To Overtake or Not

[marzjennings]

Most definitely over-take when and where it's safe to do so. I grew up overtaking slower vehicles on small country roads such as tractors, buses, mopeds, Yugo's while out cycling. I can't see ever not overtaking a vehicle in front of me just because their speed is now limited legally rather than mechanically.

 

[Alex321]

I stand by exactly what I wrote and have nothing to add.

That doesn't surprise me. But things are not as black and white as you believe.

It should go without say that 'wanton and furious' cycling outside a school or in an area of great pedestrian use must be avoided. It isn't difficult to work out where such instances might occur and the 20mph zones do highlight many of these.

However, contrary to 'The Jobsworth Approach', sections of road do exist where 20mph (and 30mph) limits have been imposed for motor vehicles that are not near schools etc whereby an experienced cyclist who has a clear road ahead of the vehicle they want to pass can perform an overtake without alarming or endangering other road or nearby pavement users. This is legal, despite The Jobsworth Approach' to cycling.

What started this thread was the change coming next month to Wales, where the default will be 20 for restricted roads.

Which means htat although the councils have had 12 months to select roads which should be exceptions, there will undoubtedly be a lot more 20mph limits that really don't need to be.

With respect, I think that's nonsense. It's just a massive red herring.

If you really want to know your speed there are lots of devices you can buy to tell you. So if speed limits were to apply, then you could get yourself one. If you were to choose not to, and didn't exercise reasonable care, then you could find yourself with a ticket. The absence of 1.5m long rulers sticking out of cars* doesn't prevent the highway code (rule 163) from stipulating that drivers must give cyclists 1.5m of space.

Sure, there are devices you can buy if you choose to.

The point is that motor vehicles are legally required to have those devices, so there is no excuse for a driver not knowing their speed. But cyclists are not required to have them, and nor are there regulations regarding the accuracy of any they choose to have.

It can only really be an offence if you knew or should have known that you were exceeding the limit, and there is no "should have known" for cyclists. If they were to change the law for cyclists (and I know you aren't advocating that), then they would also have to mandate some form of speedometer for bikes. It would have to be no longer something you can choose to have or not, but something you would be required to have.

I am sure that is not the only reason why speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but it is certainly one reason why it would not be trivial to change it.

As you say, with current limits, few cyclists regularly exceed them. But when most roads with streetlights are 20 limits, many more are likely to do so. I can maintain around 20 on the flat fairly easily, and even a slight downhil will have me doing more like 25 - and I am by no means a fast cyclist.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It can only really be an offence if you knew or should have known that you were exceeding the limit, and there is no "should have known" for cyclists. If they were to change the law for cyclists (and I know you aren't advocating that), then they would also have to mandate some form of speedometer for bikes.

Again with the greatest respect - that's just utter cobblers. In my grovellingly humble opinion.

But it's gone off topic and it's not actually a very important point, so I'm not going to pursue this one further.

 

[Solocle]

Again with the greatest respect - that's just utter cobblers. In my grovellingly humble opinion.

But it's gone off topic and it's not actually a very important point, so I'm not going to pursue this one further.

These cars don't have speedos as far as I know, but are still bound by speed limits. Also, I think they can exceed the 25 mph minimum to be allowed on a motorway...

 

[Drago]

The lack of speedo for them would be mitigation, but no defence.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Some interesting responses.

I reckon if I looked on motor car, motor cycle, motor scooter or white-van man forums I could also find many people who could justify (to themselves at least) why it is perfectly reasonable for them to be excused the odd breaking of speed laws that they feel they do not need to adhere to, whether they disagree with those limits or they feel that their abilities excuse them the inconvenience.

We are not talking about professional or organised races here folks, we are talking about day to day riding for pleasure or commuting, generally in residential areas and not in the masses of roads where speed limits are 30/40/50/60/70 where they can indulge themselves within the speed limits to their hearts' content, saying 'I can so I will'.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I think one of the points is that overtaking a car involves some risk so requires a risk assessment - if only mental and very quick based on experience

but one thing that should be taken into account is the difference in stopping distance between cars and bike

and I have no idea of that difference

anone know of anywhere that has tested this???

 

[Drago]

And something else to consider...

Most people can't tell the difference between fast driving and fast risk taking.

That's bad enough when you're sat in a steel cage cocooned by safety systems, but on a bike its a different level of insanity. If you're about to attempt a manoeuvre and having to think consciously about the risk then it's already not worth the risk.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I think one of the points is that overtaking a car involves some risk so requires a risk assessment - if only mental and very quick based on experience

but one thing that should be taken into account is the difference in stopping distance between cars and bike

and I have no idea of that difference

anone know of anywhere that has tested this???

No, so I went off down a google/bing rabbit hole and ended up here:

https://www.muggaccinos.com/Liabili...BTF_2008_Guide-for-Dev-Bicycle-Facilities.pdf
This booklet may be worth further reading or perhaps a thread of its own.

It has a table of stopping "Sight distances" for use by designers of cycle facilities (below). This includes 2.5 sec "perception and brake reaction time" and factors in wet conditions. It doesn't seem to include the rider's mass, which presumably is an average hidden away in the constants in the formula. So it's non ideal, because facility designers need to consider worst case.

At 30 km/h (~20mph) on a level road it looks like about 35m. on a 10% downhill this is up to about 47m

Compare that with car stopping which is 12m at 20mph, and "can be doubled in the wet"

So based on that heinous abuse of randomly selected data it looks like cars stop more quickly than bikes at 20mph.

 

[DogmaStu]

ABS-equipped cars and motorcycles can absolutely stop faster than a bicycle but, crucially, in an 'easier to control' manner thanks to electronics.

Our narrow tyres will be sliding at full lock in many emergency scenarios and controlling a bike in those conditions can be 'tricky'. While some of us grew up with BMX, Road and MTB racing, the vast majority of cyclists aren't used to bike handling at the extremes of tyre grip and even when we have relatively 'good' skills, make no mistake, it's still easy to crash.

I'm debating in this Thread with a stance of being pro overtaking in a 20mph zone subject to the conditions I have highlighted and do so because you cannot compare doing so vs a motorist wantonly speeding. One is legal, the other is not.

But! It's not something I recommend generally. It's not something I personally do often. I'm also a twat, as has been established, so I'm prone to having somewhat different risk assessments to others.

 

[Solocle]

ABS-equipped cars and motorcycles can absolutely stop faster than a bicycle but, crucially, in an 'easier to control' manner thanks to electronics.

Our narrow tyres will be sliding at full lock in many emergency scenarios and controlling a bike in those conditions can be 'tricky'. While some of us grew up with BMX, Road and MTB racing, the vast majority of cyclists aren't used to bike handling at the extremes of tyre grip and even when we have relatively 'good' skills, make no mistake, it's still easy to crash.

I'm debating in this Thread with a stance of being pro overtaking in a 20mph zone subject to the conditions I have highlighted and do so because you cannot compare doing so vs a motorist wantonly speeding. One is legal, the other is not.

But! It's not something I recommend generally. It's not something I personally do often. I'm also a twat, as has been established, so I'm prone to having somewhat different risk assessments to others.

I'm certainly not averse to overtaking motor vehicles. The checklist is the same as when driving - safety, legality, progress. If it's safe and legal, then there's a question of it being worthwhile. For instance, I once followed a tractor up a hill (yes, pedalling!), and then overtook it. I actually was turning just afterwards, and would have been content to sit behind. But I then considered the drivers following me, and me overtaking made it easier for them to do so.

 

[Alex321]

Some interesting responses.

I reckon if I looked on motor car, motor cycle, motor scooter or white-van man forums I could also find many people who could justify (to themselves at least) why it is perfectly reasonable for them to be excused the odd breaking of speed laws that they feel they do not need to adhere to, whether they disagree with those limits or they feel that their abilities excuse them the inconvenience.

You probably could, but I'm not sure if the relevance, since cyclists doing more than the posted limit are not breaking any laws. The speed limit laws simply do not apply to them, because they are not "Motor vehicles" within the meaning of the law.

We are not talking about professional or organised races here folks, we are talking about day to day riding for pleasure or commuting, generally in residential areas and not in the masses of roads where speed limits are 30/40/50/60/70 where they can indulge themselves within the speed limits to their hearts' content, saying 'I can so I will'.

I think most of us are agreed that the circumstances where it would be reasonable will be fairly rare. Very rare outside of the new limits on Welsh roads.

 

[Time Waster]

Can I just check, didn't the OP talk about overtaking a vehicle obeying the 20mph limit as in close to the limit, not a much slower 10mph learner driver in a totally different situation? Just wondering as that would make the slower driver point as irrelevant to the OP.

If we go back to the car doing say 19 or 20mph and the cyclist capable of doing 25mph or more in an overtaking manoeuvre. I personally feel that the key points are not whether you can but whether you should. In a built up area where they've dropped the limit from 30 to 20mph, without an excemption, due to safety and / or pollution reasons I feel that the key issues are risk and consequences. What are the risks to,the cyclist, you, and what are the other risks such as to pedestrians in the area. Consequences are serious at 25mph for vulnerable pedestrians and I don't think you'd like the contact neither.

One other aspect of risk is your stopping distance. I know I've had a very scary experience of an emergency stop, downhill from 58mph. I know not at the same speed but my point is I didn't realise just how long it takes for me to safely stop at 58mph. I didn't find out because I was still doing 30mph at the point the car decided to stop in the middle of the road after jumping out from a side road that I could not see down. I got around the car and bend on two wheels feeling like a cat who just lost 6 lives in one incident!

This anecdote has relevance because does anyone actually know what their stopping distance is on their bike downhill at 25mph in a built up 20mph speed area? I didn't know my stopping speed but I found out it was longer than I thought it would be.

So not knowing the OPs stretch of road and the risks l feel I do not have the answer as to whether it is safe to overtake. I feel in such areas that's 30mph I do know, if they went 20mph I might be able to overtake but wouldn't. In my area I do not feel it safe to overtake a vehicle obeying a speed limit that applied to them but not me as a cyclist. I also feel the negative issues it may cause between motorists and cyclists is another reason.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You probably could, but I'm not sure if the relevance, since cyclists doing more than the posted limit are not breaking any laws. The speed limit laws simply do not apply to them, because they are not "Motor vehicles" within the meaning of the law.




I think most of us are agreed that the circumstances where it would be reasonable will be fairly rare. Very rare outside of the new limits on Welsh roads.

I am not talking about the legality but the self excusing justification. The law may not, but common sense and safety still applies to them

The rareness is not the point.

The road next to mine in Cardiff is on a hill, has a 20mph limit and is on a very popular route for roadies and mtb'ers. Very often I see cyclists overtaking cars downhill, even though it is next to a school. 20mph is easy down there, I can do it myself and I am ancient, but there is no point as it soon comes to a shopping centre and traffic lights. A car overtaking another car on that road would not just be illegal, but idiotic and potentially dangerous, and, while a bike doing it might not be illegal it would be idiotic and potentially dangerous.

 

[Alex321]

I am not talking about the legality but the self excusing justification. The law may not, but common sense and safety still applies to them

The rareness is not the point.

Of course it is.

If you are saying it doesn't matter what the circumstances are then it is always wrong, then IMO you are wrong.

The fact it is very rare does not mean it is never.

The road next to mine in Cardiff is on a hill, has a 20mph limit and is on a very popular route for roadies and mtb'ers. Very often I see cyclists overtaking cars downhill, even though it is next to a school. 20mph is easy down there, I can do it myself and I am ancient, but there is no point as it soon comes to a shopping centre and traffic lights. A car overtaking another car on that road would not just be illegal, but idiotic and potentially dangerous, and, while a bike doing it might not be illegal it would be idiotic and potentially dangerous.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

I agree totally with this, but it does not in any way go against anything I have written.