but they'll be on the other side of the road doing it. I heard it was a min. of 2Metres clearance for cyclists in France. I'm not sure if its written somewhere in their traffic laws.

 

[Over The Hill]

You cannot stipulate a set distance as the safe distance changes with the circumstances. How can you leave 2m on a 2.5m wide country lane?

The present rule is OK and to me seems quite clear. The problem is that many motorists do not stick to that rule. So changing the rule will not really make any difference.

The issue and distances would be quite different in say a busy town situation, a fast "A" road or a rural lane. So treating each the same would not work.

 

[meenaghman]

>>You cannot stipulate a set distance as the safe distance changes with the circumstances. How can you leave 2m on a 2.5m wide country lane? >>

So under the wording of the current rule how would they overtake a car on a 2.5M road ?

One would hope that on country lanes the car is going slower, and the cyclist waves them on.. at least thats what I do or I'll get in close to the edge.

 

[marinyork]

I disagree with not being able to stipulate a set distance and it not working. The Highway Code already sets out conditions in which it is illegal to overtake a cyclist (or other slow moving traffic) in terms of physical characteristics. If there isn't the space, you don't overtake. There just isn't a very good keeping to these rules (and in some case Laws) either.

 

[Arch]

I think the wording could be clearer too. Does it mean 'as much room as if they were a car parked at the side of the road' or 'as much space as a car driving along' (which to most people means getting on the other side of the road) or 'give them the width of a small car between them and you' (which would be fine) - all of which I think could be implied. Assuming they even know of the rule, it seems many think it's the first, and that the small car in question is an old style mini, possibly one made specially thinner.

To get round the issue of narrow roads, you could word it "give x metres, or as much as possible on narrower roads".

Still assumes anyone reads the Highway Code and remembers/cares about it for more than a minute after passing their test though.

 

[Over The Hill]

>>You cannot stipulate a set distance as the safe distance changes with the circumstances. How can you leave 2m on a 2.5m wide country lane? >>

So under the wording of the current rule how would they overtake a car on a 2.5M road ?

One would hope that on country lanes the car is going slower, and the cyclist waves them on.. at least thats what I do or I'll get in close to the edge.

Exactly! So by agreement between the two drivers the passing distance is much less. If the cyclist is not happy he will not let the car by. So a set distance is useless.

In some circumstances 2m is too close and in others 30cm is OK.

Which is really what the present wording is getting at.