I think cycle lanes can give the impression that they are a separate part of the carriageway and therfore cause some drivers to assume that cyclists using those lanes are not actually in the same roadspace as themselves and therefore don't need to maintain much of a gap when passing. If that is the case then the presence of a delineated cycle lane could actually be less safe than none at all!
And that is indeed the case. The TfL study should that these 'advisory cycle lanes'' increases injuries by 30% compared to them simply not being there. So yes they have been shown to be dangerous.
These types of cycle lanes are pretty much next to useless, properly segregated lanes are the only way to go. P.S. I am not a cyclist but am a driver. My final comment would be that many cyclists do themselves no favours, i.e. not using a segregated cycle lane when there is one, happens frequently around the corner from me, by which I mean 2 or 3 times an hour and completely ignoring pedestrians on a crossing, happens to me personally at least 2 or 3 times a week. Once we start to pursue recalcitrant cyclists with the same vigour as we do drivers things may change in that regard. I strongly advocate the introduction of identification plates for cyclists so we can identify the idiots and make insurance "recommended".
@@paulwood5803 Good points, but there are more drivers who don't stop at Zebra crossing than cyclists. I'am a pedestrian and I notice lots of drivers who don't appear to be aware that the Highway Code has changed. Had one the other week in Euxton, Lancashire, they drew up in-front of me I had words, the driver went on the offensive straight away. Fortunately the driver behind waved me across and he was thanked. (So hopefully he would feel good for doing this kind gesture). In fact Paul you sound like a person who hates cyclists!
I'm a bus driver and I was trained to imagine the person could fall off so you need to be able to overtake far enough away from them that even if that happens you don't hit them.
Or swerve to avoid potholes which can be fatal to cyclists. I've had motorists jostling to overtake me, they don't see the pothole nor appreciate I may need to swerve suddenly. And they turn the air blue when they find they can't overtake - coming up to a bend! . Could be worse, I could be dead.
@@kbeesmot9928 I'd rather go with the audience is challenging to teach. A barrister certainly doesn't need the money. But that's the beautiful thing about opinions, creates conversation. 😁👍
If only it were one- as travel i look to see how many cyclists are breaking the law with the manner in which they cycle , or the road legality of their cycles - and the majority are breaking the law in one or other manner.
@@cornishalps9870 it's the same logig that some drivers use when someone pulls out in front of them in a car and think. He should have given way so I'm going to keep going and hit him. Just to prove a point. They will end up with but I had priority written on their headstone
@@winnie6354 If one looks at any study about this topic, one would see that people on bicycles and people in cars break the rules at about equal rates. So your statement " the majority are breaking the law in one or other manner." goes for both drivers and cyclists.
When there is no cycle lane, drivers tend to give me plenty of room. When there is a cycle lane they seem to think that the 1.5m does not apply because there is a cycle lane and many of them drive up to the line, scaring the hell out of me. Not been hit yet.
its kinda the point of the lane though, you stay in it, now drivers dont need to go onto the other side of the road to overtake, when there isnt a lane, drivers have no idea what cyclists are going to do (sudden swerves) so they give you room just incase. Myself as a car driver and a lycra cyclist I might be a bad example lol, when im on the bike I never swerve, I bunny hop over the twig or drain cover or whatever, im (in my opinion) in total control, therefore in my mind its silly for someone to go to france just to overtake me lol, plus i shoulder check every 30 seconds so I know they are coming (which all cyclists should do anyway), so really for myself at least there are no excuses or reasons for a car to go to germany (getting further) to overtake as im aware of my surroundings and in control of my bike
@@SoSimonSays - A cyclist is only 2.5' wide when upright, but about 3.5' wide when leaning into a turn, and about 6.5' wide when laid out (bike and person). For safety's sake, it's best to just give them the space in case something causes them to lay the bike down.
I'm not a cyclist, but if I was cycling down that road I'd ride in primary position because there would be no way drivers would be able to give 1.5 metres if the other lane wasn't free and cycling in the cycle lane would make some drivers think they could chance getting past, like the white van. (Not a criticism of the cyclist, just what I would do).
As an experienced cyclist, that is exactly how I do it, take prime, then look ahead and wave to the vehicle behind to overtake when the road is clear enough for them and I'm comfortable for a close overtake. Most HGV and PSV drivers especially appreciate these signals.
@@derekheeps8012 Don’t be an idiot all your life, it’s not good for you, he’s not, he’s stopping them passing when there is no room to safely pass. Just like every bl**dy car does all the time in fact, traffic coming the other way you couldn’t pass a car could you? Clearly you are part of the problem.
@@derekheeps8012 But they are not preventing any vehicles from overtaking, where it is safe to do so. Anything else is not obstruction but simple road safety.
What's as important, if not more important, than the '2 metres' in the Hwy Code, is the *attempt* at giving the cyclist sufficient berth. The red car illustrates this. It was possibly only a metre in distance, but the intention of the driver to 'give way' to the cyclist was clearly made, and that alone is often all a cyclist needs to continue in a stable and undisturbed manner. The van in question had little to no space to pass as widely. However, that being the case, there was every onus for the van to slow down until such time it was safe to pass, the latter missive being lost on many drivers in many situations.
Madmick, I wish it was that simple. Typically, younger men on the way home from work on a Friday afternoon, or off out for the evening, are flooring it to impress their mates, & consideration goes out of the window. Cyclists are just an unexpected & soft obstacle to their plans etc
@@daffyduk77 Sadly, I see your point. Has with a lot of things I've learned over the years, there's a need for things to be taught in schools. Graphically, how speed and dangerous driving kills people, including it's aftermath, for families. would be one such thing.
Got it right at the end there. . . we are all users who share the road. Some road users - that includes drivers, cyclists and pedestrians - need to be reminded of this.
The narrative of this video is that the van driver was at fault- but did not look as to why he was too close compared to the other drivers before him. If you look at the traffic coming the other way there is none for the first two vehicles but a van and lorry trying to pass a parked car for the van, These two vehicles doid not have right of way - they should have stopped as the van had right of way . By overtaking the parked car the two vehicles forced the van closer to the cycle lane - but not onto the white line of the cycle lane. The van driver with the benefit of hine sight should anticipated the that the vehicles coming the other way were not going to give way as the law requires and have held back. Drivers are taught to stay in lane or indicate when changing lanes - he stayed in lane- and cyclists seem to be only case where you have to move out of your lane to accommodate somebody who has there own lane , but is considered too vulnerable to use it safely. The prosecution of the van driver was not contested - but that means no defence was put forward which may have changed the outcome of the case. We do not know why they did not defend themselves - cheaper to let the business pay than loose the time needed for a defence and paying a solicitor or barrister as well.
@@winnie6354 All had right of way , but the van had PRIORITY . The lorry had completed his overtake of the parked cars , could and SHOULD have returned to his own side to allow the van the space he required ; and the van driver had a reasonable expectation that the lorry driver would have done this , hence would not have expected to be forced so close to the cyclist . The answer here would be to reduce the width of the pavement and build a segregated cycle lane into it ( there is plenty of width to do this ) , or to slightly widen the pavement and make it a shared space for cyclists and pedestrians . Since every house on that road has a driveway ; make it a no parking area , apart from a limited number of loading bays , which could be built as lay-bys into the pavement area .
@@winnie6354 "has there own lane , but is considered too vulnerable to use it safely. " if that cycle lane is wide enough to enable a safe distance from kerb plus the usual fatal manholes at the side of the road, as well as a safe passing space for an overtaking motorist, then I'm a Dutchman. In practice the road is too narrow to allow a motorist to safely overtake a cycle in "their lane" when there are large oncoming vehicles, or cars parked on the other side of the road.
@@derekheeps8012 No, the cyclist had priority & the motorist only had right to overtake when it was safe to do so. Not against oncoming traffic & especially when there are vehicles parked on the other side of the road. No, if you look at the video, the pavement with plus very narrow "cycle-lane" width together would if split into a half for pedestrians & half for cyclists, still mean pedestrians were in danger of being hit by cyclists (which can hurt cyclists as well). And looking at white van man (?) having to touch the white line whilst trying to avoid oncoming traffic, a cyclist in the new slightly wider cycle path would still be at risk from white van man etc. The road is too narrow for three vehicles to pass safely at one, when one is a cyclist
😂😂😂 wow. Just came across this guy He won me access to my kids in 2019 and again in 2020. Tae Kwon do black belt, I was a kick box black belt. Really nice guy and down to earth Nice channel Dan well done. Ps she’s still behaving after you got me a penal order against her 😊
I have seen motorists open a door to crash a cyclist, and drive on, without a care in the world. 3 times I have appeared in court to testify what I saw. 3 times the driver was sent to jail.
I always give a safe distance when overtaking but there should be new rules for cyclists like when your on narrow country roads and you see them side by side, they should go single file or at least have some common courtesy to allow vehicles to pass.
If they go single file, drivers have to travel on the wrong side of the road for a longer distance. Particularly on windy country roads, it's safer for everyone for cyclists to go side by side.
I have a camera on my pushbike now as I cycle up to my horse field sadly same time as schools have mummy picking up their little angels, I am invisible to them often barged out the way. Fed up with it.
Yes: they can occupy the space they need in order to maintain their personal safety among other traffic. This can mean taking a central lane position where it wouldn't be safe for another road user to pass them or over to the left of the lane when it's safe to do so. The mere presence of a cycle lane doesn't mean you can go within 1.5m of them just because "they're in their lane and I'm in mine." Road markings aren't going to stop their head from becoming a tyre accessory should they fall sideways.
Refer to your Highway Code. You do have a copy with you at all times don't you? It's a legal requirement to carry a copy whilst operating a mechanically propelled vehicular device.
It really pisses me off when people, who have already amassed enough points that a few more would have them banned, escape a ban because they sob 'exceptional hardship'. F**k 'em, they should have thought of the consequences of being deprived of their licence and behaved accordingly.
But did you notice the on-coming lorry which had slightly crossed over the centre white line? I would suggest this was the reason the white van pulled too close to the cyclist - not that it is an excuse to pass that close of course.
I pointed this out earlier, but got slated for it. The van was badly positioned, but the road sweeper clearly pulls out in front of the van, leaving no wriggle room which is why the van suddenly slows down.
This would be mitigation if the van had had to swerve to avoid the wagon while in the overtake. You can see very clearly that he was never in a safe passing position at any point. Not only that but the van before the wagon was also straddling the white line yet the offender still starts an overtake. That bloke had no intention of passing safely. A competent driver would have held back until it was safe to overtake.
@@ditch3827 The lorry had finished overtaking and should have returned to his own side of the road , but despite there being no parked vehicles opposite at that point , he failed to move back over , which the van driver had every right to expect him to . By the time it became clear the lorry was staying out , the van was already passing the bike .
Another great video. I drive but also cycle (not as much) and do try to remain aware. There is onus on cyclists to cycle safely but I do have a gripe. If motorists are supposed to give up to 1.5m to keep cyclists "safe" (otherwise risking prosecution) are cyclists not at risk of prosecution if, in slow moving traffic, they bomb up the inside cycle lane? Clearly they are now ignoring their own rule? They either need 1.5m or they don't.
Not the same situation at all. Close passes involve both vehicles moving, motor vehicle coming up from behind cyclist (who must focus main attention forwards to maintain balance); filtering happens with motor vehicles stopped or nearly so. Try doing some of your cycling in traffic and you'll see the difference.
Do you think actual prosecutions and repercussions would actually make people think about their road use and speed, since all I read lately (my local paper is the Worcester News) is people being let off because they need the vehicle for work. Surely if the vehicle is important to your job then you’d drive better in the first place. Since people can tort up point after point and get away with it it becomes somewhat meaningless, might as well just start fining people and get this all out of the court system. 12 points should be a ban, no exceptions.
A far more effective solution is to design roads so that people use them in a safe way by default. Narrow painted cycle lanes just encourage close passes just as long straight roads encourage speeding.
Worcester news is my local rag too; not really worth a read is it? Total hack reporters!!! But yeh, I get u on the whole ‘I have to drive for my business so please don’t let the points gather on my licence’ thing… happening all the time here! 🙄
Is the law reciprocal requiring similar considerations from the cyclists when queue surfing for instance? Will cyclists be required to make reasonable progress on the highway like cars especially if there is a cycle lane provided at great expense for their safety but that they choose not to use. Will I be permitted to organise road races with fellow car users at will? Level playing fields are so important aren’t they? I respond as I find. Lets look after each other rather than delegating responsibilities for our safety to others. Selfish is selfish regardless of your wheel count and before you ask, I’m a car driver and motorcyclist.
Aside from the cars giving a safe distance when passing, the city really should also put some effort into the bike lanes and give them enough room as well for drivers that will still not give enough room.
In a perfect world, I'd agree. I'm a Brit/Cdn Dual avid cyclist posting from Canada, and in Ontario, the passing distance required is only one metre. However, bike lanes, to be legally considered as such, are twice the width shown in this video. But that illustrates the conundrum. The road in this vid has very little room for cars or bikes, but the onus is then on any traffic to not pass unless sufficient space allows. Perhaps it's age, and a realization of how seriously the odds are stacked against cycling on main roads, but I wouldn't put myself in the danger the situation displayed presents. There's times where it's just better to get off the road, and walk. And live to talk about it in one piece. And in case it appears that I'm showing a bias, UK drivers on average are better than Ontario ones.
I am in The Netherlands and mostly every road here is paved with bikers in mind. I guess that’s the one difference in some countries versus others with bikers having to adapt to changing city structures.
@@braingasim Strangely we got on fine until the boom in cyclists who think they have greater rights than any other road user and are above uk law. As this video shows the van driver , even though pushed over by oncoming traffic stayed in his lane- the problem is that the cycle lane gives a false sence of safety - cyclists are the only road user who has a marked designated lane that has to be ignored by divers as it is not safe for the cyclist. It would [and was ] far safer when there were no cycle lanes.
@@winnie6354 Here in the Netherlands on such road there is a hard border (often trees) between the the cycle lane and the road , plus the cycle path is much wider and properly surfaced unlike the road above, thus such a situation could not occur. That cars are parked (most probably on the opposite cycle lane) on such a road, to cause on coming traffic to be forced to cross the centre line, should also be prevented. Here the drains are built into the curb so cyclists do not break their wheels when forced into the gutter by close passing motorists. Its quite simple - - thus we can allow children to cycle to school from a young age.
Where is the extra room coming from, and the extra money. 500 motorists have to squeeze into less and less space to allow safer passage of one cyclist, and they have to pay quite a bit for that feature.
To be honest as a cyclist i think 2m is more than enough space and as long as they're not speeding past and I'm aware of where the car is I'm fine with them comming closer especially as where i live the roads are narrow with cars parked on the sides so you're lucky if you have 2m on a clear road.
@@gbhxu You will always get a cyclist who will not move into a gateway or where's a good gap between parked cars to let traffic pass. They are usually cammers wanting to make a short youtube movie with a few seconds of fame.
I’d be interested to know how, if at all, this would apply to cyclists and escooter types overtaking pedestrians while riding on footpaths missing said pedestrians by inches. I’s happened to me, as a pedestrian on many occasions and i see it happening to others on a daily basis.
I regularly cycle on pavements because it is in many places just far too dangerous to cycle in the roadway ; many footways are signposted as shared spaces , and during the pandemic , with the increase in cycling , it was stated that all footpaths are now , by default , shared spaces unless signed to the contrary . When I do cycle on pavements , however , I do look out for pedestrians , give them a polite 'ding' of my bell when some distance away if approaching them from behind , and always give them plenty of space , even stopping to let them past me if appropriate . If cyclists look out for pedestrians , then there really is no problem with cycling on the pavement , and far safer than cycling in the roadway .
@@derekheeps8012 I would have no problem with this and it’s just what I would do if in a similar situation. Unfortunately we seem to be the exception, by a large margin, rather than the rule in my experience.
@@derekheeps8012 But most cyclists see how close they can get to a pedestrian without actually hitting them. A bell, that would be a good idea. I wonder why the aren't compulsary?
i had a scooter rider cross straight in from of me and out of a turning straight towards me as i was turning in. they dont care anymore as we have told them all its the drivers who have to lok out. Cyclists also never warn us while walking the dogs they are coming behind you, so many near misses.
6:20 wait a second. So, if I receive a notice of intended prosecution through my door and I am instructed to identify the driver of a vehicle for which I am the registered keeper, then the consequences of failing to identify the driver is that I am assumed to be the driver and I would suffer the consequences myself. But when it's a company vehicle, somehow there isn't an individual who is the registered keeper of the vehicle and they can just get away with ignorning it? Granted they were fined, but for any _significant_ business that kind of money isn't much of a deterrent. And meanwhile, the individual who was guilty of the offence can hide behind their shield. Is this correct?
When I had two meat legs I was wiped out by a car wing mirror hit handlebar. I somersaulted over handlebars and hurt my shoulder. Took weeks to recover. Still have faint scars. That was over 30 years ago. Wouldn't cycle on roads now even if I didn't have a left below knee amputtation.
love cyclegaz's channel. He really put up with some of the worst drivers. I don't know how I'm so luckily I only get the close pass now and again which as an experienced cyclist I'm not too bothered about.
I worry that narrow cycle lanes - so close to the gutter - on narrows road like that serve to invite close passes. If I was cycling on that road I'd like to avoid leaving 'just enough room' for a very close pass.
@@nighttrain1236 Thank you, I wrote much the same in a later post. I wouldn't put myself in that situation, even if there was even more law on my side. I often plan my trips to take as many back-roads and trails as is possible. Anything to avoid the death-gamble of roads like that.
I commute to work, and get illegally passed every day, both ways. When I go out on the weekend, the same.. and all types of vehicles, including some that should be enforcing it.
@Pin Ky obviously you have not watched cyclegazs videos. Depends on the attitude of the drivers where you ride. Here in Exeter it's not too bad as we are quite a cycle centric city. It was worse when I lived in truro
So if I am stopped at a traffic light and a cyclist comes down the left hand side of the traffic and stops next to me and the light turns green and I start driving could I be charged for driving less than 1.5m from the cyclist. The law might make sense for 70% of the time, but for the other 30% of the time it doesn't make sense.
Interesting BBB that you didnt mention the road position of the blue,white & red road sweeper coming from the opposite direction @7.08, i believe it had pulled out to pass a parked car, compressing a bad situation ...
Rule 154 - “When meeting groups of cyclists riding two abreast, they may choose to move to single file if they deem it safer to do so. They are under no compulsion to do so and it can be safer and easier for you to overtake a compact group, when conditions allow, rather than a long line of cycles.” Rule 213 - “Cyclists are advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars, for their own safety. Whenever they feel it is safer to do so, for example, on narrow sections of road, at junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists are also advised to ride in the centre of the lane (rather than towards the side of the road), while groups are advised to cycle two abreast in these and other situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, as this helps them ensure they can see, be seen, and avoid being overtaken where this could be dangerous.”
That’s a good point. If a pedestrian is walking on a narrow pavement, then vehicles need to anticipate and give them room. I’m always at least a metre from the kerb, and more when there are kids on the pavement
Have a look at Ashley Neals channel Daniel. The police sided with a driver who knocked a cyclist off his bike and claimed to be an ex police officer. A very interesting video. Thank you for your informative and helpful content.👍😊
BBB please comment. If the cyclist is travelling faster than the vehicles so is overtaking on their left can a cyclist enter into a space that leaves less than 1.5 metres? Does the vehicle driver have to move right to provide the safe gap? Of course there may not be room to do so. If the speed of the traffic increases so that the cyclist is no longer overtaking where is the onus of responsibility. Cyclists often split the lanes, perhaps to the right of left turn vehicles and left of straight ahead vehicles. It can be impossible to provide 1.5 metres gap.
Ok I'll mention it - extremely poor judgement on part of van driver not only a cyclist who he owes a duty of care towards but an oncoming lorry he has failed to observe - yet more evidence of the van drivers lack of care and consideration
There's a lot going on here. In the video of the white van making a close pass there is a lorry travelling in the opposite direction straddling the centre line in order to pass a line of parked cars. No doubt the white van has moved to the left to avoid colliding with the lorry. It would have been better to slow down as well, of course, but when you're faced with a lorry heading towards you on your side of the road your natural instinct is to get out of the way. The road isn't wide enough for a line of parked cars, a lorry, a van and a bicycle all side by side.
I would take some of the highway and some of the pavement for the cycle lane on this road. In Amsterdam cyclists can pretty much cycle anywhere and it seems to work, however cyclists don't ride at crazy speeds either (mainly because all their cycles are crap).
I used to live in Oxford, where I cycled almost everywhere. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to thump the side of an overtaking bus to remind the driver I was there, all too often with parked cars to the other side that I have been squeezed up against.
Maybe it's time that cyclists were brought into line with other road users and began contributing directly to the roads & Pavements they use, are also required to pass at least a theory test on cycling on the highway, and cyclists over 18 to be insured.
@Homie it's called car tax, and people who aren't wealthy enough to afford a flash low emissions car have to pay it, the funding for highways England comes directly from that pot IIRC. So try and be a little bit less disingenuous next time friend
As a regular cycle commuter, this is one of the more interesting videos for me personally. It really gets me that people still don't comprehend that just because a "rule" in the Highway Code is _just guidance,_ it doesn't mean it can't be used against you. But what I'd like to say, and this may be controversial amongst my fellow cyclists, overall I think that most drivers give a good clearance when overtaking me. Yes, there are idiots that do pass too close, but there will always be idiots in this world. Maybe I'm lucky, but rides around the north and east portions of Manchester are mostly close-pass-free.
This is the thing, you have no context from my videos about how far I'm cycling, at what time of day or in what location. It's not uncommon for me to do 10,000 miles a year, with the majority of that during rush hour in London. Like you, the majority of my rides I have no issues.
@@CycleGaz totally agree. I cycle approximately 2500 miles a year as I am lucky to be a mere 5.5 miles from work. So a lot less than yourself. But as luck would have it, I can combine my cycling with a bit of potholing to keep things more interesting.
It is disappointing that the company wasn't forced to disclose the details of the driver. This a large company and the driver details would be a matter of company record. The fine is negligible. Not really a punishment at all. They would know which vans were out on which jobs and therefore their locations. It wouldn't surprise me if there were tracking data available. It seems to me that if the police can access my personal phone and social media data when they wish to pursue a complaint then why can't they access this company's data under a court order? Haul the CEO in front of the bench if they continue to refuse. This company is in effect obstructing justice and that should be a punishable offence. This driver is dangerous, Their attitude is the kind that kills people. All one can hope for I suppose is that they don't. But if they do then this is a matter of record and one would hope could be used against the company in any claims of negligence against the company in future.
They should hold the directors of the company jointly liable for the offence. Points and a large fine for each of them. They'd soon start keeping logs of who has which vehicle and when.
@@radman8321 That would defeat the point of a LLC and lead to the shutting down of any large company that has drivers on staff. The fine however is pitiful. it does need to go up into the 5 figgier mark. The low fine makes it an easy cost benefit analysis to just pay the fine rather than dob in a "good" driver. And when I say good driver, I mean that purely in the form of good for the company and their wallet. Hiring new staff is expensive, and you tend to find commercial drivers often are the ones constantly pushing the rules of the road to get where they need to go on time or early for the company. I know someone who used to work for a main supermarket as a van driver, and he told me that one of the first things they teach you in training is how to turn the monitoring/limiting device off... The way you do it kind of looks like a bug in the device, (you have to turn the ignition, turn it off immediately while holding down the brake, then start the ignition again with the brake still pushed down and release). But one does question whether this is actually a feature. The company targets are basically impossible and will leave you running late if you obeyed all the rules of the road, so it's like they designed it so it can be turned off in a bit of an obscure way. That way if a driver is ever caught breaking the rules of the road, the company can wash their hands of the whole thing by denying knowledge of bad driving and clame they have systems in place to prevent it. But that's because most drivers are turning the device off to meet the quotas. Drivers also have very perverse incentives. If they finish their shift early, they can go home and still keep their whole day's pay.
On the other side of the road all the cars are parked in the cycle lane which means the cars on the other side of the road has to move out more into the middle of the road I agree the cars should wait or leave more space but all the cars parked in the cycle lane should be prosecuted in my opinion
I know this road well and it’s always parked in like that It’s an advisory cycle lane (dashed white line not solid) so no offence is committed. Essentially they are just a suggestion to everyone that bicycles may ride there.
Or cycling without due care and attention, Failing to stop for red traffic signals, failure to fit lights when cycling at night, illegally cycling on pavements, failing to adhere to road signs and signals such as one way streets....or, my pet hate when I am out cycling...the ones who simply ignore the clearly marked direction arrows on cycle lanes and come pedalling flat out at you when there isn;t room buit there is a cycle path on the other side of the roadthey are supposed to use! Or hte pedestrians who play chicken and walk out as close as they can to passing road users to dive between the gaps. It is good the law is trying to punish bad road use by car drivers. It needs to stop being blinkered though, andf punish bad road use by ALL road users, cyclists and pedestrians too.
If I were travelling back from a local DIY store would it be permissible to attach the purchased wooden batten at right angles to my bicycle so that it projected no more than 1.5 meters from the side of my bicycle into the centre of the road, with a high viz marker at the end?
Little known aspect of the change is that horses and pedestrians should be given more space, yet when walking/running on country lanes most motorists give less room than they do cyclists
I was running on a country lane and could see a woman in a Range Rover heading towards me, I had to put my back against the wall that was there and she missed me by about 6 inches, I thought I was going to be hit.
Hi B B B, I watched this video and commented on it to CycleGaz, he showed the clip about three times and what I observed was the incident also involved a large truck coming the other way crossing the centre line on the road to avoid the parked cars, this 'forced' the van driver too close to the cyclist, I say forced like that because that event was totally predictable!, the van driver should have slowed down much sooner because that truck was clearly coming across the road!, the fact that it was the truck driver in the wrong is not entirely relevant here!, the way other people drive is always part of what we all have to deal with in as safe a manner as possible, observation anticipation and appropriate action is always the right thing. Cheers, Richard.
@@ditch3827 Hi Ditch, thank you for this reply, you may have your own spin on exactly what the word 'forced' means, in this context I was using it correctly to explain that having failed to make the appropriate observation of the oncoming traffic and the cyclist he did not slow down earlier and therefore was forced to cut in to avoid the errant truck, this to describe what actually occurred and to offer an account that demonstrates the likelihood that his behaviour however bad was not deliberate!, just bad judgement. Cheers, Richard.
I have a proposal; Maintain the 0.5 m cycle lane ... though road drains will need to be removed to make them usable. Now, paint a new 'motorized vehicle' exclusion line 2.0 m from the kerb ... obviously the same will be done on the opposite side. Problem solved. Though that does remove 4.0 m of road for 'motorized vehicles' !
There are thousands of miles of road in this country that if you took 2.0m from each side you would probably only be left with a 0.5m strip down the centre for 'motorzed vehicles' to flow in both directions.
They effectively to that in the Netherlands where they have wide cycle lanes on each side of the road leaving only a single lane for cars. If you meet a car coming towards you then you have to wait for a gap in the cycle lane and pull over into it.
I'm not sure about bbb's ½m measurement. Aren't they usually 1m? I'd make it a 2½m cycle lane but allow vehicles in it when there weren't cycles in it. (keeps the debris crunched\swept) Have a 1m exclusion line when vehicles are travelling below15mph; to allow for arriving cycles.
@@richH1625 DfT Local Transport Note 1/20 specifies a Desirable minimum width of 2.0m and an Absolute minimum at constraints of 1.5m [Table 5-2 on page 43]. That's for a 1-way on-carriageway cycle lane, the lowest bar. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf These are the standards that local authorities are supposed to have been working since 2020. There's a lot of old infrastructure (i.e. paint) which falls woefully short of this standard, though, like the example in the video above. Sadly even quite a bit of the newer stuff built since 2020 fails the test.
@@wonkyboy However they can be prosecuted under other laws. Road Trafic Act 1988 sections 28 and 29 covers careless cycling (as does HC Rule 66) respectively and cyclists have been prosecuted in the past under these laws. DoT also advised 18mph/30kp/h in one of their advisements for cyclists back in the early 2000's. Electric bikes also throw a fly into the ointment as they can be unlocked to go faster than a car in cities.
The Flaw with all this is. You keep referring to something called the Highway Code ( H C). Which I very much doubt many people have seen since passing their Theory test. I think it's high time that Each and every year when one gets their insurance renewal ALL drivers have to answer a set amount of H C questions. Therefore making drivers have to look it up if they don't already know the answers.
I am a former Bus Driver/Instructor - You may not be surprised to hear there is a substantial number of Bus Drivers who deeply resent sharing Bus lanes with cyclist's. this has shamed me to know 'professional' drivers who intimidate and bully cyclists with a double deck bus ! - I will definitely sign up - great idea to support drivers and cyclists alike. I used to teach that most Road Traffic Incidents happen when two idiots meet, the skill is to not be one of them . Though one question. what is the difference between this app/product and other free cloud storage resources ?
I've no problem with cars being done for careless driving from camera footage but let's have something on bicycles to identify them so vehicle driving members of the public can send in their footage of cyclists running red lights, and generally not following the rules of the road.
If they bring out a law saying cyclists can't cycle too close to cars then cars can't drive too close to cyclists. The only way to enforce this law is for all cyclists to cycle exactly in the middle of the lane to prevent any vehicles from passing too close to them. If drivers are up for this, I am too. So, let's do a poll. Who's in favour of this?
Great video. I have recently bought a camera for my bike too as I get too many close calls!! Either people are just getting too close or pulling out on me.
Me too. I've looked into front cameras recently and they are too expensive for me.😳 I've only been driven into from the front or side so far. I have so much reflective tape the bike looks like a skeleton costume. And I use the lights all the time now.
I have had a close pass when been out cycling and asked the police to take into consideration the how much closer the passenger wing mirror is . They have taken action.
I've been hit by a wing mirror when walking on a pavement. It came up behind me so I didn't see it coming. The ones on lorries stick out a long way and are at head height.
@@ditch3827 I hope you where not hit to hard must have come as a shock not knowing what hit you. Its well worth pointing out to the police when submitting footage I have been told by a police office that my statement is prime and the footage come second ?
@@itsonlyme9938 I wasn't hit hard. It was a narrow lane and he squeezed past me slowly and caught my elbow with his wing mirror. I did report it to the police but as it was quite minor I didn't want to cause him any trouble so the police just wrote him a warning letter. I did start wearing a body cam after that when out walking.
Before watching too far in, I'd like to say as a cyclist there are 2 types of drivers that annoy me, those who are too reckless (read dangerous) and those who are too cautious. When I'm cycling i usually cycle as close to the curb/parked cars as i safely can so drivers can pass me, and if it's busy I'll usually pull in between parked cars so they can pass. And as long as I'm aware the driver is comming up behind me i can focus on keeping myself safe as they pass even if they have to pass close. What annoys me is when i make room and the driver still doesn't pass, until the road is compleatly clear (like dude you're driving a hatchback not a bus, you don't need to drive on the otherside of the road to pass me) Onnthe other end you get the idiots who just floor it and try to squeeze past me who's passing a parked car and another car commjng the otherway (like seriously it won't kill you to wait 5 seconds for me to pass this parked car so i can make room for you)
I agree, I was behind a car who had slowed down for a cyclist and would not overtake. This particular road is about 6 cars wide so I over took the car with at least a 2 metre gap then the cyclist with about a 4 metre gap just as the car I overtook furiously sounded his/her horn, ludicrous.
I agree and copy your approach ref pulling in etc. As cyclists we need to really be clear that very often driver behaviour is due to arrogance displayed by many cyclists. Using roads when cycle lanes are marked on adjacent paths etc - usually the lycra clad twat fraternity i think
Two points re cycles passing parked cars ( and I am one too ) is that you must allow a door's width when passing , just in case one is opened ( this applies to drivers too ) or in case a child steps out from behind ; second , before you begin to overtake , you must check behind to ensure that you yourself are not about to be overtaken , and if necessary stop to let the faster vehicle pass before you begin your overtake .
@@markbutler9291 It is beyond high time that it was mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where available , and an offence to obstruct others when it can be avoided by using the cycle lane . many previously two lane roads have been reduced to a single lane for all other traffic , to put in a cycle lane with separation barrier in what was previously the left lane . Previously , traffic could move out to the right lane to pass cyclists , but use both lanes when ( most of the time ) there were none ; now all other traffic is forced into half the available road space .
I'm sorry but I may be one of the drivers in your too cautious category and it's because of the new law. I live in a rural area with flat twisty roads and every weekend lycra clad cyclists turn up here in droves. I have a clean licence and I want to keep it that way because I'm only too aware of the number of cyclists with helmet cameras who love nothing better than to film car drivers. I will wait until I can get into the opposite lane to overtake safely and I'll have cyclists who wave furiously for me to overtake but won't pull in themselves. This doesn't normally happen with the people actively cycling but usually the ones chatting with their friends without a care in the world. As someone who rides a motorcycle I know how vulnerable two wheeled users are so used to give plenty of room anyway before the law change, but until this stupid law is reviewed I won't risk my licence passing a cyclist until I've got room to overtake in the opposite carriageway.
I followed a group 3 abreast for miles. I could not overtake and leave 1.5 meters. I had cars behind my van hanging off the horn. I was so miffed. Putting it politely. The law is all one sided now. I have a van and a motorcycle so I know about safe spaces.
@@Non-Stick_Pan Can't be done. My camera picks up a group of cyclist's working from home. Joking. No way of identifying them. I overtake and my number plate is there. The law is one sided. The idea was good but not thought out correctly.
You don't have the right to overtake them. Be patient. You complain about cyclists riding three abreast, consider the number of vehicles on UK roads that have only a driver in them - they're taking up significantly more of the road than 3 cyclists are.
In the circumstances, the Penalty applied to the white van is so relatively small its reasonable to wonder is that the best response & counter response.
I ride a tricycle, these close passes happen every time I go for a ride. I've got front & rear camera's & reported to the police 4 times, on all occasions they didn't do anything, citing there's no legislation about distances. I've given up bothering reporting anymore.
Very few. According to DfT, in the survey year there were 189 serious accidents in which the police had to attend due to a cyclist not stopping at red. This compares with 3,564 caused by car drivers not stopping on red. I would imagine when the 189 cyclists failed to stop it was the cyclists themselves that were injured but then the 3,564 cars failed to stop it was third parties that were injured.
Just a question. Does this apply the other way around as well? Like the huge amount of cases, when cyclists ride between or alongside the columns of vehicles stopped at a crossroad. Where not rarely the distance they can have between themselves and the vehicles on any side is far less than one meter.
It's not the same. The cars are stationary and stationary cars are no danger to a cyclist. When was the last time you heard of a car driver in a stationary car being killed by a cyclist?
From 17th September 2023, the default speed in Wales will be 20 mph, therefore when a cyclist overtakes a motorist, do they have to be a minimum of 1.5m away from the motorist?
Can't disagree with anything said, however, all cyclists should always use the cycle lane where one exists, otherwise what's the point of building them?
I've noticed loads of cyclists not using them. The most common is at a cycle lane near where I live. Cyclists often cycle on the pavement which is right next to the cycle lane. They even cycle in both directions despite there actually being lanes on both sides of the road meaning pedestrians need to be wary of cyclists coming from either direction. The other issue I see is cyclists riding in the wrong direction on the cycle lane, again when there are lanes on both sides. Cycle lanes only work when used properly.
I agree but I get the impression that some drivers believe that they can drive right up to the edge of the cycle lane (being the white line denoting the boundary). I note from the video that there are cars parked on the other side of the road and as this seems to be quite a busy thoroughfare to me it would make sense to ban parking, widen the cycle lane and separate it from the road with a physical boundary.
@@kenmay1572 I'm not saying you don't. I'm saying that the TfL study shows the type of cycle lane in the video increases cyclists injuries by 30% and so are more dangerous than cycling on the carriageway.
The first 60 seconds of this video is the most IMPORTANT bit you should know off, its LAW. 1.5m is the MINIMUM from the cyclist, if he is in the middle of the road, he is probably there for a reason.. Fact last year I reported 18 incidents all 18 were convicted and all passed me within centimetres, and these included professional drivers two were lorries, 2 were black cabs. many Thanks BBB ~Trooper
The number of drivers who forget they have 3-4 feet of extra metal to their left is shocking. I would love to have a mandatory road user safety course that the offender must pay for and it should be costly. anyone banned should have to resit the test every 3 years for 15 years. I would also like a test for cyclists and a number plate for the bikes
Does part of the issue come from the fact that the council has dictated that as a cycle lane (even though it's far too narrow)? As in many examples I've seen recently, it may have been safer to not have the lane there at all, and let the cyclist take primary position. With the space closing down as it was (parked cars, oncoming traffic crossing the centre line), if I was the van driver, I would have been far more cautious even if the cyclist wasn't there. To squeeze through a gap that really isn't is stupid no matter what vehicle you're using. How much less time did they spend driving to their destination instead of waiting for a proper space 🤔
Totally correct. TfL did a study on this and found that these 'advisory cycle lanes' increase injury rates by 30%. They are dangerous and should be removed.
A lot of cyclists don't seem to be that bothered about space when your driving in slow moving traffic and they push there way through on whichever side of the car they like.
@@harryrowland4734 if you say so.... you sound like someone that does just that, it's strange how cyclists can justify whatever they do. Your not frightened to weave in and out of moving cars but you shit yourself if a car passes you closer than you like.
@@keithwebster5161 speed kills, you be terrified if you got stuck in a car stuck on a track with a fast-approaching train. Trains are bigger heavier than cars and would squish the car and its occupant. If it was a fast-approaching cyclist, you cry over something as trivial as a dent.
@@mikewade777 Cars and trains what the hell are you on about, if speed was the only factor there would be no one on the roads it's not speed that kills its idiot road users that kill and that includes cyclists. When they decide to put cycle lanes on each side of a road ( that are empty alot of the time) other vehicles are forced over to the centre line often causing on coming traffic to be as close as a meter sometimes les.If a cycalist should be given two meters what do you sergest drivers should do, maybe slow to 5mph.
@@harryrowland4734 it is still dangerous for the cyclist as they would be putting themselves in what my friends call the suicide zone. Commonly called the blind spot. Should the traffic start to move again and the driver not see a cyclist in the suicide zone well you know what can happen. The laws of the land may be on the side of the cyclist but the laws of physics certainly won't be. Just be patient.
These are what I call "catch all" offences that effectively leave it up to the courts to decide if a particular action is an offence. There's no particular rule that says; "He Who A) walks up to the serving Monarch. B) tweaks their nose C) demands of accompanying police "what you gonna do about it, big nose" D) drops their trousers and moons the crowd Shall be guilty of an offence" This doesn't mean this is legal, safe and a good idea or that you won't have a very bad day if you try it. The above would, of course, be an infringement of Havelock Vetinari's controversial "being bloody stupid" act that applies only in Anhk Morpork. Which I''d like to see adopted in the UK at some times.
Surely if the safe distance for a car to overtake a cycle is 1.5 meters, it must follow that the safe distance for a cycle to undertake or weave in and out of cars must be 1.5 meters. Remember blind spots etc. in your risk assessments.
They are different situations. If I pass cars which are basically parked or moving very slowly, or unable to accelerate due to the queue ahead of them, then physics says that risk is low as said car will not be able to cause massive damage to the cyclist. However I as a driver close pass a cyclist at say, 30 mph or higher, risk is very high, as a pothole or a sudden gust of wind can put the cyclist in the path of two tonnes of speeding metal.
@Ed J I don't agree with your assessments. True they are different situations. However, if a cycle trips in a pothole or wind whilst weaving or undertaking, the inertia of the car is irrelevant, the cycle will be come off worse. How can the car be held ponsible in this situation? All sets of road users need to be aware of the limits and vulnerabilities of other errors.
@@johnhath5940 the cyclist will come off worse. But the difference is when the car is going at 5 mph the cyclist will probably end up with only minor scratches, whilst at 30 mph we could be talking about a fatality. I don't want to make this a cyclist vs driver thing, and I agree that cyclists as well as drivers need to take responsibility, but the rules of physics are the basis as to why cyclists (or motorbikes) can filter through slow moving or stationary traffic safely, but close passes at 30mph are not safe. Another reason is when filtering, the cyclist is prepared for what they are going to do, which sounds funny but is important. If I want to filter past a very slow moving car, I've made a risk assessment in my head which has calculated that the car can't move into me, there are no potholes, it can't turn left etc. If I as a driver pass a cyclist at 30 mph closely, that cyclist may not be expecting that at all and has not planned for me to do that, and any move to the right by the cyclist due to wind, pothole etc could be fatal.
Close passing cyclists vs filtering motorised vehicles with a bicycle are two different things. How? You find the law of physics giving you the answer there...swing a bat (which would be a vehicle such as a car) towards someone and miss them by a few centimetres, and then take the same bat and lie it down on a table and tell them to walk past it (which would be a cyclist) with a few centimetres distances. The difference is obvious, and that is why filtering is legal while squeezing by vulnerable road users such as cyclists with your car is certainly not. What's important when you filter though is to only filter when the traffic is stationary or is going slowly, else the risk is greatly increased.
The Van driver may have been giving more attention to the traffic, including a Car, a Van and a Tanker coming the other way as they crossed the centre line to pass a parked car without signalling. These incidents also happen because roads are no longer suitable for the number and size of the vehicles using them. This does not excuse the Van driver, but it does go some way to understanding there are other reasons that drivers do not drive safely besides not caring about cyclists. When I decided to go back onto 2 wheels for leisure, it was a mountain bike I chose, simply to reduce dependence on poor roads populated with enough poor (or worse) drivers to make it a serious risk to life. Much needs to be done, and merely passing a law is not enough!
1.5 metres would mean that a cyclist riding in the middle of a typical lane of traffic could neither be overtaken in the right lane or (if three lanes) from the left lane. It is a big distance, and would mean that two lanes going in one direction such as a typical dual carriageway would not allow any vehicle to overtake even when using the passing lane. Even when driving, a vehicle overtaking in the right lane is usually very close to the vehicle in the left lane, and many country roads allow for no more than 10 cm between opposing traffic.
Indeed. Top end A dual carriageway roads normally should be built to lane width of 3.65m, so if one is positioned in the centre of a lane, the clearance on both sides can be less than 1m (depending on your vehicle). Generally, when there is a cyclist riding on a 70 mph road like that, I always change lane to pass at high speed. Don’t forget that the 1.5 m value is a minimum one, basically at low speed. No shortage of aerodynamic drag at full speed.
Unfortunately, very few places in the States allow bicyclists ride on rodes with that much traffic. But, with the newer cars with the automatic brakes, or even stopping a driver from changing lanes if there's anything that makes it unsafe for anyone involved. I'm not into a car I have to wrestle to drive, other's love them. I wish we have lanes in the states for cyclists! My goodness, the fuel, insurance, money, exercise, climate, noise.... I rode my bicycle in my town for years and saved a lot of time, wasted fuel, and money...and excellent health!
You don't know what you are wishing for. If your work place is 20 miles away it takes >60 minutes by car to get there because some genius decided implement bike lanes. You cant take all your work gear on a bike. Now the traffic is as slow as the slowest biker. That causes pollution frustration and accidents. God bless USA fo keeping that problem away from the people.
@@markbutler9291 If I am the registered keeper of a car, and that car gets caught speeding (by camera) I have to tell the authorities who was driving it. If I don't it's me that gets the points and the fine. It should be the same for company directors.
The Law requires the registered keeper to identify the driver. The company failed to do so and was fined accordingly. However, as regards the close pass... The driver committed the offence, not the company directors. The point of punishing people for behaving badly is to stop them behaving badly in future. You do not punish Directors because someone who works for their company broke a law. If you get a speeding ticket and fail to provide details of another driver, it is assumed you were the driver. In the case of a board of Directors....it is not reasonable or likely that they were driving, so the company receives a fine. In the case of a vehicle owned by a single individual....the balance of probablility is that you were driving.
@@Flakmagnet1701 Yes you do punish the directors. Ever heard of corporate manslaughter? You do know who goes to prison don't you? If the directors are going to be punished they will co-operate and name the driver, a small fine, no doubt written off against tax as a business expense will do nothing to prevent the bad driving recurring and will let the driver escape punishment.
Every person should be made to ride a bike on the road for 12 months before they can even apply for a provisional license ( and before anyone jumps to conclusions there are many adapted options for people who need them) . Then people would be more patient as they know exactly what it's like to be close passed etc. In my experience the police automatically side with the car driver until I show them video evidence to the contrary, this needs to change also.
i think most people did ride a bike before they passed their test, 99% of teenagers ride bikes then go on to either motorbikes or cars or they do in my area (North Herts). Personally I have nothing against sensible cyclists, its the idiots that go out at the weekend in packs of 20 or more on country lanes and take up not only the whole lane they are in, but also the opposite carriageway meaning you are stuck behind them for mile after mile and they refuse to give way. I never beep at them and always stay a respectful distance behind so as not to intimidate them but its obvious that I want to pass and they just carry on occasionally looking back at me and laughing amongst themselves and pointing etc. All this happens at around 15 mph on a 60mph road so its obvious that I dont want to be behind them. Most of the time I have to turn off and take a diversion and hope I come out ahead of them. This isn't a one off in the summer here in Leafy North Herts its very common. I'm not anti-cycling at all, but what I am is anti-social behaviour such as this. To my mind, if cyclists like these want respect on the road then they should give other road users respect. The cyclists I see that are just using bikes as a means of transport are generally speaking far more respectful (not always but mostly). I am never disrespectful of cyclists but do get annoyed by the for group I have mentioned.
I think it come under presumption of innocence, though BBB can probably give a more learn'd opinion. If you go to a copper and say "He did this, guv" and the other guy says "No I didn't, guv" then he can't proceed with a prosecution unless there is evidence to the contrary.
THIS HAPPENS NEARLY EVERYTIME I GO OUT ON MY BIKE THE NEW RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING ALL I CAN DO IS REPORT THEM AND PUT THEM ON RUclips AND JUST HAVE TO HOPE FOR THE BEST TO SEE IF POLICE ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING
The biggest problem today is that many road users (of all types) are only interested in themselves, but that is how society is these days, unfortunately. Standards have been getting worse and worse for many years. Many motorists are fed up with the cyclists who ignore the Highway Code because it doesn't suit them and many cyclists are fed up with the motorists who ignore the Highway Code. This isn't helped when the Highway Code isn't always well written as not everything has been taken into account. There is a lot of focus on Rule 163 and the distances when passing cyclists, but there is more to this Rule than that. As you said, it states the room to overtake motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians and that it should be the same distance as when passing another car. So, if we say a car is around 2m wide, mirror to mirror (or more for an SUV), 1 car overtaking another car, whilst respecting the Highway Code guidance, would need a minimum road width of around 6m (allowing extra so that the cars are clear of the kerbs), but many roads are simply not that wide. Guidance for the width of new roads starts from 4.8m or 5.5m depending on the type, so in theory the Highway code is now saying cars can't legally overtake on many roads regardless of the fact you are when overtaking another car you are normally in the opposite lane, but because there would be less than at least 1.5m as it is deemed to be driving with reasonable consideration. But if you stop and think about that, it means that when 2 cars pass each other on that same road, travelling in opposite directions, both driving normally within their lanes, that is perfectly acceptable, despite the closing speed being far higher than when overtaking. Also, the wording used is not clear for many people. You said in another video that there was no ambiguity in this Rule but I would say, for Joe Public, there is. At the beginning it says "You should", it doesn't says "You must", so for non legal speaking people, it can be taken to mean it is not a requirement to follow the points, but you should try to. Then further down it says "As a guide:" For most people this would be interpreted as a suggestion, again not a requirement. It is only the the last paragraph that clearly states the requirement to not overtake if you cannot meet the clearances. It would have made it much clearer if the Rule started with "You must" and if "As a guide:" was instead "You must" Another area where I would argue there is ambiguity is that there is no guidance in the Rule for overtaking mobility scooters, large goods vehicles and any other road user category that isn't mentioned. How much room should you leave when passing a mobility scooter or a tractor? The answer would probably be to use common sense, but that's why the Rule was changed because people don't always have common sense. Clearly the red car in the video gives what should be considered as sufficient room, but if you apply the Highway Code Rule 163 that driver should be prosecuted for driving without reason consideration as they didn't meet the requirements of the Highway Code. If that driver was to be prosecuted it would mean the courts would be doing nothing but that, so it would be most likely that no prosecution would be made, but in that case, what's the point of the Rule?
Try giving that distance on many of our Cornish roads. I have been overtaken by cyclists on the inside when controlling my speed because of the narrowness of the road.
Norfolk roads too !!! When did you ever see a cyclist or cyclists pull over to allow faster traffic to pass safely ??. When will cyclists require a Road Fund Licence??
@@UKRO404 A Road Fund Licence is required for permission of a vehicle to use the Public Highways. Cyclists take it upon themselves to use said as a Right of Access. Pay your bit, get a Licence, get a Number Plate !!!
What an incentive for the company to disclose the driver £100 fine and £470 costs,...really,..what a joke ! A fine of £30,000 and costs of £4,700 is what have been issued, otherwise were is the deterrent !
While I both drive and cycle , and know there are good and bad in both groups , it does rankle me , as a driver , that cyclists go on about others passing them too closely , and yet they seem to think it perfectly OK to proceed down narrow gaps between lanes of traffic where there is barely space for them to fit through , or to the right or left of other vehicles , without consideration for doors opening or people stepping out , such that handlebars are practically scraping peoples' paintwork . When cyclists also start to give minimum 1.5m clearance to other road users there will be no more instances of them cycling into peoples' doors , causing injury or damage , and far fewer instances of them running into pedestrians , particularly children , who step out from between parked vehicles , or from behind buses at bus stops .
If these laws are for safety reasons then when a cyclist passes a car they should be adhering to the same passing distance as it would give versa. So cyclists should be at least 1.5 metres away from a car when passing. A great deal of cyclists killed on our roads each year are killed as a result of their own negligence. In fact the Met ran a campaign in London to reduce cyclist deaths which highlighted that cyclists undertaking was leading to fatalities and that the cyclists are responsible for this very dangerous behaviour.
I agree with you the van drove too close to the cyclist , my gripe is that when cyclists come up your inside with not enough space and scratches your car I would like that banned
That's annoying. I know it's not always possible but my tip would be to leave a big gap on the inside or get so close to the kerb that the cyclist has to overtake.
If we just had hoverboards and teleportation we could start arguing about the productive things like Get off my lawn! and Stop teleporting inside my bathroom!
I think cycle lanes can give the impression that they are a separate part of the carriageway and therfore cause some drivers to assume that cyclists using those lanes are not actually in the same roadspace as themselves and therefore don't need to maintain much of a gap when passing. If that is the case then the presence of a delineated cycle lane could actually be less safe than none at all!
And that is indeed the case. The TfL study should that these 'advisory cycle lanes'' increases injuries by 30% compared to them simply not being there. So yes they have been shown to be dangerous.
These types of cycle lanes are pretty much next to useless, properly segregated lanes are the only way to go. P.S. I am not a cyclist but am a driver. My final comment would be that many cyclists do themselves no favours, i.e. not using a segregated cycle lane when there is one, happens frequently around the corner from me, by which I mean 2 or 3 times an hour and completely ignoring pedestrians on a crossing, happens to me personally at least 2 or 3 times a week. Once we start to pursue recalcitrant cyclists with the same vigour as we do drivers things may change in that regard. I strongly advocate the introduction of identification plates for cyclists so we can identify the idiots and make insurance "recommended".
@@paulwood5803 Good points, but there are more drivers who don't stop at Zebra crossing than cyclists. I'am a pedestrian and I notice lots of drivers who don't appear to be aware that the Highway Code has changed. Had one the other week in Euxton, Lancashire, they drew up in-front of me I had words, the driver went on the offensive straight away. Fortunately the driver behind waved me across and he was thanked. (So hopefully he would feel good for doing this kind gesture).
In fact Paul you sound like a person who hates cyclists!
Interesting idea..
Many cycle lanes actually ARE physically separated from the rest of the carriageway .
I'm a bus driver and I was trained to imagine the person could fall off so you need to be able to overtake far enough away from them that even if that happens you don't hit them.
Just as everyone , including cyclists , is required to pass parked vehicles at more than a door's width .
Or swerve to avoid potholes which can be fatal to cyclists. I've had motorists jostling to overtake me, they don't see the pothole nor appreciate I may need to swerve suddenly. And they turn the air blue when they find they can't overtake - coming up to a bend! . Could be worse, I could be dead.
This is what I was taught from my first driving lesson (normal car). As someone who cycled on roads as a kid I needed no persuasion.
It’s a shame some bus drivers seem to forget their training. :(
Here’s one close passing me:
ruclips.net/video/O14c1lETx-o/видео.html
@@ChaponaBike Just needs a passenger in one of those cars on the other side to open their door & you're spaghetti
A clear demonstration of "Paint doesn't Protect" - but doubly so if it's badly placed.
It's hard to believe that you're still having to keep explaining this??
He does it to make money, like all RUclipsrs
@@kbeesmot9928 I'd rather go with the audience is challenging to teach. A barrister certainly doesn't need the money. But that's the beautiful thing about opinions, creates conversation. 😁👍
That's because he gets paid every time he tells us. SO he will keep telling us 🤔 Until we stop watching 😂
Because its not very clear
@@steve-61 Evidently, he must continue to tell us, look at the white van in the video!
"I saw this one bad cyclist so I'm going to endanger this other innocent cyclist who abides by the law"
If only it were one- as travel i look to see how many cyclists are breaking the law with the manner in which they cycle , or the road legality of their cycles - and the majority are breaking the law in one or other manner.
@@winnie6354 of course so you should try and kill them, what is this logic?
@@cornishalps9870 it's the same logig that some drivers use when someone pulls out in front of them in a car and think.
He should have given way so I'm going to keep going and hit him.
Just to prove a point.
They will end up with but I had priority written on their headstone
@@winnie6354 If one looks at any study about this topic, one would see that people on bicycles and people in cars break the rules at about equal rates. So your statement " the majority are breaking the law in one or other manner." goes for both drivers and cyclists.
@@k-rj740 definitely, don't know any cyclists who mistreat cars because one mistreated them
My favorite screw up is when they do this in a company vehicle, phone # & all listed.💙
But… if a company decides not to name the driver, they just get a £1000 fine and a slap on the wrists. No penalty points. No insurance hike.
@@ChaponaBike never saw that company truck parked o/s happy hour again🎤💥
When there is no cycle lane, drivers tend to give me plenty of room. When there is a cycle lane they seem to think that the 1.5m does not apply because there is a cycle lane and many of them drive up to the line, scaring the hell out of me. Not been hit yet.
its kinda the point of the lane though, you stay in it, now drivers dont need to go onto the other side of the road to overtake, when there isnt a lane, drivers have no idea what cyclists are going to do (sudden swerves) so they give you room just incase. Myself as a car driver and a lycra cyclist I might be a bad example lol, when im on the bike I never swerve, I bunny hop over the twig or drain cover or whatever, im (in my opinion) in total control, therefore in my mind its silly for someone to go to france just to overtake me lol, plus i shoulder check every 30 seconds so I know they are coming (which all cyclists should do anyway), so really for myself at least there are no excuses or reasons for a car to go to germany (getting further) to overtake as im aware of my surroundings and in control of my bike
I have.
@@SoSimonSays - A cyclist is only 2.5' wide when upright, but about 3.5' wide when leaning into a turn, and about 6.5' wide when laid out (bike and person). For safety's sake, it's best to just give them the space in case something causes them to lay the bike down.
I'm not a cyclist, but if I was cycling down that road I'd ride in primary position because there would be no way drivers would be able to give 1.5 metres if the other lane wasn't free and cycling in the cycle lane would make some drivers think they could chance getting past, like the white van.
(Not a criticism of the cyclist, just what I would do).
As an experienced cyclist, that is exactly how I do it, take prime, then look ahead and wave to the vehicle behind to overtake when the road is clear enough for them and I'm comfortable for a close overtake.
Most HGV and PSV drivers especially appreciate these signals.
@@JP-hr7ch no one has any right to prevent others from overtaking .
@@derekheeps8012 Don’t be an idiot all your life, it’s not good for you, he’s not, he’s stopping them passing when there is no room to safely pass. Just like every bl**dy car does all the time in fact, traffic coming the other way you couldn’t pass a car could you? Clearly you are part of the problem.
@@simonrook5743 No road user is allowed to stop faster traffic from overtaking - that is obstruction .
@@derekheeps8012 But they are not preventing any vehicles from overtaking, where it is safe to do so. Anything else is not obstruction but simple road safety.
As a cyclist who also drives - thank you.
What's as important, if not more important, than the '2 metres' in the Hwy Code, is the *attempt* at giving the cyclist sufficient berth. The red car illustrates this. It was possibly only a metre in distance, but the intention of the driver to 'give way' to the cyclist was clearly made, and that alone is often all a cyclist needs to continue in a stable and undisturbed manner.
The van in question had little to no space to pass as widely. However, that being the case, there was every onus for the van to slow down until such time it was safe to pass, the latter missive being lost on many drivers in many situations.
Excellently put... 👍👍👍
Agreed - The van moved toward the bike because of the truck coming the other way & should have waited.
Share the road safely. Simple really.
Madmick, I wish it was that simple. Typically, younger men on the way home from work on a Friday afternoon, or off out for the evening, are flooring it to impress their mates, & consideration goes out of the window. Cyclists are just an unexpected & soft obstacle to their plans etc
@@daffyduk77 Sadly, I see your point. Has with a lot of things I've learned over the years, there's a need for things to be taught in schools. Graphically, how speed and dangerous driving kills people, including it's aftermath, for families. would be one such thing.
Got it right at the end there. . . we are all users who share the road. Some road users - that includes drivers, cyclists and pedestrians - need to be reminded of this.
The narrative of this video is that the van driver was at fault- but did not look as to why he was too close compared to the other drivers before him.
If you look at the traffic coming the other way there is none for the first two vehicles but a van and lorry trying to pass a parked car for the van, These two vehicles doid not have right of way - they should have stopped as the van had right of way . By overtaking the parked car the two vehicles forced the van closer to the cycle lane - but not onto the white line of the cycle lane. The van driver with the benefit of hine sight should anticipated the that the vehicles coming the other way were not going to give way as the law requires and have held back.
Drivers are taught to stay in lane or indicate when changing lanes - he stayed in lane- and cyclists seem to be only case where you have to move out of your lane to accommodate somebody who has there own lane , but is considered too vulnerable to use it safely.
The prosecution of the van driver was not contested - but that means no defence was put forward which may have changed the outcome of the case.
We do not know why they did not defend themselves - cheaper to let the business pay than loose the time needed for a defence and paying a solicitor or barrister as well.
@@winnie6354 All had right of way , but the van had PRIORITY . The lorry had completed his overtake of the parked cars , could and SHOULD have returned to his own side to allow the van the space he required ; and the van driver had a reasonable expectation that the lorry driver would have done this , hence would not have expected to be forced so close to the cyclist . The answer here would be to reduce the width of the pavement and build a segregated cycle lane into it ( there is plenty of width to do this ) , or to slightly widen the pavement and make it a shared space for cyclists and pedestrians . Since every house on that road has a driveway ; make it a no parking area , apart from a limited number of loading bays , which could be built as lay-bys into the pavement area .
@@winnie6354 I highly doubt "the company" would have paid for anything, I am a company car driver and my employer does not pay fines!
@@winnie6354 "has there own lane , but is considered too vulnerable to use it safely. " if that cycle lane is wide enough to enable a safe distance from kerb plus the usual fatal manholes at the side of the road, as well as a safe passing space for an overtaking motorist, then I'm a Dutchman. In practice the road is too narrow to allow a motorist to safely overtake a cycle in "their lane" when there are large oncoming vehicles, or cars parked on the other side of the road.
@@derekheeps8012 No, the cyclist had priority & the motorist only had right to overtake when it was safe to do so. Not against oncoming traffic & especially when there are vehicles parked on the other side of the road. No, if you look at the video, the pavement with plus very narrow "cycle-lane" width together would if split into a half for pedestrians & half for cyclists, still mean pedestrians were in danger of being hit by cyclists (which can hurt cyclists as well). And looking at white van man (?) having to touch the white line whilst trying to avoid oncoming traffic, a cyclist in the new slightly wider cycle path would still be at risk from white van man etc. The road is too narrow for three vehicles to pass safely at one, when one is a cyclist
😂😂😂 wow. Just came across this guy
He won me access to my kids in 2019 and again in 2020. Tae Kwon do black belt, I was a kick box black belt. Really nice guy and down to earth
Nice channel Dan well done. Ps she’s still behaving after you got me a penal order against her 😊
I have seen motorists open a door to crash a cyclist, and drive on, without a care in the world. 3 times I have appeared in court to testify what I saw. 3 times the driver was sent to jail.
That's 3 less motorised criminals on the road. Good job!
I always give a safe distance when overtaking but there should be new rules for cyclists like when your on narrow country roads and you see them side by side, they should go single file or at least have some common courtesy to allow vehicles to pass.
Patience is the cure to that one.
Three abreast is still narrower than your car. Do you also bitch when you find slow moving farm equipment?
If they go single file, drivers have to travel on the wrong side of the road for a longer distance. Particularly on windy country roads, it's safer for everyone for cyclists to go side by side.
Safety before courtesy.
The highway code covers that. The slow moving vehicle is supposed to pull over when it's safe to let the queue of cars behind past.
I have a camera on my pushbike now as I cycle up to my horse field sadly same time as schools have mummy picking up their little angels, I am invisible to them often barged out the way. Fed up with it.
Is there any rule/law for cyclist to abide by in regard to how much road he, she or they (sometimes several abreast) can occupy?
Yes, a lane.
Yes: they can occupy the space they need in order to maintain their personal safety among other traffic. This can mean taking a central lane position where it wouldn't be safe for another road user to pass them or over to the left of the lane when it's safe to do so. The mere presence of a cycle lane doesn't mean you can go within 1.5m of them just because "they're in their lane and I'm in mine." Road markings aren't going to stop their head from becoming a tyre accessory should they fall sideways.
A carriage can use the full carriageway. Bicycles have been regarded as carriages in law since 1834 and further strengthened in 1888.
Refer to your Highway Code. You do have a copy with you at all times don't you? It's a legal requirement to carry a copy whilst operating a mechanically propelled vehicular device.
@@tednruth453 I'd very much like to know where you found that piece of information from.
It really pisses me off when people, who have already amassed enough points that a few more would have them banned, escape a ban because they sob 'exceptional hardship'. F**k 'em, they should have thought of the consequences of being deprived of their licence and behaved accordingly.
only wish we could hold bad cyclists to the same account F**k them too.
Totally agree!
But did you notice the on-coming lorry which had slightly crossed over the centre white line? I would suggest this was the reason the white van pulled too close to the cyclist - not that it is an excuse to pass that close of course.
I pointed this out earlier, but got slated for it. The van was badly positioned, but the road sweeper clearly pulls out in front of the van, leaving no wriggle room which is why the van suddenly slows down.
He could have just slowed and stayed behind the cyclist.
@@ditch3827 agreed but its still fair mitigation
This would be mitigation if the van had had to swerve to avoid the wagon while in the overtake. You can see very clearly that he was never in a safe passing position at any point. Not only that but the van before the wagon was also straddling the white line yet the offender still starts an overtake. That bloke had no intention of passing safely. A competent driver would have held back until it was safe to overtake.
@@ditch3827 The lorry had finished overtaking and should have returned to his own side of the road , but despite there being no parked vehicles opposite at that point , he failed to move back over , which the van driver had every right to expect him to . By the time it became clear the lorry was staying out , the van was already passing the bike .
For viewers struggling with the concept of safely passing a cyclist please refer to the early stages of the video.
Another great video. I drive but also cycle (not as much) and do try to remain aware. There is onus on cyclists to cycle safely but I do have a gripe. If motorists are supposed to give up to 1.5m to keep cyclists "safe" (otherwise risking prosecution) are cyclists not at risk of prosecution if, in slow moving traffic, they bomb up the inside cycle lane? Clearly they are now ignoring their own rule? They either need 1.5m or they don't.
It's called 'filtering'. Preferably not 'bombing' of course.
Not the same situation at all. Close passes involve both vehicles moving, motor vehicle coming up from behind cyclist (who must focus main attention forwards to maintain balance); filtering happens with motor vehicles stopped or nearly so. Try doing some of your cycling in traffic and you'll see the difference.
Do you think actual prosecutions and repercussions would actually make people think about their road use and speed, since all I read lately (my local paper is the Worcester News) is people being let off because they need the vehicle for work. Surely if the vehicle is important to your job then you’d drive better in the first place. Since people can tort up point after point and get away with it it becomes somewhat meaningless, might as well just start fining people and get this all out of the court system. 12 points should be a ban, no exceptions.
A far more effective solution is to design roads so that people use them in a safe way by default. Narrow painted cycle lanes just encourage close passes just as long straight roads encourage speeding.
Worcester news is my local rag too; not really worth a read is it? Total hack reporters!!! But yeh, I get u on the whole ‘I have to drive for my business so please don’t let the points gather on my licence’ thing… happening all the time here! 🙄
Anyone else see when the van was overtaking the vehicle on the other side was over the central white line. Van should have waited
Drivers don't know this or worse, know it and ignore it
Is the law reciprocal requiring similar considerations from the cyclists when queue surfing for instance? Will cyclists be required to make reasonable progress on the highway like cars especially if there is a cycle lane provided at great expense for their safety but that they choose not to use.
Will I be permitted to organise road races with fellow car users at will? Level playing fields are so important aren’t they? I respond as I find. Lets look after each other rather than delegating responsibilities for our safety to others. Selfish is selfish regardless of your wheel count and before you ask, I’m a car driver and motorcyclist.
I've had so many experiences, as a cyclist of these behaviours. One case was when the drivers NS mirror clipped me
It’s horrible. Hope you’re ok and it hasn’t put you off. Stay safe!
Super result for Gaz & cyclists everywhere !
Aside from the cars giving a safe distance when passing, the city really should also put some effort into the bike lanes and give them enough room as well for drivers that will still not give enough room.
In a perfect world, I'd agree. I'm a Brit/Cdn Dual avid cyclist posting from Canada, and in Ontario, the passing distance required is only one metre. However, bike lanes, to be legally considered as such, are twice the width shown in this video. But that illustrates the conundrum. The road in this vid has very little room for cars or bikes, but the onus is then on any traffic to not pass unless sufficient space allows.
Perhaps it's age, and a realization of how seriously the odds are stacked against cycling on main roads, but I wouldn't put myself in the danger the situation displayed presents. There's times where it's just better to get off the road, and walk. And live to talk about it in one piece. And in case it appears that I'm showing a bias, UK drivers on average are better than Ontario ones.
I am in The Netherlands and mostly every road here is paved with bikers in mind. I guess that’s the one difference in some countries versus others with bikers having to adapt to changing city structures.
@@braingasim Strangely we got on fine until the boom in cyclists who think they have greater rights than any other road user and are above uk law.
As this video shows the van driver , even though pushed over by oncoming traffic stayed in his lane- the problem is that the cycle lane gives a false sence of safety - cyclists are the only road user who has a marked designated lane that has to be ignored by divers as it is not safe for the cyclist. It would [and was ] far safer when there were no cycle lanes.
@@winnie6354 Here in the Netherlands on such road there is a hard border (often trees) between the the cycle lane and the road , plus the cycle path is much wider and properly surfaced unlike the road above, thus such a situation could not occur. That cars are parked (most probably on the opposite cycle lane) on such a road, to cause on coming traffic to be forced to cross the centre line, should also be prevented. Here the drains are built into the curb so cyclists do not break their wheels when forced into the gutter by close passing motorists. Its quite simple - - thus we can allow children to cycle to school from a young age.
Where is the extra room coming from, and the extra money. 500 motorists have to squeeze into less and less space to allow safer passage of one cyclist, and they have to pay quite a bit for that feature.
Wanton and Furious Cycling! I'm intrigued! 🤔😊
I had a close pass once....
Music exam... 😀
It's best to be sure. Allow 2 meters and hold up all the traffic!
To be honest as a cyclist i think 2m is more than enough space and as long as they're not speeding past and I'm aware of where the car is I'm fine with them comming closer especially as where i live the roads are narrow with cars parked on the sides so you're lucky if you have 2m on a clear road.
@@gbhxu You will always get a cyclist who will not move into a gateway or where's a good gap between parked cars to let traffic pass. They are usually cammers wanting to make a short youtube movie with a few seconds of fame.
@@gbhxu Yes quite common in Ireland too. Since head cameras became popular many cyclists who use them do it just to make a point.
@@shawnrahoon6789 you mean just like Jeremy Vine
@@jeffzuess9149 👍
I’d be interested to know how, if at all, this would apply to cyclists and escooter types overtaking pedestrians while riding on footpaths missing said pedestrians by inches. I’s happened to me, as a pedestrian on many occasions and i see it happening to others on a daily basis.
I regularly cycle on pavements because it is in many places just far too dangerous to cycle in the roadway ; many footways are signposted as shared spaces , and during the pandemic , with the increase in cycling , it was stated that all footpaths are now , by default , shared spaces unless signed to the contrary .
When I do cycle on pavements , however , I do look out for pedestrians , give them a polite 'ding' of my bell when some distance away if approaching them from behind , and always give them plenty of space , even stopping to let them past me if appropriate . If cyclists look out for pedestrians , then there really is no problem with cycling on the pavement , and far safer than cycling in the roadway .
@@derekheeps8012 I would have no problem with this and it’s just what I would do if in a similar situation. Unfortunately we seem to be the exception, by a large margin, rather than the rule in my experience.
@@derekheeps8012 But most cyclists see how close they can get to a pedestrian without actually hitting them. A bell, that would be a good idea. I wonder why the aren't compulsary?
@@derekheeps8012 During the lock down I was regularly nearly hit by cyclists on the footpath. No concept of a 1.5 m rule let alone a 2 m rule.
i had a scooter rider cross straight in from of me and out of a turning straight towards me as i was turning in. they dont care anymore as we have told them all its the drivers who have to lok out. Cyclists also never warn us while walking the dogs they are coming behind you, so many near misses.
6:20 wait a second. So, if I receive a notice of intended prosecution through my door and I am instructed to identify the driver of a vehicle for which I am the registered keeper, then the consequences of failing to identify the driver is that I am assumed to be the driver and I would suffer the consequences myself. But when it's a company vehicle, somehow there isn't an individual who is the registered keeper of the vehicle and they can just get away with ignorning it? Granted they were fined, but for any _significant_ business that kind of money isn't much of a deterrent. And meanwhile, the individual who was guilty of the offence can hide behind their shield. Is this correct?
Seems to be implying this! Shoddy laws! Unjust!
When I had two meat legs I was wiped out by a car wing mirror hit handlebar. I somersaulted over handlebars and hurt my shoulder. Took weeks to recover. Still have faint scars.
That was over 30 years ago. Wouldn't cycle on roads now even if I didn't have a left below knee amputtation.
What's the point in having a cycle lane if it's less than half the size of the overtaking width. the line encourages a boundary, but it's wrong...
love cyclegaz's channel. He really put up with some of the worst drivers. I don't know how I'm so luckily I only get the close pass now and again which as an experienced cyclist I'm not too bothered about.
I worry that narrow cycle lanes - so close to the gutter - on narrows road like that serve to invite close passes. If I was cycling on that road I'd like to avoid leaving 'just enough room' for a very close pass.
@@nighttrain1236 Thank you, I wrote much the same in a later post. I wouldn't put myself in that situation, even if there was even more law on my side. I often plan my trips to take as many back-roads and trails as is possible. Anything to avoid the death-gamble of roads like that.
I commute to work, and get illegally passed every day, both ways. When I go out on the weekend, the same.. and all types of vehicles, including some that should be enforcing it.
@Pin Ky obviously you have not watched cyclegazs videos. Depends on the attitude of the drivers where you ride. Here in Exeter it's not too bad as we are quite a cycle centric city. It was worse when I lived in truro
Check mine out. Full of nutters. :(
So if I am stopped at a traffic light and a cyclist comes down the left hand side of the traffic and stops next to me and the light turns green and I start driving could I be charged for driving less than 1.5m from the cyclist. The law might make sense for 70% of the time, but for the other 30% of the time it doesn't make sense.
No because you're pulling away not overtaking.
Interesting BBB that you didnt mention the road position of the blue,white & red road sweeper coming from the opposite direction @7.08, i believe it had pulled out to pass a parked car, compressing a bad situation ...
Rule 154 - “When meeting groups of cyclists riding two abreast, they may choose to move to single file if they deem it safer to do so. They are under no compulsion to do so and it can be safer and easier for you to overtake a compact group, when conditions allow, rather than a long line of cycles.”
Rule 213 - “Cyclists are advised to ride at least a door’s width or 0.5m from parked cars, for their own safety. Whenever they feel it is safer to do so, for example, on narrow sections of road, at junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists are also advised to ride in the centre of the lane (rather than towards the side of the road), while groups are advised to cycle two abreast in these and other situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, as this helps them ensure they can see, be seen, and avoid being overtaken where this could be dangerous.”
What is the safe distance for a cycle to pass a pedestrian?
Or a lorry to pass a car?
Depends on speed and crosswind, as much as a pedestrian and cyclist are willing to give each other given the width of the path
Whatever your comfortable with.
That’s a good point. If a pedestrian is walking on a narrow pavement, then vehicles need to anticipate and give them room. I’m always at least a metre from the kerb, and more when there are kids on the pavement
Have a look at Ashley Neals channel Daniel. The police sided with a driver who knocked a cyclist off his bike and claimed to be an ex police officer. A very interesting video. Thank you for your informative and helpful content.👍😊
BBB please comment. If the cyclist is travelling faster than the vehicles so is overtaking on their left can a cyclist enter into a space that leaves less than 1.5 metres? Does the vehicle driver have to move right to provide the safe gap? Of course there may not be room to do so. If the speed of the traffic increases so that the cyclist is no longer overtaking where is the onus of responsibility. Cyclists often split the lanes, perhaps to the right of left turn vehicles and left of straight ahead vehicles. It can be impossible to provide 1.5 metres gap.
No mention of the lorry coming from the other direction at the exact same time?
Ok I'll mention it - extremely poor judgement on part of van driver not only a cyclist who he owes a duty of care towards but an oncoming lorry he has failed to observe - yet more evidence of the van drivers lack of care and consideration
@@makcyclist1990 Well said
@@makcyclist1990 The van driver is a Jeremy Hunt.
There's a lot going on here. In the video of the white van making a close pass there is a lorry travelling in the opposite direction straddling the centre line in order to pass a line of parked cars. No doubt the white van has moved to the left to avoid colliding with the lorry. It would have been better to slow down as well, of course, but when you're faced with a lorry heading towards you on your side of the road your natural instinct is to get out of the way. The road isn't wide enough for a line of parked cars, a lorry, a van and a bicycle all side by side.
Would love to hear "the fluffy bits on the side" in a court of law :)
I think the fine should be paid to the cyclist, not the greedy court.
I would take some of the highway and some of the pavement for the cycle lane on this road. In Amsterdam cyclists can pretty much cycle anywhere and it seems to work, however cyclists don't ride at crazy speeds either (mainly because all their cycles are crap).
I used to live in Oxford, where I cycled almost everywhere. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to thump the side of an overtaking bus to remind the driver I was there, all too often with parked cars to the other side that I have been squeezed up against.
Maybe it's time that cyclists were brought into line with other road users and began contributing directly to the roads & Pavements they use, are also required to pass at least a theory test on cycling on the highway, and cyclists over 18 to be insured.
@Homie it's called car tax, and people who aren't wealthy enough to afford a flash low emissions car have to pay it, the funding for highways England comes directly from that pot IIRC.
So try and be a little bit less disingenuous next time friend
As a regular cycle commuter, this is one of the more interesting videos for me personally.
It really gets me that people still don't comprehend that just because a "rule" in the Highway Code is _just guidance,_ it doesn't mean it can't be used against you.
But what I'd like to say, and this may be controversial amongst my fellow cyclists, overall I think that most drivers give a good clearance when overtaking me. Yes, there are idiots that do pass too close, but there will always be idiots in this world. Maybe I'm lucky, but rides around the north and east portions of Manchester are mostly close-pass-free.
This is the thing, you have no context from my videos about how far I'm cycling, at what time of day or in what location.
It's not uncommon for me to do 10,000 miles a year, with the majority of that during rush hour in London.
Like you, the majority of my rides I have no issues.
@@CycleGaz totally agree.
I cycle approximately 2500 miles a year as I am lucky to be a mere 5.5 miles from work. So a lot less than yourself. But as luck would have it, I can combine my cycling with a bit of potholing to keep things more interesting.
@@deelitedmanchester4302 🤣
It is disappointing that the company wasn't forced to disclose the details of the driver.
This a large company and the driver details would be a matter of company record.
The fine is negligible. Not really a punishment at all.
They would know which vans were out on which jobs and therefore their locations.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were tracking data available.
It seems to me that if the police can access my personal phone and social media data when
they wish to pursue a complaint then why can't they access this company's data under a court order?
Haul the CEO in front of the bench if they continue to refuse.
This company is in effect obstructing justice and that should be a punishable offence.
This driver is dangerous, Their attitude is the kind that kills people.
All one can hope for I suppose is that they don't. But if they do then this is a matter of record
and one would hope could be used against the company in any claims of negligence against
the company in future.
I agree. If a company refuses to comply then the vehicle should be seized.
@@ditch3827 Good idea.
@@ditch3827 Most companies lease their vehicles so that wouldn't work.
They should hold the directors of the company jointly liable for the offence. Points and a large fine for each of them. They'd soon start keeping logs of who has which vehicle and when.
@@radman8321 That would defeat the point of a LLC and lead to the shutting down of any large company that has drivers on staff. The fine however is pitiful. it does need to go up into the 5 figgier mark. The low fine makes it an easy cost benefit analysis to just pay the fine rather than dob in a "good" driver.
And when I say good driver, I mean that purely in the form of good for the company and their wallet. Hiring new staff is expensive, and you tend to find commercial drivers often are the ones constantly pushing the rules of the road to get where they need to go on time or early for the company. I know someone who used to work for a main supermarket as a van driver, and he told me that one of the first things they teach you in training is how to turn the monitoring/limiting device off... The way you do it kind of looks like a bug in the device, (you have to turn the ignition, turn it off immediately while holding down the brake, then start the ignition again with the brake still pushed down and release). But one does question whether this is actually a feature.
The company targets are basically impossible and will leave you running late if you obeyed all the rules of the road, so it's like they designed it so it can be turned off in a bit of an obscure way. That way if a driver is ever caught breaking the rules of the road, the company can wash their hands of the whole thing by denying knowledge of bad driving and clame they have systems in place to prevent it. But that's because most drivers are turning the device off to meet the quotas.
Drivers also have very perverse incentives. If they finish their shift early, they can go home and still keep their whole day's pay.
On the other side of the road all the cars are parked in the cycle lane which means the cars on the other side of the road has to move out more into the middle of the road I agree the cars should wait or leave more space but all the cars parked in the cycle lane should be prosecuted in my opinion
they are if reported, its an offence
I know this road well and it’s always parked in like that
It’s an advisory cycle lane (dashed white line not solid) so no offence is committed. Essentially they are just a suggestion to everyone that bicycles may ride there.
Please do a video on what constitutes wanton and furious cycling 😜🙏😁👀
Or cycling without due care and attention, Failing to stop for red traffic signals, failure to fit lights when cycling at night, illegally cycling on pavements, failing to adhere to road signs and signals such as one way streets....or, my pet hate when I am out cycling...the ones who simply ignore the clearly marked direction arrows on cycle lanes and come pedalling flat out at you when there isn;t room buit there is a cycle path on the other side of the roadthey are supposed to use! Or hte pedestrians who play chicken and walk out as close as they can to passing road users to dive between the gaps.
It is good the law is trying to punish bad road use by car drivers. It needs to stop being blinkered though, andf punish bad road use by ALL road users, cyclists and pedestrians too.
If I were travelling back from a local DIY store would it be permissible to attach the purchased wooden batten at right angles to my bicycle so that it projected no more than 1.5 meters from the side of my bicycle into the centre of the road, with a high viz marker at the end?
And a 2m one if you were walking?
Go for it, send in a vid.
Noticed the road surface at overtake and space is important.
Little known aspect of the change is that horses and pedestrians should be given more space, yet when walking/running on country lanes most motorists give less room than they do cyclists
Yes I've noticed that. I've even been hit by one on an single track lane. Not seriously but I had a painful elbow for a few months.
I was running on a country lane and could see a woman in a Range Rover heading towards me, I had to put my back against the wall that was there and she missed me by about 6 inches, I thought I was going to be hit.
Hi B B B, I watched this video and commented on it to CycleGaz, he showed the clip about three times and what I observed was the incident also involved a large truck coming the other way crossing the centre line on the road to avoid the parked cars, this 'forced' the van driver too close to the cyclist, I say forced like that because that event was totally predictable!, the van driver should have slowed down much sooner because that truck was clearly coming across the road!, the fact that it was the truck driver in the wrong is not entirely relevant here!, the way other people drive is always part of what we all have to deal with in as safe a manner as possible, observation anticipation and appropriate action is always the right thing.
Cheers, Richard.
So he wasn't forced then
@@ditch3827 Hi Ditch, thank you for this reply, you may have your own spin on exactly what the word 'forced' means, in this context I was using it correctly to explain that having failed to make the appropriate observation of the oncoming traffic and the cyclist he did not slow down earlier and therefore was forced to cut in to avoid the errant truck, this to describe what actually occurred and to offer an account that demonstrates the likelihood that his behaviour however bad was not deliberate!, just bad judgement.
Cheers, Richard.
I have a proposal;
Maintain the 0.5 m cycle lane ... though road drains will need to be removed to make them usable.
Now, paint a new 'motorized vehicle' exclusion line 2.0 m from the kerb ... obviously the same will be done on the opposite side.
Problem solved. Though that does remove 4.0 m of road for 'motorized vehicles' !
There are thousands of miles of road in this country that if you took 2.0m from each side you would probably only be left with a 0.5m strip down the centre for 'motorzed vehicles' to flow in both directions.
They effectively to that in the Netherlands where they have wide cycle lanes on each side of the road leaving only a single lane for cars. If you meet a car coming towards you then you have to wait for a gap in the cycle lane and pull over into it.
I'm not sure about bbb's ½m measurement. Aren't they usually 1m?
I'd make it a 2½m cycle lane but allow vehicles in it when there weren't cycles in it.
(keeps the debris crunched\swept)
Have a 1m exclusion line when vehicles are travelling below15mph; to allow for arriving cycles.
@@richH1625 DfT Local Transport Note 1/20 specifies a Desirable minimum width of 2.0m and an Absolute minimum at constraints of 1.5m [Table 5-2 on page 43]. That's for a 1-way on-carriageway cycle lane, the lowest bar.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf
These are the standards that local authorities are supposed to have been working since 2020. There's a lot of old infrastructure (i.e. paint) which falls woefully short of this standard, though, like the example in the video above. Sadly even quite a bit of the newer stuff built since 2020 fails the test.
@@ditch3827 There it is ... the ultimate goal.
So careless driving also applies to a cyclist passing pedestrians? Or cyclists going downhill too fast (over the speed limit)?
different rules apply. cyclists cannot break speed limits as they are not classed as motor vehicles
@@wonkyboy However they can be prosecuted under other laws. Road Trafic Act 1988 sections 28 and 29 covers careless cycling (as does HC Rule 66) respectively and cyclists have been prosecuted in the past under these laws. DoT also advised 18mph/30kp/h in one of their advisements for cyclists back in the early 2000's. Electric bikes also throw a fly into the ointment as they can be unlocked to go faster than a car in cities.
The Flaw with all this is. You keep referring to something called the Highway Code ( H C). Which I very much doubt many people have seen since passing their Theory test. I think it's high time that Each and every year when one gets their insurance renewal ALL drivers have to answer a set amount of H C questions. Therefore making drivers have to look it up if they don't already know the answers.
I am a former Bus Driver/Instructor - You may not be surprised to hear there is a substantial number of Bus Drivers who deeply resent sharing Bus lanes with cyclist's. this has shamed me to know 'professional' drivers who intimidate and bully cyclists with a double deck bus ! - I will definitely sign up - great idea to support drivers and cyclists alike. I used to teach that most Road Traffic Incidents happen when two idiots meet, the skill is to not be one of them . Though one question. what is the difference between this app/product and other free cloud storage resources ?
I've no problem with cars being done for careless driving from camera footage but let's have something on bicycles to identify them so vehicle driving members of the public can send in their footage of cyclists running red lights, and generally not following the rules of the road.
If there was ten as many cyclists as drivers there'd still be far few fatal accidents
If they bring out a law saying cyclists can't cycle too close to cars then cars can't drive too close to cyclists. The only way to enforce this law is for all cyclists to cycle exactly in the middle of the lane to prevent any vehicles from passing too close to them. If drivers are up for this, I am too. So, let's do a poll. Who's in favour of this?
Great video. I have recently bought a camera for my bike too as I get too many close calls!! Either people are just getting too close or pulling out on me.
Number plate for cyclists
@@DrJams wouldn't mind at all! Have also seen my fair share of inconsiderate cyclists who should be held accountable too
@DrJams where? And why not ID number for pedestrians too? Are you aware that criminals use fake or cloned number plates?
Me too. I've looked into front cameras recently and they are too expensive for me.😳 I've only been driven into from the front or side so far. I have so much reflective tape the bike looks like a skeleton costume. And I use the lights all the time now.
@@peterwillson1355 Pay a bicycle tax
I have had a close pass when been out cycling and asked the police to take into consideration the how much closer the passenger wing mirror is .
They have taken action.
I've been hit by a wing mirror when walking on a pavement. It came up behind me so I didn't see it coming. The ones on lorries stick out a long way and are at head height.
@@ditch3827 I hope you where not hit to hard must have come as a shock not knowing what hit you.
Its well worth pointing out to the police when submitting footage I have been told by a police office that my statement is prime and the footage come second ?
@@itsonlyme9938 I wasn't hit hard. It was a narrow lane and he squeezed past me slowly and caught my elbow with his wing mirror. I did report it to the police but as it was quite minor I didn't want to cause him any trouble so the police just wrote him a warning letter. I did start wearing a body cam after that when out walking.
Before watching too far in, I'd like to say as a cyclist there are 2 types of drivers that annoy me, those who are too reckless (read dangerous) and those who are too cautious. When I'm cycling i usually cycle as close to the curb/parked cars as i safely can so drivers can pass me, and if it's busy I'll usually pull in between parked cars so they can pass. And as long as I'm aware the driver is comming up behind me i can focus on keeping myself safe as they pass even if they have to pass close.
What annoys me is when i make room and the driver still doesn't pass, until the road is compleatly clear (like dude you're driving a hatchback not a bus, you don't need to drive on the otherside of the road to pass me)
Onnthe other end you get the idiots who just floor it and try to squeeze past me who's passing a parked car and another car commjng the otherway (like seriously it won't kill you to wait 5 seconds for me to pass this parked car so i can make room for you)
I agree, I was behind a car who had slowed down for a cyclist and would not overtake. This particular road is about 6 cars wide so I over took the car with at least a 2 metre gap then the cyclist with about a 4 metre gap just as the car I overtook furiously sounded his/her horn, ludicrous.
I agree and copy your approach ref pulling in etc. As cyclists we need to really be clear that very often driver behaviour is due to arrogance displayed by many cyclists. Using roads when cycle lanes are marked on adjacent paths etc - usually the lycra clad twat fraternity i think
Two points re cycles passing parked cars ( and I am one too ) is that you must allow a door's width when passing , just in case one is opened ( this applies to drivers too ) or in case a child steps out from behind ; second , before you begin to overtake , you must check behind to ensure that you yourself are not about to be overtaken , and if necessary stop to let the faster vehicle pass before you begin your overtake .
@@markbutler9291 It is beyond high time that it was mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where available , and an offence to obstruct others when it can be avoided by using the cycle lane . many previously two lane roads have been reduced to a single lane for all other traffic , to put in a cycle lane with separation barrier in what was previously the left lane . Previously , traffic could move out to the right lane to pass cyclists , but use both lanes when ( most of the time ) there were none ; now all other traffic is forced into half the available road space .
I'm sorry but I may be one of the drivers in your too cautious category and it's because of the new law. I live in a rural area with flat twisty roads and every weekend lycra clad cyclists turn up here in droves. I have a clean licence and I want to keep it that way because I'm only too aware of the number of cyclists with helmet cameras who love nothing better than to film car drivers. I will wait until I can get into the opposite lane to overtake safely and I'll have cyclists who wave furiously for me to overtake but won't pull in themselves. This doesn't normally happen with the people actively cycling but usually the ones chatting with their friends without a care in the world. As someone who rides a motorcycle I know how vulnerable two wheeled users are so used to give plenty of room anyway before the law change, but until this stupid law is reviewed I won't risk my licence passing a cyclist until I've got room to overtake in the opposite carriageway.
Glad to see they have laws to protect cyclists but obviously some drivers don't care until they're called out.
I followed a group 3 abreast for miles. I could not overtake and leave 1.5 meters. I had cars behind my van hanging off the horn. I was so miffed. Putting it politely. The law is all one sided now. I have a van and a motorcycle so I know about safe spaces.
No the law is fine. The problem is they should not have been three abreast which is against the HC and therefore likely evidence of careless cycling.
@@Non-Stick_Pan Can't be done. My camera picks up a group of cyclist's working from home. Joking. No way of identifying them. I overtake and my number plate is there. The law is one sided. The idea was good but not thought out correctly.
You don't have the right to overtake them. Be patient.
You complain about cyclists riding three abreast, consider the number of vehicles on UK roads that have only a driver in them - they're taking up significantly more of the road than 3 cyclists are.
A friendly little toot on your horn ? Hello ? Excuse me ? Just passing, thankyou 🖐
I've followed groups of cars for miles too without being able to overtake. Learn to share the road - it is after all a shared space.
Man becomes Barrister. Barrister offers legal opinion. People on the internet think they know more than Barrister. 🙄
In the circumstances, the Penalty applied to the white van is so relatively small its reasonable to wonder is that the best response & counter response.
I ride a tricycle, these close passes happen every time I go for a ride. I've got front & rear camera's & reported to the police 4 times, on all occasions they didn't do anything, citing there's no legislation about distances. I've given up bothering reporting anymore.
@Homie I reported all the incidents via my counties police force online portal, I wasn't aware there was a national one.
@Homie Thanks, I will.
How many of the cyclists who are killed or injured on the roads are due too THEM going through red lights?
Not sure that had any relevance to this discussion.
Very few. According to DfT, in the survey year there were 189 serious accidents in which the police had to attend due to a cyclist not stopping at red. This compares with 3,564 caused by car drivers not stopping on red.
I would imagine when the 189 cyclists failed to stop it was the cyclists themselves that were injured but then the 3,564 cars failed to stop it was third parties that were injured.
@@glenn1534 It doesn't... classic whataboutism when you can't argue the actual topic.
WHAT ABOUT THE TEA IN CHINA?!
Thank you
Just a question. Does this apply the other way around as well? Like the huge amount of cases, when cyclists ride between or alongside the columns of vehicles stopped at a crossroad. Where not rarely the distance they can have between themselves and the vehicles on any side is far less than one meter.
This is all about safety.
It's not the same. The cars are stationary and stationary cars are no danger to a cyclist. When was the last time you heard of a car driver in a stationary car being killed by a cyclist?
No it doesn't
The van driver was too impatient, oncoming vehicles meant he couldn't overtake safely, but instead of hanging back and waiting he just barged through!
The oncoming vehicle should have returned to his own side after overtaking , but failed to do so - it was his fault .
@@derekheeps8012 The van driver should not have overtaken the cyclist because he could not SAFELY do so.
Cyclist should require insurance and a licence. Not all are saints
From 17th September 2023, the default speed in Wales will be 20 mph, therefore when a cyclist overtakes a motorist, do they have to be a minimum of 1.5m away from the motorist?
Can't disagree with anything said, however, all cyclists should always use the cycle lane where one exists, otherwise what's the point of building them?
Why should they when that type has been shown to increase injury by 30%?
I've noticed loads of cyclists not using them. The most common is at a cycle lane near where I live. Cyclists often cycle on the pavement which is right next to the cycle lane. They even cycle in both directions despite there actually being lanes on both sides of the road meaning pedestrians need to be wary of cyclists coming from either direction.
The other issue I see is cyclists riding in the wrong direction on the cycle lane, again when there are lanes on both sides.
Cycle lanes only work when used properly.
I agree but I get the impression that some drivers believe that they can drive right up to the edge of the cycle lane (being the white line denoting the boundary). I note from the video that there are cars parked on the other side of the road and as this seems to be quite a busy thoroughfare to me it would make sense to ban parking, widen the cycle lane and separate it from the road with a physical boundary.
@@ditch3827 The cyclists ? I always use them
@@kenmay1572 I'm not saying you don't. I'm saying that the TfL study shows the type of cycle lane in the video increases cyclists injuries by 30% and so are more dangerous than cycling on the carriageway.
The first 60 seconds of this video is the most IMPORTANT bit you should know off, its LAW. 1.5m is the MINIMUM from the cyclist, if he is in the middle of the road, he is probably there for a reason.. Fact last year I reported 18 incidents all 18 were convicted and all passed me within centimetres, and these included professional drivers two were lorries, 2 were black cabs. many Thanks BBB ~Trooper
The number of drivers who forget they have 3-4 feet of extra metal to their left is shocking.
I would love to have a mandatory road user safety course that the offender must pay for and it should be costly.
anyone banned should have to resit the test every 3 years for 15 years.
I would also like a test for cyclists and a number plate for the bikes
Does part of the issue come from the fact that the council has dictated that as a cycle lane (even though it's far too narrow)? As in many examples I've seen recently, it may have been safer to not have the lane there at all, and let the cyclist take primary position.
With the space closing down as it was (parked cars, oncoming traffic crossing the centre line), if I was the van driver, I would have been far more cautious even if the cyclist wasn't there. To squeeze through a gap that really isn't is stupid no matter what vehicle you're using. How much less time did they spend driving to their destination instead of waiting for a proper space 🤔
Totally correct. TfL did a study on this and found that these 'advisory cycle lanes' increase injury rates by 30%. They are dangerous and should be removed.
A lot of cyclists don't seem to be that bothered about space when your driving in slow moving traffic and they push there way through on whichever side of the car they like.
Passing a cyclist in a car cannot be compared to a bicycle passing a car, one is frightening and dangerous and the other isn't
@@harryrowland4734 if you say so.... you sound like someone that does just that, it's strange how cyclists can justify whatever they do. Your not frightened to weave in and out of moving cars but you shit yourself if a car passes you closer than you like.
@@keithwebster5161 speed kills, you be terrified if you got stuck in a car stuck on a track with a fast-approaching train. Trains are bigger heavier than cars and would squish the car and its occupant. If it was a fast-approaching cyclist, you cry over something as trivial as a dent.
@@mikewade777 Cars and trains what the hell are you on about, if speed was the only factor there would be no one on the roads it's not speed that kills its idiot road users that kill and that includes cyclists. When they decide to put cycle lanes on each side of a road ( that are empty alot of the time) other vehicles are forced over to the centre line often causing on coming traffic to be as close as a meter sometimes les.If a cycalist should be given two meters what do you sergest drivers should do, maybe slow to 5mph.
@@harryrowland4734 it is still dangerous for the cyclist as they would be putting themselves in what my friends call the suicide zone.
Commonly called the blind spot.
Should the traffic start to move again and the driver not see a cyclist in the suicide zone well you know what can happen.
The laws of the land may be on the side of the cyclist but the laws of physics certainly won't be.
Just be patient.
These are what I call "catch all" offences that effectively leave it up to the courts to decide if a particular action is an offence.
There's no particular rule that says;
"He Who
A) walks up to the serving Monarch.
B) tweaks their nose
C) demands of accompanying police "what you gonna do about it, big nose"
D) drops their trousers and moons the crowd
Shall be guilty of an offence"
This doesn't mean this is legal, safe and a good idea or that you won't have a very bad day if you try it.
The above would, of course, be an infringement of Havelock Vetinari's controversial "being bloody stupid" act that applies only in Anhk Morpork. Which I''d like to see adopted in the UK at some times.
Surely if the safe distance for a car to overtake a cycle is 1.5 meters, it must follow that the safe distance for a cycle to undertake or weave in and out of cars must be 1.5 meters. Remember blind spots etc. in your risk assessments.
They are different situations. If I pass cars which are basically parked or moving very slowly, or unable to accelerate due to the queue ahead of them, then physics says that risk is low as said car will not be able to cause massive damage to the cyclist. However I as a driver close pass a cyclist at say, 30 mph or higher, risk is very high, as a pothole or a sudden gust of wind can put the cyclist in the path of two tonnes of speeding metal.
@Ed J I don't agree with your assessments. True they are different situations. However, if a cycle trips in a pothole or wind whilst weaving or undertaking, the inertia of the car is irrelevant, the cycle will be come off worse. How can the car be held ponsible in this situation? All sets of road users need to be aware of the limits and vulnerabilities of other errors.
@@johnhath5940 the cyclist will come off worse. But the difference is when the car is going at 5 mph the cyclist will probably end up with only minor scratches, whilst at 30 mph we could be talking about a fatality. I don't want to make this a cyclist vs driver thing, and I agree that cyclists as well as drivers need to take responsibility, but the rules of physics are the basis as to why cyclists (or motorbikes) can filter through slow moving or stationary traffic safely, but close passes at 30mph are not safe.
Another reason is when filtering, the cyclist is prepared for what they are going to do, which sounds funny but is important. If I want to filter past a very slow moving car, I've made a risk assessment in my head which has calculated that the car can't move into me, there are no potholes, it can't turn left etc. If I as a driver pass a cyclist at 30 mph closely, that cyclist may not be expecting that at all and has not planned for me to do that, and any move to the right by the cyclist due to wind, pothole etc could be fatal.
Speed kills there's no ifs and buts.
Close passing cyclists vs filtering motorised vehicles with a bicycle are two different things. How? You find the law of physics giving you the answer there...swing a bat (which would be a vehicle such as a car) towards someone and miss them by a few centimetres, and then take the same bat and lie it down on a table and tell them to walk past it (which would be a cyclist) with a few centimetres distances. The difference is obvious, and that is why filtering is legal while squeezing by vulnerable road users such as cyclists with your car is certainly not. What's important when you filter though is to only filter when the traffic is stationary or is going slowly, else the risk is greatly increased.
The Van driver may have been giving more attention to the traffic, including a Car, a Van and a Tanker coming the other way as they crossed the centre line to pass a parked car without signalling. These incidents also happen because roads are no longer suitable for the number and size of the vehicles using them.
This does not excuse the Van driver, but it does go some way to understanding there are other reasons that drivers do not drive safely besides not caring about cyclists.
When I decided to go back onto 2 wheels for leisure, it was a mountain bike I chose, simply to reduce dependence on poor roads populated with enough poor (or worse) drivers to make it a serious risk to life.
Much needs to be done, and merely passing a law is not enough!
1.5 metres would mean that a cyclist riding in the middle of a typical lane of traffic could neither be overtaken in the right lane or (if three lanes) from the left lane. It is a big distance, and would mean that two lanes going in one direction such as a typical dual carriageway would not allow any vehicle to overtake even when using the passing lane.
Even when driving, a vehicle overtaking in the right lane is usually very close to the vehicle in the left lane, and many country roads allow for no more than 10 cm between opposing traffic.
Indeed. Top end A dual carriageway roads normally should be built to lane width of 3.65m, so if one is positioned in the centre of a lane, the clearance on both sides can be less than 1m (depending on your vehicle). Generally, when there is a cyclist riding on a 70 mph road like that, I always change lane to pass at high speed. Don’t forget that the 1.5 m value is a minimum one, basically at low speed. No shortage of aerodynamic drag at full speed.
Unfortunately, very few places in the States allow bicyclists ride on rodes with that much traffic. But, with the newer cars with the automatic brakes, or even stopping a driver from changing lanes if there's anything that makes it unsafe for anyone involved. I'm not into a car I have to wrestle to drive, other's love them. I wish we have lanes in the states for cyclists! My goodness, the fuel, insurance, money, exercise, climate, noise.... I rode my bicycle in my town for years and saved a lot of time, wasted fuel, and money...and excellent health!
You don't know what you are wishing for. If your work place is 20 miles away it takes >60 minutes by car to get there because some genius decided implement bike lanes. You cant take all your work gear on a bike. Now the traffic is as slow as the slowest biker. That causes pollution frustration and accidents. God bless USA fo keeping that problem away from the people.
There should have been 9 points added to the licences of ALL the directors of the company. A fine does nothing.
And how do you blame people who were not driving the van for a driving offence!!!!!! Failing to provide details is a seperate issue
@@markbutler9291 If I am the registered keeper of a car, and that car gets caught speeding (by camera) I have to tell the authorities who was driving it. If I don't it's me that gets the points and the fine. It should be the same for company directors.
The Law requires the registered keeper to identify the driver. The company failed to do so and was fined accordingly. However, as regards the close pass... The driver committed the offence, not the company directors. The point of punishing people for behaving badly is to stop them behaving badly in future. You do not punish Directors because someone who works for their company broke a law.
If you get a speeding ticket and fail to provide details of another driver, it is assumed you were the driver. In the case of a board of Directors....it is not reasonable or likely that they were driving, so the company receives a fine. In the case of a vehicle owned by a single individual....the balance of probablility is that you were driving.
@@Flakmagnet1701 Yes you do punish the directors. Ever heard of corporate manslaughter? You do know who goes to prison don't you?
If the directors are going to be punished they will co-operate and name the driver, a small fine, no doubt written off against tax as a business expense will do nothing to prevent the bad driving recurring and will let the driver escape punishment.
Police told me its guidance not law, yes I’ve reported quite a few without any getting prosecuted or even warned 😡
Every person should be made to ride a bike on the road for 12 months before they can even apply for a provisional license ( and before anyone jumps to conclusions there are many adapted options for people who need them) . Then people would be more patient as they know exactly what it's like to be close passed etc. In my experience the police automatically side with the car driver until I show them video evidence to the contrary, this needs to change also.
i think most people did ride a bike before they passed their test, 99% of teenagers ride bikes then go on to either motorbikes or cars or they do in my area (North Herts). Personally I have nothing against sensible cyclists, its the idiots that go out at the weekend in packs of 20 or more on country lanes and take up not only the whole lane they are in, but also the opposite carriageway meaning you are stuck behind them for mile after mile and they refuse to give way. I never beep at them and always stay a respectful distance behind so as not to intimidate them but its obvious that I want to pass and they just carry on occasionally looking back at me and laughing amongst themselves and pointing etc. All this happens at around 15 mph on a 60mph road so its obvious that I dont want to be behind them. Most of the time I have to turn off and take a diversion and hope I come out ahead of them. This isn't a one off in the summer here in Leafy North Herts its very common. I'm not anti-cycling at all, but what I am is anti-social behaviour such as this. To my mind, if cyclists like these want respect on the road then they should give other road users respect. The cyclists I see that are just using bikes as a means of transport are generally speaking far more respectful (not always but mostly). I am never disrespectful of cyclists but do get annoyed by the for group I have mentioned.
I think it come under presumption of innocence, though BBB can probably give a more learn'd opinion.
If you go to a copper and say "He did this, guv" and the other guy says "No I didn't, guv" then he can't proceed with a prosecution unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Like my sister, who's a wheelchair user & who's physio told her not to use an exercise bike in a gym even? I'd love to see that adaptation.
BBB I often read where commenters say you can only overtake on the left in congested traffic. What speed is congested traffic???
THIS HAPPENS NEARLY EVERYTIME I GO OUT ON MY BIKE THE NEW RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING ALL I CAN DO IS REPORT THEM AND PUT THEM ON RUclips AND JUST HAVE TO HOPE FOR THE BEST TO SEE IF POLICE ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING
STOP SHOUTING!!!!!! AND USE SOME PUNCTUATION!!!!!
@@tednruth453 He's a cyclist,they all shout abuse!
The biggest problem today is that many road users (of all types) are only interested in themselves, but that is how society is these days, unfortunately. Standards have been getting worse and worse for many years. Many motorists are fed up with the cyclists who ignore the Highway Code because it doesn't suit them and many cyclists are fed up with the motorists who ignore the Highway Code.
This isn't helped when the Highway Code isn't always well written as not everything has been taken into account. There is a lot of focus on Rule 163 and the distances when passing cyclists, but there is more to this Rule than that. As you said, it states the room to overtake motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians and that it should be the same distance as when passing another car. So, if we say a car is around 2m wide, mirror to mirror (or more for an SUV), 1 car overtaking another car, whilst respecting the Highway Code guidance, would need a minimum road width of around 6m (allowing extra so that the cars are clear of the kerbs), but many roads are simply not that wide. Guidance for the width of new roads starts from 4.8m or 5.5m depending on the type, so in theory the Highway code is now saying cars can't legally overtake on many roads regardless of the fact you are when overtaking another car you are normally in the opposite lane, but because there would be less than at least 1.5m as it is deemed to be driving with reasonable consideration. But if you stop and think about that, it means that when 2 cars pass each other on that same road, travelling in opposite directions, both driving normally within their lanes, that is perfectly acceptable, despite the closing speed being far higher than when overtaking.
Also, the wording used is not clear for many people. You said in another video that there was no ambiguity in this Rule but I would say, for Joe Public, there is. At the beginning it says "You should", it doesn't says "You must", so for non legal speaking people, it can be taken to mean it is not a requirement to follow the points, but you should try to. Then further down it says "As a guide:" For most people this would be interpreted as a suggestion, again not a requirement. It is only the the last paragraph that clearly states the requirement to not overtake if you cannot meet the clearances. It would have made it much clearer if the Rule started with "You must" and if "As a guide:" was instead "You must"
Another area where I would argue there is ambiguity is that there is no guidance in the Rule for overtaking mobility scooters, large goods vehicles and any other road user category that isn't mentioned. How much room should you leave when passing a mobility scooter or a tractor? The answer would probably be to use common sense, but that's why the Rule was changed because people don't always have common sense.
Clearly the red car in the video gives what should be considered as sufficient room, but if you apply the Highway Code Rule 163 that driver should be prosecuted for driving without reason consideration as they didn't meet the requirements of the Highway Code. If that driver was to be prosecuted it would mean the courts would be doing nothing but that, so it would be most likely that no prosecution would be made, but in that case, what's the point of the Rule?
Try giving that distance on many of our Cornish roads. I have been overtaken by cyclists on the inside when controlling my speed because of the narrowness of the road.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Norfolk roads too !!!
When did you ever see a cyclist or cyclists pull over to allow faster traffic to pass safely ??. When will cyclists require a Road Fund Licence??
@@williamfenn30you sound like a bit of an impatient driver. I'd recommend watching Ashley Neal's channel
The difference here is that a cyclist cannot knock you off your car fatally.
@@UKRO404 A Road Fund Licence is required for permission of a vehicle to use the Public Highways. Cyclists take it upon themselves to use said as a Right of Access. Pay your bit, get a Licence, get a Number Plate !!!
What an incentive for the company to disclose the driver £100 fine and £470 costs,...really,..what a joke !
A fine of £30,000 and costs of £4,700 is what have been issued, otherwise were is the deterrent !
While I both drive and cycle , and know there are good and bad in both groups , it does rankle me , as a driver , that cyclists go on about others passing them too closely , and yet they seem to think it perfectly OK to proceed down narrow gaps between lanes of traffic where there is barely space for them to fit through , or to the right or left of other vehicles , without consideration for doors opening or people stepping out , such that handlebars are practically scraping peoples' paintwork . When cyclists also start to give minimum 1.5m clearance to other road users there will be no more instances of them cycling into peoples' doors , causing injury or damage , and far fewer instances of them running into pedestrians , particularly children , who step out from between parked vehicles , or from behind buses at bus stops .
If these laws are for safety reasons then when a cyclist passes a car they should be adhering to the same passing distance as it would give versa.
So cyclists should be at least 1.5 metres away from a car when passing.
A great deal of cyclists killed on our roads each year are killed as a result of their own negligence. In fact the Met ran a campaign in London to reduce cyclist deaths which highlighted that cyclists undertaking was leading to fatalities and that the cyclists are responsible for this very dangerous behaviour.
As a cyclist reporting close passes would be a full time job. 😂🙄🤦🏻♀️ I live in the worst town.
Doesn’t happen to be Soham does it? 😮
@@Umski nah Northampton.
@@thathurt yeah figures 😬 I imagine pretty much every town up and down the country is the same sadly 😳
When companies are find, can the courts take the driving licenses from directors?
if they were found to be driving at the time , then yes . One does not need a driving licence in order to be a company director .
I agree with you the van drove too close to the cyclist , my gripe is that when cyclists come up your inside with not enough space and scratches your car I would like that banned
Oh, that old chestnut.
Scratching cars is unlawful.
That's annoying.
I know it's not always possible but my tip would be to leave a big gap on the inside
or
get so close to the kerb that the cyclist has to overtake.
If we just had hoverboards and teleportation we could start arguing about the productive things like Get off my lawn! and Stop teleporting inside my bathroom!