Motorists face prosecution for driving too close to cyclists

[cd365]

http://news.sky.com/story/motorists-face-prosecution-for-driving-too-close-to-cyclists-10579708

About time

 

[steve50]

Thread started here, https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/close-passing-prosecutions.207258/

 

[Deleted member 35268]

Great news.

On a related subject can I please ask.

What is a safe distance for a cyclist to overtake a single line of stationery traffic.
What is a safe way in which to overtake a single line of stationery traffic

I have some bad habits like:
- Riding just inside the white line (left side), with cars coming from the opposite direction

I have some good habits like:
- Stopping behind stationery cars if there is oncoming traffic
- Never riding on the path

I wan't to be a safe and legal commuter.

 

[cd365]

Thread started here, https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/close-passing-prosecutions.207258/

I'd done a search but couldn't find it, so thanks.

 

[Deleted member 35268]

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There's a problem with that setup; it suggests that cyclists belong close to the gutter rather than taking the lane. Would have been better if they'd omitted any reference to distance from the kerb as this can vary a lot.

GC

 

[Dogtrousers]

There's a problem with that setup; it suggests that cyclists belong close to the gutter rather than taking the lane. Would have been better if they'd omitted any reference to distance from the kerb as this can vary a lot.

GC

Indeed. What is that 0.75m doing there? Does it suggest that cyclists should never ride less than 0.75m from the kerb. Or more than 0.75m? Or exactly 0.75m?

 

[ColinJ]

There's a problem with that setup; it suggests that cyclists belong close to the gutter rather than taking the lane. Would have been better if they'd omitted any reference to distance from the kerb as this can vary a lot.

GC

Ah, but you are thinking like a cyclist ... I think the intention is to tell drivers that it is ok to ride at least 75 cm from the kerb, when the driver probably thinks 10 cm is more like it!

But, yes - I agree with you.

1.5 metres would be lovely, wouldn't it ... round here, 1.5 FEET is sometimes considered enough!

I had someone in a 4x4 give me only about 6 INCHES clearance head-on last night on a singletrack lane round Scammonden reservoir next to the M62.

There was no passing place so I stopped and got as far over to the left as I could, expecting the driver to do the right thing and slow down to pass me. BIG MISTAKE ... he clearly saw that as an invitation to drive by at full speed! Next time, I will stop in the middle of the road and make the driver stop so I can walk the bike past the car!

 

[johnnyb47]

Just been watching Midlands Today and they had a story on this..The police have got an undercover police officer who cycles around filming unsuspecting motorist's. I was quite surprised to see his positioning in the road though. He was virtually riding in the centre of his side of the road which I personally thought was a little extreme. I usually try and keep around two feet from the edge.

 

[boydj]

Sounds like the policeman is riding in the position recommended by bikeability training, which many drivers consider to be too far out. It does mean the driver should is less likely to squeeze through and should be crossing fully into the other lane.

 

[bianchi1]

On the BBC report it says this at the end:

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) road safety manager Nick Lloyd said: "Ideally cyclists would not need to mingle with traffic on the roads, and a lot is being invested in road infrastructure to make this a reality."

Its a bit of a strange and worrying position to hold. Cycle paths have their place, but I like the freedom to cycle around the countryside and hills on whatever road I want. Im not mingling with traffic....I am traffic.

 

[winjim]

Is that the full scale educational floor mat?

 

[gavroche]

Just been watching Midlands Today and they had a story on this..The police have got an undercover police officer who cycles around filming unsuspecting motorist's. I was quite surprised to see his positioning in the road though. He was virtually riding in the centre of his side of the road which I personally thought was a little extreme. I usually try and keep around two feet from the edge.

By doing so, he also makes sure the motorist can't fail to see me. I do it too as I want to be seen. Being rear ended is not a pleasant experience. It happened to me a few years ago and I was stationary then!

 

[Ajax Bay]

he also makes sure the motorist can't fail to see him

As we have discussed ad nauseam, primary position does not make sure that the following motorist sees you, but it improves the chances (probably no evidence to back this assertion up).

I was quite surprised to see his positioning in the road though. He was virtually riding in the centre of his side of the road which I personally thought was a little extreme. I usually try and keep around two feet from the edge.

If you think there's chance that a car will come past and then feel the need (because of 'unanticipated' oncoming traffic) to squeeze in / cut in on you, then get out into the middle of the lane. On the assumption that the motorist 'sees' you, this means that to pass they HAVE to cross fully into the other lane, and that increases the chances that they will think about the pass with more consideration for the consequences for THEM (being hit by a car 'unexpectedly' coming the other way). I deliberately adopt the primary position (for example) in an urban setting as I approach a traffic island tightening and in rural when going round a left hand bend.