Morrison's has cyclists' safety as a priority

[deptfordmarmoset]

In that case, an argument could be put forward that every single overtake is unnecessary. Why not just wait?

Once we move on from that and accept that making progress when lawfully possible to do so is fine, then I would argue that it is necessary to use the hatched area to increase Matts safety.

On police driving courses you are taught to enter them when overtaking.

The wording of Rule 130 is this:

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

There's no problem with safe overtakes completed 10 yards down the road. And no necessity to overtake on a hatched off area for right-turning vehicles because it would have been completely acceptable 10 yards down the road. Anyhow, that's what the HC says and had the driver been taking the test, they'd have got a fail.

 

[CopperCyclist]

The wording of Rule 130 is this:



There's no problem with safe overtakes completed 10 yards down the road. And no necessity to overtake on a hatched off area for right-turning vehicles because it would have been completely acceptable 10 yards down the road. Anyhow, that's what the HC says and had the driver been taking the test, they'd have got a fail.

To be fair, I should point out I haven't bothered watching the video in this case! The word 'necessary' is the tricky one here. As the highway code isn't law, its one of those instances where it's just normally too easy to have a sound case on both sides of the argument (ignoring ofc the blatant unsafe cases!).

 

[Brandane]

Anyhow, that's what the HC says and had the driver been taking the test, they'd have got a fail.

Again this is down to interpretation of "unless it is necessary". You could see that further down the road there was oncoming traffic, and the road narrowed after the right turn lane, with parked cars on both sides. So if the lorry driver hadn't gone for the pass when he did, he would have been stuck there until whenever the next opportunity arose, which certainly wouldn't have been within range of what we could see on that clip.
I would say that far from failing the test by going for that overtake, you would fail for NOT overtaking. As per previous post, you would be failing to make reasonable progress.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Again this is down to interpretation of "unless it is necessary". You could see that further down the road there was oncoming traffic, and the road narrowed after the right turn lane, with parked cars on both sides. So if the lorry driver hadn't gone for the pass when he did, he would have been stuck their until whenever the next opportunity arose, which certainly wouldn't have been within range of what we could see on that clip.
I would say that far from failing the test by going for that overtake, you would fail for NOT overtaking. As per previous post, you would be failing to make reasonable progress.

But our Matthew was making reasonable progress!

 

[byegad]

Excellent overtake and hatched shaded areas may be used 'if safe to do so'. Ride a recumbent trike and overtakes like that are the norm.

 

[Matthew_T]

Again this is down to interpretation of "unless it is necessary". You could see that further down the road there was oncoming traffic, and the road narrowed after the right turn lane, with parked cars on both sides. So if the lorry driver hadn't gone for the pass when he did, he would have been stuck their until whenever the next opportunity arose, which certainly wouldn't have been within range of what we could see on that clip.
I would say that far from failing the test by going for that overtake, you would fail for NOT overtaking. As per previous post, you would be failing to make reasonable progress.

After the narrowing, there is a pinch point. After that would be the next safe opportunity to overtake. IMHO, I am happy that the lorry overtook when it did because I would have been very anxious about it being behind me when he could have overtaken.

 

[ianrauk]

At last, something positive from Matthew.
Nice one

 

[ianrauk]

on another note - when you making your next Cycling movie?

 

[GM]

To be fair, I should point out I haven't bothered watching the video in this case! The word 'necessary' is the tricky one here. As the highway code isn't law, its one of those instances where it's just normally too easy to have a sound case on both sides of the argument (ignoring ofc the blatant unsafe cases!).

Well I never knew that.

 

[mcshroom]

Also it says 'should' rather than 'must'. If it says must then there is a legal basis for that requirement. Should is just advice for best practice.

 

[Matthew_T]

on another note - when you making your next Cycling movie?

When the weather improves. I dont want to film myself in my winter kit.

 

[redcard]

When the weather improves. I dont want to film myself in my winter kit.

What's your winter kit?

 

[Matthew_T]

What's your winter kit?

Base layer of pants, top, and thick jacket. It would be better in warmer weather when the sun is shining and I am in my summer kit (same as first movie).

 

[Brandane]

Well I never knew that.

Be careful though; some of it IS backed up by law. Where it is, it will give the reference to the relevant legislation at the bottom of the paragraph. eg. rule 105....

105

You MUST obey signals given by police officers, traffic officers, traffic wardens (download ‘Signals by authorised persons’ (PDF, 123KB)) and signs used by school crossing patrols.
Laws RTRA sect 28, RTA 1988 sect 35, TMA 2004 sect 6, & FTWO art 3

Other things like failing to use your indicators (and could also cover close passes), whilst not a specific offence, could be considered to be driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, which is a contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 3.

 

[Matthew_T]

I have just received the following email:

Matthew,

Your recent email to our customer services team has been passed onto me in my role as Head of Transport. We are currently in the process of identifying the driver from the registration, time and date details you have provided so we can pass on your positive feedback.

Thank you so much for taking the time to contact us. It is rare that somebody would take the trouble to comment on the positive and safe measures one of our drivers would make during their daily routine.

It is a very welcome email and I will ensure the driver receives this feedback directly.

Thanks again.

Regards
Ross

Ross Eggleton
Head of National Transport

Its nice to know that they are looking to identify the driver personally to pass on the feedback. Good work Morrison's.