cd365
Guru
- Location
- Coventry, uk
I actually witnessed this recently, happened to the cyclist about 50m ahead of me, I was gobsmacked
Council's safety advice puts cyclists at risk
- Thread starter glasgowcyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
sgl5gjr
Senior Member
- Location
- Huntingdon
Glasgow sound like Cambridgeshire County Council on Cycling...the only caveat being CCC favour the inner part of Cambridge City as their now over crowded cycleway experiment showcase and ignore any county village or town beyond the city boundary.
A local cyclist got an email ( after some correspondence regarding the seemingly dangerous narrowing of a road just to squeeze 3 more homes in a new development) from a Highways engineer which interpreted said they are happy to force cyclists to be on the road and are being used as "traffic calming" in towns..... the local police chief when challenged on that ....would not confirm or deny there was indeed a policy for this in place ........... FOI request has been sent and a county councillor has been lobbied to investigate this...... along with why many cycleways are "shared" spaces,are not joined up and why you cannot ride from some housing areas to the town centre on cycleways without also using the roads
All we want is more funding across the county for better and joined up cycleways,rather than than the crumbs of funding that are left after Cambridge has had it's fill for window dressing cycle schemes....... don't get me started on the shared space cheapo cycleways.........
A local cyclist got an email ( after some correspondence regarding the seemingly dangerous narrowing of a road just to squeeze 3 more homes in a new development) from a Highways engineer which interpreted said they are happy to force cyclists to be on the road and are being used as "traffic calming" in towns..... the local police chief when challenged on that ....would not confirm or deny there was indeed a policy for this in place ........... FOI request has been sent and a county councillor has been lobbied to investigate this...... along with why many cycleways are "shared" spaces,are not joined up and why you cannot ride from some housing areas to the town centre on cycleways without also using the roads
All we want is more funding across the county for better and joined up cycleways,rather than than the crumbs of funding that are left after Cambridge has had it's fill for window dressing cycle schemes....... don't get me started on the shared space cheapo cycleways.........
Piemaster
Guru
- Location
- UK City of Culture
Council highway engineers...this stretch of the A1174 has a couple of traffic islands that as far as I can see only serve to use cyclists as traffic calming, they've even helpfully put up signs reminding drivers not to pass cyclists AT the traffic islands. And this RB now has a cyclelane painted all the way around its periphery. The NE-SW road is a 40mph limit apart from the few yards entering into it. And there is another similar one I've come across too (can't remember where at moment). Totally moronic.
I certainly wouldn't want a lorry passing me at only an arms length away!
Some drivers seem to think just because they didn't hit the cyclist it is fine to pass close, but I find it bloody scary at times. One wobble and I'm into the kerb or under the next car, andiI ride on 60mph roads.
Hit the kerb once due to a close pass by a lorry, and it was pretty painful
Some drivers seem to think just because they didn't hit the cyclist it is fine to pass close, but I find it bloody scary at times. One wobble and I'm into the kerb or under the next car, andiI ride on 60mph roads.
Hit the kerb once due to a close pass by a lorry, and it was pretty painful
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
A couple of weeks ago I went to the north coast of Mallorca. There were a lot of cyclists on the very steep, narrow and winding roads. There were roadsigns indicating that motorists should give them 1.5 metres when passing.
Tanis8472
Guru
It seems they have changed the question to "Slow down and if possible give the cyclist as much room as you would a car"
Better but still not right IMO. Should not have "if possible"
Better but still not right IMO. Should not have "if possible"
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Some bus and lorry drivers that have passed me probably wouldn't give a car an arms length either. There has been a poster campaign up here (can't remember by whom) that has a child with both arms outstretched and the statement 'please give me this much room'.
I hit a cars wing mirror the other day as they tried to squeeze between me and a trafic island. If they'd come further forward I believe their mirror would have hit my bars. Bit of a brown trouser moment.
jarlrmai
Veteran
The car thing is copied from the highway code clearly and yes the "if possible" bit needs to be removed.
The problem is the highway code recommendation in text form only is unclear, the photo clarifies but is it the words that matter?
"You should...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215)."
So is this pass the cyclist as close as you would another car (most people pass other cars closely in cars,)
or
Instead of the cyclist imagine a car and overtake accordingly (as the photo suggests)
In my opionion the law needs to be changed to a must and the distance needs to be clarified as it stands there is effectively no specific rule that prohibits close passes.
212 says
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Again "plenty" is subjective and no "must" this is an advisory not a rule.
213 says
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Again "plenty" is subjective and no "must" this is an advisory not a rule.
The problem is the highway code recommendation in text form only is unclear, the photo clarifies but is it the words that matter?
"You should...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215)."
So is this pass the cyclist as close as you would another car (most people pass other cars closely in cars,)
or
Instead of the cyclist imagine a car and overtake accordingly (as the photo suggests)
In my opionion the law needs to be changed to a must and the distance needs to be clarified as it stands there is effectively no specific rule that prohibits close passes.
212 says
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Again "plenty" is subjective and no "must" this is an advisory not a rule.
213 says
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Again "plenty" is subjective and no "must" this is an advisory not a rule.
marknotgeorge
Hol den Vorschlaghammer!
- Location
- Derby.
I think people read 'give as much space as you would a car' as the distance between vehicles, and not be in the same place on the road that you would be if passing a car. It does need re-wording to be a specified minimum distance between car and bicycle, I think.
jarlrmai
Veteran
People can read what they want which is why its doubly useless, it's not a "must" which means it can be ignored and the wording is unclear which would add leverage to a defense "my client was unsure as to the meaning"
Even changing should to must an adding a distance still has problems, how do you prove that a car was within a certain distance? Even with a camera or using road markings
If the willingness was there, the i'm sure police etc could use dangerous or careless driving laws to cover off close overtakes, with the current highway code taken as supporting material.
As it stands unless you get hit, drivers can pretty much pass as closely and quickly as they want with impunity.
Even changing should to must an adding a distance still has problems, how do you prove that a car was within a certain distance? Even with a camera or using road markings
If the willingness was there, the i'm sure police etc could use dangerous or careless driving laws to cover off close overtakes, with the current highway code taken as supporting material.
As it stands unless you get hit, drivers can pretty much pass as closely and quickly as they want with impunity.
soulful dog
Veteran
- Location
- Glasgow
Cycling Scotland. And every time I see those posters I think, please give me more room than that, especially if I'm the same age as the kid on the poster!
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/our-projects/give-me-cycle-space
400bhp
Guru
In my mind both the picture and the wording imply giving the same width of pass (body to body) as you would with a vehicle.
NOT, car + space.
jarlrmai
Veteran
Yes but it's still open to interpretation, if you are cyclist you'll interpret it one way a driver might interpret it in a different way.
I have literally heard people say when shown the rule that it means "pass as closely I would a car and that the photo indicates that that specific driver would give a car the same gap, but I don't have to."
It's still a "should" so it might as well say you should engage your Knight Rider style turbo boost and fly over the cyclist.
I have literally heard people say when shown the rule that it means "pass as closely I would a car and that the photo indicates that that specific driver would give a car the same gap, but I don't have to."
It's still a "should" so it might as well say you should engage your Knight Rider style turbo boost and fly over the cyclist.
