# 1.5 metres ?



## gavroche (9 Aug 2018)

I wonder how many motorists, coach and lorry drivers are actually aware of it ? On my ride this afternoon, on the A470 , I lost count of the number of cars and coaches passing me just 1 foot away. I know I am a OAP but I intend to live a few more years yet.


----------



## classic33 (9 Aug 2018)

From experience, very few.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Aug 2018)

gavroche said:


> I wonder how many motorists, coach and lorry drivers are actually aware of it ? On my ride this afternoon, on the A470 , I lost count of the number of cars and coaches passing me just 1 foot away. I know I am a OAP but I intend to live a few more years yet.


1.5 isn't the law. I don't even think it's in the highway code.

So, yeah, drivers don't know it. They also don't know the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow. Let's get it into law (or at least the highway code)

Edit: Does the Highway code use metres. If not, they should. If they already do, then let's be adults and get rid of miles.


----------



## guitarpete247 (9 Aug 2018)

I've had so many cars and trucks come at me on my side of the road. Most I reckon are Italians.


----------



## guitarpete247 (9 Aug 2018)

Usually round blind bends.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Aug 2018)

It would be a good thing to have in law. That drivers don't see it as common sense to leave that kind of gap when overtaking....


----------



## Crackle (9 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> then let's be adults and get rid of miles


What! Antipodean 5th columner alert.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Aug 2018)

Crackle said:


> What! Antipodean 5th columner alert.


I was weaned on miles. Despite that, it feels medieval.

(dodged a bullet, my year was the first that didn't learn miles. My teachers knew fark all about the metric system, so I learnt about hecta/hecti/centa/centi etc. Metric is way more complex than SI.


----------



## dantheman (9 Aug 2018)

It's not technically law but kind of technically is, there's guidance explaining it on some police websites and as I understand it that at least 3 counties police forces were said to be enforcing it with up to 3 points on licence and £100 fine.....???


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Aug 2018)

1.5 metres is written down nowhere, laws or the highway code.

The only way the police can be "enforcing" it is by classifying it as careless or dangerous driving.


----------



## Racing roadkill (9 Aug 2018)

It isn’t 1.5 meters, it’s 3 feet. That’s 0.914 meters.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Aug 2018)

It isn't any distance, at all, anywhere, there is no distance, a distance there is not, no distance, not a distance.


----------



## dantheman (9 Aug 2018)

Yes, they can classify it as that, camds/herts/beds police force are supposed to be enforcing g it under "operation velo" and their "guidelines" state that motorists should expect cyclists to beat leat 75cm from the roadside and should give 1.5m distance when overtaking at 30mph - more as needed at higher speed.


----------



## Racing roadkill (9 Aug 2018)

Rules 211 to 213 cover it. The 3 foot rule is only a recommendation as to the actual required gap at present.


----------



## Racing roadkill (9 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> It isn't any distance, at all, anywhere, there is no distance, a distance there is not, no distance, not a distance.


Are you sure you want to be posting on a cycling forum?


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Aug 2018)

the 75 cm is misleading it could be seen as 75cm at most however I see some forces have removed this from the posters, which is good of them. In my area however the cops ignoring the whole thing and are posting helpful things on Facebook using a very recent incident in which a cyclist was knocked off by a driver in a van to remind us all that we should be wearing helmets and then ignoring the literal death threats towards cyclists that were posted as comments by members of the public.


----------



## Racing roadkill (9 Aug 2018)

Here’s the picture from the section in the online Highway Code regarding overtaking a cyclist giving ‘plenty of room’


----------



## dantheman (9 Aug 2018)

I don't wear a helmet usually, but I obviously would if it was law, likely the motorists that insist we should would just be closer as we would be "protected" by the helmet, just like those anti collision devices in the back of cars, you know "baby on board" 

What I don't like is the ones that say we should wear Hi-viz and it should be in law no headphones.... So cars should be fluorescent and car radios should be illegal by the same standards..


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5343750, member: 9609"]my impression is the police are happy to use the 1.5m threshold as a safe distance,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37384899

so I reckon if you can show someone was within that distance then the police will be on your side - and that's half the battle won.

It would be good to have 1.5m as a definative law but I doubt that will happen any time soon,[/QUOTE]

You can't show that though can you? Or at least it will be arguable, that's the problem with a set distance, you can have a camera but the distance is arguable I mean there are guys out there with measures on camera overlays the police don't give a shoot, you get the "wrong" officer and by wrong I mean 99.9% percent of them and it's over.

Are we going to expect cyclists to carry calibrated laser measures to prove cars were close?

Look the law does not specify a distance, this would be a good thing if the police were aware of how dangerous a close pass was you wouldn't have to prove it was within a distance and thus dangerous, they could just look at the evidence and take action.

Adding a distance just gives them another reason to ignore it as you'll never be able to prove it was 1.5 and not 1.51 meters video or not.

You want an example?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJacIdZJdho


----------



## dantheman (9 Aug 2018)

Thing is, law wouldn't change it happening.. Last week crossing the road with my kids (12, 4 and 2) a range rover decided to cross when we were 1 foot out of the way (illegal even when lights are green until pets are completely across both lanes) and the signal was still red and "beeping g"


----------



## classic33 (9 Aug 2018)

If I can touch the vehicle its closer than three foot. Often happens, and I pulled a driving instructor up for passing closer than that.

It's at the learning stage it needs to be taught, not later on. Leaving less than that should count against you in the examination. Theory and practical.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Aug 2018)

1.5m law - wait till you get a video the cops somehow agree that it is 1.5m or less, somehow the CPS actually prosecute, somehow they manage to do it all with the time constraints without somehow losing the paper work and it magically ends up in court, I'm sure a lawyer will love pointing out there is no actual evidence that it was less than 1.5 meters, they'd need to bring in some sort of thing that meant the driver would have to prove it was over 1.5 meters.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

Going to throw slow moving traffic into the argument. Could drivers expect the same distance be given to them? Thus removing filtering by cyclists in slow or stationary traffic.

It'd make a mess off most painted "cycle lanes", if we'd to give them the same amount of room when passing/overtaking.


----------



## screenman (10 Aug 2018)

dantheman said:


> Thing is, law wouldn't change it happening.. Last week crossing the road with my kids (12, 4 and 2) a range rover decided to cross when we were 1 foot out of the way (illegal even when lights are green until pets are completely across both lanes) and the signal was still red and "beeping g"



A driver not a Range Rover.


----------



## screenman (10 Aug 2018)

dantheman said:


> Thing is, law wouldn't change it happening.. Last week crossing the road with my kids (12, 4 and 2) a range rover decided to cross when we were 1 foot out of the way (illegal even when lights are green until pets are completely across both lanes) and the signal was still red and "beeping g"



A driver not a Range Rover.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Going to throw slow moving traffic into the argument. Could drivers expect the same distance be given to them? Thus removing filtering by cyclists in slow or stationary traffic.
> 
> It'd make a mess off most painted "cycle lanes", if we'd to give them the same amount of room when passing/overtaking.


No. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing


----------



## welsh dragon (10 Aug 2018)

I don't really care what the official or unofficial distance is as long as drivers give me enough space without scaring the bejeesus out of me.

And there is nothing wrong with feet and inches. Each to his or her own.


----------



## BrumJim (10 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I was weaned on miles. Despite that, it feels medieval.
> 
> (dodged a bullet, my year was the first that didn't learn miles. My teachers knew fark all about the metric system, so I learnt about hecta/hecti/centa/centi etc. Metric is way more complex than SI.



Erm, SI is metric isn’t it?


----------



## nickyboy (10 Aug 2018)

I've no idea what distance most cars pass me. All I know is what feels "too close" to me. That's obviously subjective and everyone will be different

What I do know I that it is a tiny minority that pass, to me, "too close".

I've never added them up but I'd be unlucky if it's more than one or two on a decent length ride when I probably am passed by hundreds of cars


----------



## Alan O (10 Aug 2018)

nickyboy said:


> I've no idea what distance most cars pass me. All I know is what feels "too close" to me. That's obviously subjective and everyone will be different
> 
> What I do know I that it is a tiny minority that pass, to me, "too close".
> 
> I've never added them up but I'd be unlucky if it's more than one or two on a decent length ride when I probably am passed by hundreds of cars


Same here. I don't know if it's a regional thing, but I get very few passes that cause me any concern.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> No. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing


Yes it is, if a car cannot pass you within 3ft, 1.5M, then how can it be acceptable that cyclists are able to ride up the inside therefore making the car driver into a law breaker.


----------



## jarlrmai (10 Aug 2018)

Yup enshrined distances are a bad thing

1.5 meters by a Yaris at 20 mph no problem.
1.5 meters by an articulated lorry at 60 mph would probably feel a bit scary.
1.5 meters would be used by anti-cycling groups to try and make a point about filtering now being illegal.
1.5 meters is a great un-provable legal defense.

Close passes depends on your route and time of journey in my experience, my commute takes me through a small town one way system generally I'll get 1 a day generally people trying to get in front with oncoming traffic on roads with parked cars that are just wide enough that taking the lane doesn't matter and riding by the curb just makes it worse. I get both close passes from behind and drivers forcing me out of the way when there are parked cars on both sides yet i'm fully inside my lane and outside of the door zone.

It's also worth remembering that "hardened" cyclists get immune to passes that newbies would find scary thus we might think it less of a problem however it is a major factor limiting the growth of cycling.


----------



## Sixmile (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes it is, if a car cannot pass you within 3ft, 1.5M, then how can it be acceptable that cyclists are able to ride up the inside therefore making the car driver into a law breaker.



It's the risk or perceived risk though isn't it? A car passing a cyclist at 70mph within 3ft of the cyclists elbow is much different to a cyclist filtering at a snails pace inches off stationary wing mirrors surely.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

Sixmile said:


> It's the risk or perceived risk though isn't it? A car passing a cyclist at 70mph within 3ft of the cyclists elbow is much different to a cyclist filtering at a snails pace inches off stationary wing mirrors surely.


No, if the law is 1.5M then the law is 1.5M there can be no discussion on it, if you are on a cycle lane & passing the inside of a stationery/queuing car then one of you is breaking the law.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

It can be done, but it's going to require a bigger change in attitudes on all sides. One man in Ireland started it up here, and now it's worked it's way to the UK.

One of the big advantages of cycling in heavy stationary/slow moving traffic, is the ability to pass most of it. The freedom to do that shouldn't be taken away, nor should we be made use only off-road routes. But a fixed distance needs to be given.

I've said if a vehicle passes me, and I can touch it "it's too close". That's 30 inch at the furthest possible (Outstretched arm), I checked after posting.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

I'm all for it, but just don't see how it can work, I think driver education is the answer, because as everyone is saying 30" at 10mph is different to 30" at 60mph, also from a Fiat 500 & a 40 ton HGV.


----------



## Alan O (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I'm all for it, but just don't see how it can work, I think driver education is the answer, because as everyone is saying 30" at 10mph is different to 30" at 60mph, also from a Fiat 500 & a 40 ton HGV.


Yes, I've often wondered what's the safest distance for me to overtake a Fiat 500


----------



## Sixmile (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> No, if the law is 1.5M then the law is 1.5M there can be no discussion on it, if you are on a cycle lane & passing the inside of a stationery/queuing car then one of you is breaking the law.



I don't see why it has to be as cut and shut as that. If the law is that a car has to pass a vulnerable road user at a distance of 1.5m, I don't see what each vulnerable road user would then have to pass a car at 1.5m. Would it then mean someone walking between static traffic to cross a road wouldn't be able to be within 1.5 of a car bumper? Would cars going opposite directions to each other need to be 1.5m apart? Would a parent pushing a pram past a parked car need to be 1.5m away from it?


----------



## Jody (10 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> 1.5 meters by a Yaris at 20 mph no problem.
> 1.5 meters by an articulated lorry at 60 mph would probably feel a bit scary.



I got buzzed in the Peak District a few weeks ago by a Porsche. He was probably a little over 1.5m but me and my friend reckon he was doing well in excess of 100-120mph. That really wasn't a nice feeling at all.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

Sixmile said:


> I don't see why it has to be as cut and shut as that. If the law is that a car has to pass a vulnerable road user at a distance of 1.5m, I don't see what each vulnerable road user would then have to pass a car at 1.5m. Would it then mean someone walking between static traffic to cross a road wouldn't be able to be within 1.5 of a car bumper? Would cars going opposite directions to each other need to be 1.5m apart? Would a parent pushing a pram past a parked car need to be 1.5m away from it?


That is my whole point, if the law is 1.5M then it would apply in all situations, some completely inadvertently, some which would not be hazardous at all, but all potentially illegal


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes it is, if a car cannot pass you within 3ft, 1.5M, then how can it be acceptable that cyclists are able to ride up the inside therefore making the car driver into a law breaker.


Because the 2ton car is stationary, not passing you within inches at 60+mph... It's absolutely not the same thing, nor comparable


----------



## Sixmile (10 Aug 2018)

I can't see why the law can't specify if a car/van/truck/lorry is passing a vulnerable road user i.e. bike/ped/horse, then they must leave a gap of 1.5m when passing. The law doesn't have to apply to the vulnerable road user passing a car or such as the risk of potential harm is no where near as great, or would be as deadly.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Because the 2ton car is stationary, not passing you within inches at 60+mph... It's absolutely not the same thing, nor comparable


Okay so you're doing 12MPH on a cycleway at the side of a road, there's a car that wants to overtake you, because of the traffic he/she is doing 15MPH by your definition this is not dangerous, yet if this is enacted they would still have to leave 1.5M


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Okay so you're doing 12MPH on a cycleway at the side of a road, there's a car that wants to overtake you, because of the traffic he/she is doing 15MPH by your definition this is not dangerous, yet if this is enacted they would still have to leave 1.5M


That's not what I said


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> No, if the law is 1.5M then the law is 1.5M there can be no discussion on it,



There is no such law.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There is no such law.


Agreed, unless you are in Australia (I think)


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I hope the Devil is paying you well for your advocacy, @Phaeton


Not really I'm all for making cycling safer, but I just don't think a mandatory 1.5M is the answer, as people have already said, a 2ft pass at 15 mph is completely different to a 60MPH at 1.5M


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Agreed, unless you are in Australia (I think)


Parts of Ireland.
stayinaliveat1.5 case in question.


----------



## Sixmile (10 Aug 2018)

Ok we get it @classic33


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Agreed, unless you are in Australia (I think)


Parts of Australia, for example Queensland ...


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

Sixmile said:


> Ok we get it @classic33


Same post number.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

Okay Okay I heard you the first time


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

When my friend was knocked down by a close pass, I heard the driver say to the police "I gave her plenty of room", which is of course nonsense, or she wouldn't have been in an ambulance while he was saying this. But if there was a clear law saying what "enough" was, then at least law abiding drivers would start giving us enough room. 

And even if they only ever booked drivers who actually hit cyclists, I think the law would still have good effect.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> No, if the law is 1.5M then the law is 1.5M there can be no discussion on it, if you are on a cycle lane & passing the inside of a stationery/queuing car then one of you is breaking the law.





Phaeton said:


> Okay so you're doing 12MPH on a cycleway at the side of a road, there's a car that wants to overtake you, because of the traffic he/she is doing 15MPH by your definition this is not dangerous, yet if this is enacted they would still have to leave 1.5M


You seem to have drafted a bad law in your head, and are now complaining about it. 

This is what is known as a strawman argument.

It would be easy to draft a law that would get around the problems you have invented: like speeding, it would only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles (maybe specifically excluding electrical bikes speed limited to 25kph); you only have to give way to bicycles in the same carriageway.

The law, if it's ever enacted will be carefully worded and done with public and/or cycling organisation consultation.

We need to be wary, though. As far as I can tell, the close passing laws in Australia were introduced as a token to appease cyclists who were the real targets of the new laws.



jefmcg said:


> NSW seems to be making huge steps in their project to outlaw the blight that is cycling.
> 
> *Cyclists bear brunt of new road fines as NSW Liberals accused of 'dash for cash'*
> About 1,500 cyclists but only four motorists have been fined after the introduction of new road laws


----------



## dave r (10 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I was weaned on miles. Despite that, it feels medieval.
> 
> (dodged a bullet, my year was the first that didn't learn miles. My teachers knew fark all about the metric system, so I learnt about hecta/hecti/centa/centi etc. Metric is way more complex than SI.



We were taught both imperial and metric, and I'm still confused by metric measurements, in imperial I have an idea of what the measurements are, but with metric I need to convert it to imperial to understand it.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

User3094 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again...
> 
> 1.5 INCHES is absolutely fine as long as the vehicle is doing a slow enough (relative) speed
> 
> To insist on some arbitry minimum is ludicrous.


relative speed? While I might not mind a car passing me closely at 1mph when I am not moving, I would not be happy with a car giving me only a couple of centimetres passing me at 26mph when I am going at 25mph, especially considering I would be going down hill, with a tailwind


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> You seem to have drafted a bad law in your head, and are now complaining about it.


I will bow to your far better knowledge than me. I shall not offer any other comments, please in future indicate which debates I am allowed to post in.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

BrumJim said:


> Erm, SI is metric isn’t it?



It's a subset of the metric system. It doesn't include stuff like decametre (10 metres) and decimetre (1/10 of metre, ie 100 millimetres)


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2018)

User3094 said:


> None
> 
> HTH


Ah another of the bullies rears it's head, not enough victims in current affairs


----------



## Alan O (10 Aug 2018)

dave r said:


> We were taught both imperial and metric, and I'm still confused by metric measurements, in imperial I have an idea of what the measurements are, but with metric I need to convert it to imperial to understand it.


For me it's a kind of weird 50/50, probably thanks to the UK's botched semi-metrication happening over the period of my education.

For weight, it's kgs - I really don't grok stones and pounds, and I have to convert to have any idea what it means. Similarly, for fluids I think in litres - unless it's draft beer, when it's pints (but bottled beer obviously comes in 500ml bottles).

For distance it's miles. My wife is from a country that uses km, and I spend a lot of time there - but in terms of how long a ride feels, I can only do it in miles.

And as for landed herring, well, obviously I only use the cran.


----------



## Alan O (10 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> It's a subset of the metric system. It doesn't include stuff like decametre (10 metres) and decimetre (1/10 of metre, ie 100 millimetres)


But it does include the Henry, which is one of my favourite units of measure. (Hmm, I wonder what they'd use to measure the inductance of landed herring.)


----------



## jefmcg (10 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I will bow to your far better knowledge than me. I shall not offer any other comments, please in future indicate which debates I am allowed to post in.


I have reread what I wrote, and I don't understand this reaction.

You made some points. I did not agree with those points, so composed a carefully reasoned argument against it. That is the definition of a *debate*. If you think people who disagree with you are bullies, then I don't think you should join in debates.

I'm now wondering what you think a debate is. Is it where you make points, and everyone agrees with you? Or just ignores you? I'd like to be able to join in a debate with you without upsetting you, if you will tell me how.


----------



## Alan O (10 Aug 2018)

User3094 said:


> I was joshing with ya petal, ease up its nearly weekend


Petal? No, that's not condescending at all... oh, wait


----------



## dickyknees (10 Aug 2018)

gavroche said:


> I wonder how many motorists, coach and lorry drivers are actually aware of it ? On my ride this afternoon, on the A470 , I lost count of the number of cars and coaches passing me just 1 foot away. I know I am a OAP but I intend to live a few more years yet.



I see your point but have avoided the A470 like the plague in the past.


----------



## dantheman (10 Aug 2018)

the whole point of the law would be to protect vulnerable Road users as has obviously been said, I think if those vulnerable users needed to give the same gap then all motorists would then have to expect vulnerable Road users to always be more than 1.5m from any kerb or vehicle, which would basically mean you cannot overtake.... I'm 1.5 metres from kerb heck there's not even 1.5 metres between me and vehicles passing in the other direction on a lot of roads, so do they stop and reverse? 

The law would apply to motor vehicles that are licensed to use the roads, and be there to protect vulnerable users...


----------



## dantheman (10 Aug 2018)

I'd include motorbikes as vulnerable users.


----------



## Ian H (10 Aug 2018)

User3094 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again...
> 
> 1.5 INCHES is absolutely fine as long as the vehicle is doing a slow enough (relative) speed
> 
> To insist on some arbitry minimum is ludicrous.



All laws are to some extent arbitrary. There has to be some generalisation. For instance that's why speed limits mostly vary by 10mph not smaller units.

This police campaign is good in that it raises motorists' awareness of cyclists and will encourage them to treat us with more courtesy, or at least caution.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> You seem to have drafted a bad law in your head, and are now complaining about it.
> 
> This is what is known as a strawman argument.
> 
> ...


A cyclist is supposed to be given as much room by a driver as they'd give to any other road user.

For some reason, we seldom seem to be given the same. Which takes us back to instruction given/received whilst learning to drive.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> A cyclist is supposed to be given as much room by a driver as they'd give to any other road user.
> 
> For some reason, we seldom seem to be given the same. Which takes us back to instruction given/received whilst learning to drive.


Hence the issue. This is only advice in the **highway code, there is no law requiring it.


**I can't think of a single driver in/around my family/friend/work circles with as indepth knowledge of the HC as me, one of those is an ex cop! Some of them have been driving 40+ years. Seems like you have to want to educate yourself beyond the bare minimum required for driving tests, even then you have to apply the theory in practice or it was a waste of time.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

Not so much educate myself past the bare minimum, but to get it included in the practical side of the test. 

I've never taken a driving test(practical) in my life. I don't drive.


----------



## fossyant (10 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> From experience, very few.



From mine, no mm is perfectly fine apparently, and running you down and driving away.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

fossyant said:


> From mine, no mm is perfectly fine apparently, and running you down and driving away.


Can't like the post, but understand where you're coming from.


----------



## fossyant (10 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Can't like the post, but understand where you're coming from.



I liked yours. Poop happens !


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

fossyant said:


> I liked yours. Poop happens !


Found out, just not to the same extent as yourself.


----------



## PK99 (10 Aug 2018)

I agree with all the comments re close passes, but sometimes cyclists do themselves no favours wrt antagonising motorists.

A few week ago MrsPK and I were cycling along this road (in the same direction as the silver car), which some might recognise as the road from Kingston bridge to Hampton Court.

There is a perfectly acceptable Bike Lane, with solid line - we have never had any issues with close passes along this road.

But, we came up behind a group of 12/14 cyclists, in matching kit and on decent bikes, doing around 12/14ish mph - much less than we anted to do
They were in a double line with the solid white line down the middle of their double line.
Now we could argue the toss as to whether a double line in this situation was acceptable or not.
What was not acceptable, was that the back pair were off-set, with the left hand man on the white line and the right hand man well to his right making any pass impossible without crossing into the oncoming traffic. They did this along the whole length of the road -about 1 mile. Frankly, as a fellow cyclist, I thought they were taking the pish.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (10 Aug 2018)

@PK99, that isn't an acceptable bike lane - it isn't even the width of a bike!

I hate those road markings because they seem to encourage drivers that it is acceptable to pass cyclists if you are in the hatchings, no matter how close or how potholed the edge of the carriageway is.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

Am I alone in finding quieter "A" roads to be more of a hazard than a busy one, even some dual carriageways.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (10 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Am I alone in finding quieter "A" roads to be more of a hazard than a busy one, even some dual carriageways.


There aren't any quiet A-roads around here, but I definitely get worse passes on B-roads than A-roads. And worse still on residential roads.

If it wasn't for the general unpleasantness of riding with cars I would far rather be on a busy A-road.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2018)

One "A" road used on a regular basis
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/articles/burdock-way/photo-tour

You went from two lanes to four to three, to four on any approach/exit combination on the roundabout.

Entering from the flyover and exit at the last exit, you went from two lanes to four, to five, to three, back to five then two, four and back to two.


----------



## Alan O (11 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Am I alone in finding quieter "A" roads to be more of a hazard than a busy one, even some dual carriageways.


I regularly ride a few fairly busy dual-carriageway A roads, and I'd say they're generally less hazardous. I think it's probably a combination of wider lanes and good visibility.


----------



## simonali (11 Aug 2018)

Definitely not the bus driver that virtually scraped my elbow earlier. I doubt they heard me efiin' and jeffin' at them afterwards, but it made me feel a bit better!


----------



## Mrklaw (24 Aug 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> View attachment 423668
> 
> 
> Here’s the picture from the section in the online Highway Code regarding overtaking a cyclist giving ‘plenty of room’



Why don’t they just say to overtake as you would another car? I.e be completely in the other carriageway.

If you’re 75cm into the road, and they give you 1.5m, that’s 2.25m from the kerb. There is no way to overtake without being at least partly in the oncoming lane, at which point youn can only do it when the oncoming lane is clear - so why not go the whole hog and just call it like a normal overtake of a car?


----------



## Racing roadkill (24 Aug 2018)

Mrklaw said:


> Why don’t they just say to overtake as you would another car? I.e be completely in the other carriageway.
> 
> If you’re 75cm into the road, and they give you 1.5m, that’s 2.25m from the kerb. There is no way to overtake without being at least partly in the oncoming lane, at which point youn can only do it when the oncoming lane is clear - so why not go the whole hog and just call it like a normal overtake of a car?


You’re right, but it’s too hard for the average carzi to visualise the ‘whole car width’ thing, so the have to cover their bases.


----------



## Mrklaw (24 Aug 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> You’re right, but it’s too hard for the average carzi to visualise the ‘whole car width’ thing, so the have to cover their bases.



Surely ‘get in the other lane’ is easy enough to figure out?


----------



## boydj (24 Aug 2018)

PK99 said:


> I agree with all the comments re close passes, but sometimes cyclists do themselves no favours wrt antagonising motorists.
> 
> A few week ago MrsPK and I were cycling along this road (in the same direction as the silver car), which some might recognise as the road from Kingston bridge to Hampton Court.
> 
> ...



In the first place, that is not an acceptable cycle lane - it's far too narrow. As a single cyclist I would be riding on the outside edge, or possibly further out. If I was cycling 2-up in a group I'd expect the inside rider to be maybe just inside the cycle lane and the outside rider to be a foot or two outside, just like the group you describe. The rear pair being offset slightly is probably just to give them a view at that point of the road ahead, but maybe also to give some protection to the riders in front from overtaking drivers by ensuring that the drivers are taking a properly wide line to overtake the group. I don't see a problem with them riding like this.

As for faster cyclists trying to pass the group, just like cars, you have to wait until it is safe to pass, and once you are past the rear pair, you'll be able to come in a bit closer and probably be able to stay in the same lane without getting too close (after you've singled-up). A group like that riding relatively slowly would suggest some relatively inexperienced cyclists, so I doubt they were 'taking the pish' and your impatience is more akin to some of the poor drivers that we complain about so much.


----------



## sheddy (24 Aug 2018)

LCC Petition 
https://staywider.org/


----------



## Racing roadkill (24 Aug 2018)

Mrklaw said:


> Surely ‘get in the other lane’ is easy enough to figure out?


You’d be surprised.


----------

