Jeremy Vine.

[iandg]

No, I'm not saying that. That wouldn't be an overtake, so IIRC only a 1m gap is required by the Highway Code rules (and even that depends on interpretation I think), plus in practice both parties could see it coming and adjust position accordingly.

Cyclist saw the lorry passing and had plenty of room to adjust his position accordingly. He didn't start to raise his hand until half the lorry length had passed. He chose to do that instead of change his position.

 

[iandg]

Then I pray you don't drive!


You sort of are excusing the trucker.


You write as if you haven't been involved in many and I hope that continues for you.

I have and in those situations, I do often throw my hand up (actually, I usually sweep it out left to right first, and then up in the air, blessing the incompetent with a sign of the cross, because they need divine protection, as do all they meet). It's not remonstration or looking for confrontation, but more trying to wake the following drivers up into not slavishly following the offender and making another close pass. It's actually slightly better to do it before the vehicle has passed, while in the offenders' blind/low spot if possible, because then the offender doesn't usually see it and so a confrontation is less likely. I'm stable enough to take one hand off the bars and still have control (which is why I can signal turns) and by the point the vehicle is alongside, the immediate danger of collision has usually passed anyway.

Of course, when it's been a really bad close pass, I've not thrown my hand up because I've been too busy diving into the verge! Twice this year so far, same bit of road. I'm sure several people will be delighted to know that groups I'm in now generally ride two abreast through it, with the outer one near the white line, and it's reduced offending.

Yes, I do drive and regularly drive delivery vans (twice/week).

I'm a competent cyclist. I raced road and track into the mid 80s, cycle commuted all my working life (9 years across north of Birmingham using the Queslett/Newton Rd and Sandwell Valley crossing the Scott Arms at Great Barr twice a day).


Cycling since 1973 and been "knocked off" twice. Many more incidents where I've relied on skill/ability to avoid accident.

Far less incidents now that I'm old and relaxed compared to when I was young and aggressive. I've developed a more tolerant attitude to other road users with age and don't regard it as an us/them situation.

 

[DaveReading]

Paint on the road isn't sufficient to make it
a compulsory left, legally. Was there a round blue sign?

No.

 

[winjim]

I don't think passing in an adjacent lane constitutes an overtake, and my interpretation of the HC would suggest the same. To my mind an overtake is a manoeuvre involving pulling out, passing and then pulling back in again. My opinion is that this sort of overtake requires greater care and a wider passing distance than simply trundling along in one's own lane.

 

[mjr]

Cyclist saw the lorry passing and had plenty of room to adjust his position accordingly. He didn't start to raise his hand until half the lorry length had passed. He chose to do that instead of change his position.

You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.

Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.

 

[iandg]

You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.

Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.

He would have seen the lorry out of the corner of his eye as soon as it started to pass as did the cyclist behind him (a few seconds earlier in the video) who changed position to avoid incident. He would have seen it in peripheral vision a lot sooner than when 50% of the container had passed by.

 

[mjr]

I don't think passing in an adjacent lane constitutes an overtake, and my interpretation of the HC would suggest the same. To my mind an overtake is a manoeuvre involving pulling out, passing and then pulling back in again.

Well, firstly, unless there's traffic in the left lane to overtake, you're turning right or the left lane is somehow restricted, one should normally be in the left lane and not middle-lane-hogging.

Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.

My opinion is that this sort of overtake requires greater care and a wider passing distance than simply trundling along in one's own lane.

Fair enough, it's your opinion, but there's currently no such qualification in HC Rule 163.

 

[PK99]

Well, firstly, unless there's traffic in the left lane to overtake, you're turning right or the left lane is somehow restricted, one should normally be in the left lane and not middle-lane-hogging.

Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.


Fair enough, it's your opinion, but there's currently no such qualification in HC Rule 163.

Hwc 162 and 163 clearly envisage an overtaking manoeuvre as involving pulling out, passing and pulling back in. @winjim is correct

 

[T4tomo]

You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.

Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.

He was too busy being a cock and playing for the camera. The whole procession was a wobbly slow sideshow looking for an excuse to scream naughty motorist. Near the end of the clip he wobbles into the next lane.

All your arguments seem to be treating a a multi lane carriageway in the centre of London like a rural norfolk lane.

 

[winjim]

Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.

Because it describes a manoeuvre in which you pull back over to the left once you've passed. Hence an overtake by my definition.

However, I will say that the first sentence of rule 268 could be interpreted as contradicting my definition. It's almost as if the HC could do with some clarification.

 

[Jody]

No, I'm not saying that. That wouldn't be an overtake, so IIRC only a 1m gap is required by the Highway Code rules (and even that depends on interpretation I think), plus in practice both parties could see it coming and adjust position accordingly.

So back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap.

Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?

 

[icowden]

Go back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap.
Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?

It's also worth stating that the highway code actually doesn't matter in terms of assessing whether an offence was committed. The consideration is whethe the driving was careless:

Careless driving falls below the standard expected of a competent driver and includes driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

So, did the Waitrose Driver's driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver? If he is charged I suspect that the argument will be that the driver was aware of the cyclists and drove past them steadily, safely and as reasonably as he could, given the limitations of the road layout.

 

[Alex321]

An urban situation with slow moving traffic in segregated lanes. Yes, I would consider it a safe place to overtake.

Then I pray you don't drive!

By that logic, nobody can ever drive in towns/cities where multiple lanes are all going the same way.

Those lanes are designed so that it should be safe for traffic in each lane to travel forwards independently of traffic in the lanes either side of them.

Whether that traffic is trucks or bicycles, or anything in between is irrelevant.

Good practice when overtaking normally is to give at least 1.5m distance between you and whatever you are overtaking (regardless of whether it is a cyclist or another motorist). But that really doesn't apply when there are multiple lanes in low speed limit areas such as that. If it did, then no traffic could ever move faster than the slowest vehicle on that road.

I wouldn't actually even call it "overtaking" when it is that sort of urban situation with multiple lanes full of traffic moving at different speeds.

I really don't think the trucker did anything wrong there. He stayed entirely within his own lane, and was only passing the cyclists slowly. The cyclists weren't doing anything wrong either, as they were also entirely within their own lane.

But any "blame" for the gap being less than 1.5m rests equally on both IMO - but mainly on the road designers who made lanes so narrow that large vehicles CANNOT leave a 1.5m gap to the edge of their lane.

 

[mjr]

So, did the Waitrose Driver's driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver? If he is charged I suspect that the argument will be that the driver was aware of the cyclists and drove past them steadily, safely and as reasonably as he could, given the limitations of the road layout.

Which looks to be disproved by the previous lorry overtaking wider, having waited for a gap in the oncoming traffic where they could move further right and not brush the lane line. Waitrose driver should have waited if there was not room for a wide enough pass.

 

[mjr]

Because it describes a manoeuvre in which you pull back over to the left once you've passed. Hence an overtake by my definition.

Yes, and all the traffic in lane 2 in the video should pull back over to the left once they've finished passing things in the left lane. Hence they're overtaking by any definition.

It's almost as if the HC could do with some clarification.

The driving theory test certainly could. There seem to be far too many drivers about labouring under a misapprehension that passing other vehicles isn't overtaking if there's magic paint on the road.

So back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap.

Find it if you're so sure.

Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?

Same direction = overtake = 1.5m.