I can't find the (London?) advert telling cyclists to ride wide in narrow streets...

[grolyat]

I'm sure I saw a glimpse of a recent newspaper ad suggesting that cyclists should take the lane in narrow streets. I want to show it to a new cyclist commuter colleague who was badly squeezed today on a narrow bridge (by a BMW) natch.

Any links? Thanks.

 

[Flying Dodo]

It was in Monday's Metro (sorry - didn't keep a copy).

 

[AnotherEye]

& Mondays Standard, I'll scan it 4U later.

 

[grolyat]

Thank you!

 

[campbellab]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14798.aspx

 

[AnotherEye]

'sorry for the delay. See attached.

 

[AnotherEye]

Re my above post: I didn't mean to duplicate, sorry.
I was pleased to see the ad however "Drivers ...etc": the image doesn't show much room, more like the cyclist has been squeezed into a narrow cycle lane!

 

[spen666]

Re my above post: I didn't mean to duplicate, sorry.
I was pleased to see the ad however "Drivers ...etc": the image doesn't show much room, more like the cyclist has been squeezed into a narrow cycle lane!

That was my thought when I saw the advert the other day.

The picture is harmful as it is implying that close passing is giving sufficient space

 

[AnotherEye]

That was my thought when I saw the advert the other day.
The picture is harmful as it is implying that close passing is giving sufficient space

I saw the same image on the back of a bus today! = good that the words are right. Bad image spoils it. I'll wright to tfl this weekend!

 

[AnotherEye]

I don't know what kind of car is in the picture. These dimensions represent the proportions; are they reasonable accurate. If so, the car really isn't giving the cyclist enough space.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offi...at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg

 

[spen666]

The slogan implies that enough space is brushing past the cyclist. It is actually more harmful than not having such an advert

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The slogan implies that enough space is brushing past the cyclist. It is actually more harmful than not having such an advert

Indeed. The wrong advice is worse than no advice at all.

 

[veloevol]

I'm sure I saw a glimpse of a recent newspaper ad suggesting that cyclists should take the lane in narrow streets. I want to show it to a new cyclist commuter colleague who was badly squeezed today on a narrow bridge (by a BMW) natch.

Any links? Thanks.

This one

 

[DaveReading]

Indeed. The wrong advice is worse than no advice at all.

Plus it uses an adjective where an adverb is needed

 

[GrumpyGregry]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offi...at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg

The trouble with the illustration to rule 163, and the wording of rule 163, is obvious when you replace the cyclist in the picture with another car. A car overtaking another car on a SC road will often do so with a gap of less than 1m. Perfectly safely. All drivers do it. Just like they pass cars coming the other way with less than a 1m gap. Nobody dies or gets hurt even at closing speeds of up to 120mph.

Thusly cars overtake cyclists with a gap of less than 1m and the drivers think it is perfectly safe and don't understand why we get het up about it. Rule 163, amongst other things ,needs to be rewritten and the law changed to mandate a 1m gap when overtaking vulnerable road users. imo anyway.

And yes, I do pay 'road tax".