Simply creating a cycle lane in an urban street by painting a 1metre strip in the gutter and making the whole street barely available to 2 lanes of traffic and residents on street parking is going to make friction between road users just as adding another pavement would constrict the flow , there is also the difference between a car near side mirror and a bus near side mirror on those big mounts, the times I have walked back from the shops and the Wells bus has blasted along the A road about 3 inches out from the kerb with the mirror well over the kerb at head height.
So many people use bike lanes for parking, it means cyclists have to pull out in front of traffic regularly anyway. Which is probably less safe than if there was no cycle lane like you say.
In nearby Hull, cyclists share a lane with buses. This sounds bad, but actually, the lane system is heavily monitored and enforced. If a car puts a wheel across that lane, he will receive an instant fine. I'd rather wait behind a bus until it departs than go around a car parked in a cycle lane into busy traffic. Also, buses are less frequent than cars.
@@ewanrollo5562 No , cyclists do NOT have to pull out in front of traffic , regularly or otherwise : it is incumbent on cyclists , as it is upon ALL ROAD USERS , before overtaking any vehicle , static or moving , to first take rear observation and ensure that they will NOT be pulling out into the path of faster traffic , and if so doing would occasion that , then they MUST remain behind the vehicle they wish to overtake and only move out when it is safe to do so . I see so many cyclists recklessly doing this that it beggars belief ; very few do as I do and check behind , then stop if necessary and wait until it is safe to pass . That is what everyone should do and is indeed required by law to do . Pull out into someone's path and get knocked down - you will have no one to blame but yourself . Cyclists are primarily responsible for their own safety , no one else is going to look out for you .
I drive service buses for a living and you must always look out for vulnerable road users and give the required space. If the cycle lane is sectioned off say with bollards then fair enough but just markings on the roads means there are going to be cyclists so watch out for them and be prepared to adjust your speed to accommodate them. Same with horses, slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary and give plenty of room as you pass. It’s not just road safety but good manners.
Yeah, I agree with you whole heartedly. HGV and bus drivers should all be aware of the effect they have when passing cyclists, I'm pretty sure it's part of the tests.
@@Patchitt Let me point out what I was replying to: "HGV and bus drivers are ALL aware of the effect they have when passing cyclists, I'm pretty sure IT'S PART OF THE TESTS.". Having had plenty of close shaves with passing buses/HGVs, I'M pretty sure that many do not realise the effect they have, other wise, as I said, they are being totally reckless.
Yes, it appears that the cycle lanes are somewhat pointless as our roads were not constructed wide enough for this purpose. It will as it always did depend on the patience, curtesy and common sense of road users, be they cyclists or motorists.Thanks again and Happy Resurrection Sunday.
Working as a van courier in central London for 25+ years, it's very apparent that the rules and laws for buses are extremely relaxed. Red lights, stopping in yellow box junctions, cycle lane infringements etc are completely ignored by the police.
@@richcolour Most of the bus drivers have a system on board where they get given disciplinary methods if they drive dangerously, that being said, things like yellow boxes especially on roundabouts can be caused because the car in front has crossed lanes, read the highway code why this isn't allowed, and as all buses have cctv, this could be taken into account regarding convictions as it's rarely their fault, but there are also bus drivers who have a superiority complex, one we get in Bristol is 'why can't we pass at less than 1.5m to a cyclist when they can do it in inches to us, my reply is usually 'do you think the air flow of a bus doing 20mph is the same as a bike doing 5mph? Hand in your licence as you are clueless' that one doesn't end well as they don't like facts getting in the way of their opinions.
I can vouch for the fact that the airflow from a bus is much stronger than that of a cyclist doing about 5 miles an hour. About thirty years ago, I got knocked off my bike from the airflow behind a bus and hit my head on the kerb. Luckily I was wearing a cycle helmet but I still have the remnants of a scar in my left eyebrow to prove it happened.
Perhaps the problem is that cycle lanes are being created on roads that are unfit for this. Other road users expect cyclists to stay within dedicated cycle lanes, however they would be entitled to position themselves in the middle of the normal sized lane where there is no provision for a cycle lane. Road and road junction designs often leave a lot to be desired. It is often blindingly obvious that some roads have been designed by a committee of unskilled laymen.
I am unsure where you have found any reference to cyclists being "entitled" to position themselves in the middle of a lane on a carriageway. I appreciate that some cyclists try to cycle in such a position, however they are putting themselves up for cycling without consideration for other road users. I expect there will be an outcry over this, however there are always two sides to any coin. No road user has any 'right of way' over another road user. Some road users are more at risk than others and where all road users demonstrate awareness of the presence of other road users the degree of risks will be lessened.
@@green856w Riding in the middle of the lane is called ‘primary position’ and is taught by the Bikeability government cycle training scheme. It is to be used on roads with slow moving traffic and roads that are narrow. The Highway Code says that bikes and horses should be given the same room as a car when overtaking. To overtake another car you have to move completely out of your lane onto the other side of the road…
@@cerdicw9998 Yes cycles are alowed to ride in the middle of the lane, also side by side so they are more visibel to other road users but they are supposed to move over to let traffic pass They MUST also follow the highway code like all other road users some of the new changes to the highway code are ment to keep the vunarable road users safe but the problem is some of the changes are not fully understood by most road users, and some of the changes can put cycles in danger by letting them undertake other vehicles when going in a strait line even when a vehicle is turning left. Also pedestians have more priority when crossing the road at a junction, again not all road users fully understand the new rules which will in my opinion put people at risk We don't make the rules, some idiot with a pen did. We just have to follow the rules even when they are daft
@@jeffmay2697 They are only supposed to move over when safe to do so. If there is not enough space for a car to overtake without coming within 1.5 meters, the cyclist should remain in primary position because moving over is just encouraging an unsafe overtake.
the design by 'unskilled' does not necessarily follow. The designers are limited by available space… which can change temporarily or permanently. Some roads are no longer suitable for cycles or horses, too many cars, buses and lorries. I don't have the answer but I would say that cyclists/horses are too vulnerable nowadays and may want to consider other safer options.
In the first clip the white van was avoiding an oncoming lorry/tanker 1:07 which was moving out due to a parked car half on the road/pavement 1:35 Although the white van got uncomfortably close to the cyclist the driver avoided any collision. However the bus, to me, was MORE in the wrong since there wasn't any oncoming traffic and could easily have given the cyclist plenty of room 3:33
Correct. The tanker moved out at the last second whe the van was passing. Don't think it was intentionally done by the van driver, just caught up in the situation.
The Van driver should have waiting until the way was clear and was ahead of the parked cars on the right or if no cars were coming from the right. This would have given the van driver more room to pass the cyclist as per the new rules to the highway code. Perhaps the van driver was in a rush? and possibly impatient? Because they see the cyclist in the gutter/cycle lane they may have thought the 1.5 meter rule wrongly did not apply them (which could be why they later did not respond either).
@@ranxxerox6407 Watch the video again, both the van and the lorry coming towards the cyclist cross the centre white line and leave the silver van nowhere to go, that driver did the best that he could with the position other road users put him in. It's the white van and the lorry that should have stopped. Anyway, typical hyper aggressive cyclist shown here, his 'go to' reaction is to shout 'move the f*ck over', so his preference was for the 2 vans to collide. Honestly, most cyclists are a menace on the road. And yes, I do cycle myself.
@Trollybus Driver "although vey close the van did not cross the white line," That's not the point. it's about the distance between the van and the bike. "he had already committed to pass the cycle" Then he shouldn't have. He should be looking ahead and anticipating. And remember that he has the power of brakes!
I always try to leave extra room for cyclists, even where there is a cycle lane. I know from my own cycling experience that these lanes can have potholes or other defects that could result in the cyclist wobbling, or veering to one side. Sadly this is harder to do when traffic is busy.
If the police had prosecuted the bus driver then the bus service in that particular town would probably have to be withdrawn for safety looking at the road width. On this basis the police knew they couldn't prosecute and the council will not or cannot widen the road. These rules are introduced without any thought for the consequences.
Very good. If the road is busy and does not allow overtaking, it would mean that buses and large vehicles would have to travel at ghe same speed as the cyclist.
Perhaps one rule for the ordinary person who will pay up and another for the Bus company who might fight back? We need to protect all road uses but with correct infrastructure it just a dangerous mess for both the driver and the cyclist
Most urban streets in the UK are a width for infrequent horse traffic and speed, which disappeared well over a century ago. - Impatience is the cause of a lot of near-misses and accidents. - Every vehicle user wants to travel at max speed, and every ciylist wants penty of room. - This isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
Yes , and the impatience is usually on the part of cyclists who feel it imperative to overtake everything else , regardless of the restricted space available or the dangers of hitting pedestrians who are trying to cross between queuing traffic .
That style of cycle lane has never been fit for purpose especially when there are drains, etc for the cyclist to hit. Since the introduction of the new highway code they are only leading to confusion; it's clear from the clip with the bus that even the Police are confused about the rules in these cases. IMO if a cycle lane can't be 1.5M wide then the councils should be removing the markings to prevent further confusion, maybe put up signs to remind motorists of the new rules?
@@Cous1nJackthe 800 is a bit generous as the wheel will be at 450, and you only need half of a cyclist. Even so it's a bit tight, you need to treat overtaking them like you would a car. To that end like a powered vehicle 🚜 they should not be undertaking people that have overtaken them already if they can't keep up with the normal moving traffic speed, and should pull over to allow vehicles to pass if the queue behind them is over 6 vehicles. The 6 vehicles thing is probably a byelaw aimed at tractors, but seems fair if you are meant to be considerate of other road users.
@@Cous1nJack I really like the raised bike lanes we have here in Denmark, there is a curb between the road and the bike (and again between the pavement and bike path). This allows a slight slope on the bike path towards the road which means no drains on the bike path. They should also be 2.2m wide but if necessary can be down to 1.7m and there are many that are wider, some of the busier places in Copenhagen have bike paths that are 5m wide for each direction.
The 2nd clip was in Edinburgh, most cycle lanes in Edinburgh are actually separated with bollards now and as such the local authority will just say they’re barriering off the cycle lanes to ensure cyclist are safe within them but not gotten round to having them all done as yet. This will almost certainly get them off the hook. As such, like you said near the end of the video if they haven’t done so then don’t use them and ride in the main lane instead. I’m a van driver and not currently a cyclist, but I would rather be pissed off with having to follow behind a cyclist than be responsible for killing one due to them hitting a drain/pothole/foreign object.
It needs to be made mandatory for cyclists to use their designated spaces , and certainly to be found at fault where they fail to do so and cause collisions as a result , where it will be shown that the collision would not have occurred had they been in their proper places .
Another excellent and informative vid Mr BBB. Thank you. Could I just ask, what distance does a cyclist need to leave when overtaking anything /anyone ?? another cyclist ??? Is speed relevant too, and road position ?? Seems a little crass for motorists to be leaving 1.5 m distance from cyclists but they appear happy to be within inches of other vehicles sometimes, due to undertaking/overtaking.
It’s the element of risk. The motorist is required to allow 1.5m when travelling at 30mph due t their travelling faster and operating 1.5 tonnes of metal. When a cyclist is passing slow/static traffic be it on the near or offside and is called filtering with only caution required. These lanes of 0.5m force the cyclist into passing traffic very closely so the infra is at fault especially when unprotected. The only time a cyclist is recommended to give space is when passing parked vehicles in order to avoid what is known as the door zone.
@@TheGiff7 I don't think it's just the element of risk. I wonder why cyclists are not allowed on motorways too. It's because cyclists and motorised vehicles are incompatible with using the current road systems all over the world, and that most cyclists are never prosecuted for any offence-ever. I see most motorists being courteous to cyclists, but this is almost never reciprocated by cyclists. It would be easier to educate 6 million cyclists than 35 million motorists..... but it is much more profitable to fine 35 million motorists.
Good morning Sir, while I am a cyclist myself, as a general comment, I have followed and saved many of your posts. I should like to thank you for touching on aspects of law many of us are somewhat naive about. Your comments on the law are very informative and being for-armed as it were, is a distinct eye opener to many of us who in our normal lives have very little to do with the legal system until we fall foul of it. There are very few barristers or indeed solicitors who open their training to Joe Bloggs, which makes you somewhat unique , so thank you once again for sharing your command of law with us.
Where I live the roads are simply too narrow to have continuous cycle lanes, leading to the ridiculous (and very dangerous) sudden ending of the cycle lane wherever the road gets too narrow, with it reappearing again a few yards further on.
Thank you. I've been pointing out that issue for the last few years ever since they added cycle/shared lanes to a main road near where I live. The lanes not only start and stop randomly, but also will randomly appear on the other side of the road. Additionally there are traffic islands inbetween the sections of lane, which make it all but impossible to safely (and legally) pass cyclists. And then there is the issue of it being a lane shared with motorcyclists, taxis and buses so if a bus is stopped at a bus stop, the cyclist is forced to either stop and wait for the bus, or leave the lane. The whole thing is ridiculously dangerous. I've already witnessed countless motorists overtaking cyclists dangerously close to the cyclist and approaching cars, overtaking too close to the traffic islands and nearly clipping them and also motorists overtaking cyclists by going around the wrong side of the traffic islands. My opinion is that it has made things more dangerous by adding more hazards to the road for idiots to hit and made it more frustrating for more sensible motorists.
The cycle lanes where I used to live in the Midlands were like that, and worse. One in the footway, on a fast bypass, required cyclists to give way four separate times at every side road joining from the left- including to traffic coming from *behind* you. It was lethal. It was far safer to stay on the road and have right of way across such junctions, as the other traffic does (and the bypass, though single lane each way, was easy for cars to overtake on using the opposite carriageway as it was never busy). Cycle lanes are more dangerous than riding on the adjoining road- and that sort of thing is one of the reasons why.
More roads need to be designated NO CYCLING , with cyclists diverted onto quieter side roads where they don't cause a nuisance to everyone else , pedestrians and drivers alike .
when I'm working I cycle around the new forest regularly, and then when I'm home i cycle around Doncaster. the difference is astonishing. The drivers back home drive as though I'm either invisible or a target for them, I was almost flattened by two huge tractors with trailers on last weekend passing within a similar distance to the van in this video, whereas down in the new forest, drivers are generally very tolerant & careful around cyclist.
Speaking as a cyclist, I never cycle that close to the kerb as it practically invites close passes such as we see in this and many, many other videos. I ride much further out as this gives me space to move over if someone passes me too closely.
@@paulhayes6920but cycling further out gives you more room to move away. I have stopped cycling in the road because it causes too much of an obstruction now a days, I think about all the pollution caused by vehicles following being stuck behind a bike
When I took cycling lessons my instructor taught me the only things seen in the gutter is rubbish. I was taught as a road user that wants to be seen and be safe, I should behave like a car and stay seen. Obviously I give way where possible. I keep my place and never dart in between cars.
@@1988dgs The 'pollution ''following being stuck behind a bike'' isn't the fault or responsibility of the cyclist They are not stuck behind the bike they're competing for space with other obese vehicles. With many making journeys that barely warrant the use of a three piece suite on wheels.
This is why I always pedal with enough space on my left to be able to move left a full meter AND still avoid any ditch or sewer openings. I will also move left a bit when there is enough space for the driver to pass me safely. And will signal the driver so that he/she knows I know they are there, and I am giving them space. I will NOT move left if you honk at me because I know that honkers will very often follow up with a close call overtake even when there is space to avoid it. On purpose. This has kept me safe and, often, if I fail to follow those rules, I end up regretting it.
I ride all over Europe and parts of the UK. The UK driver's are the most aggressive and inconsiderate. Spain is the most considerate. Probably because in the main fines are eye watering.
Once out of the UK and into France or Germany, they respect their cyclist I have had no problems in these countries. In general British motorists do look down on cyclist and have a bad attitude. Its really class distinction and has been passed down through generations from the 1920/30s when you were so high in society to own a car and the cyclist was seen as the poor relation. In France they see the cyclist as courageous and they love their racing weather they ride or not. In Germany you better have a good excuse if you knock a cyclist down, they take kids to school in shopping basket carriers there and motorists just keep away, no one is bothered. At various Semain Federale events in France many Europeans tell me they wont come to the UK to cycle due to the reputation of our drivers. Sad really.
Excellent as ever and thank you for your work. You are totally correct and the law should be applied the same across the country - and we all know it's not. Thank you. Personally, I love your sofa as a measure, "Give or take the fluffy bits on the side", 3:08, had me rolling on the floor. Big thumbs up. :)
🤔 in this instance ‘cycling’ but the key word here is INCONSISTENCY in British law enforcement. & very much applied depending on ‘who you are’ rather than on any particular occurrence.
It’s more about where u r & not who u r as down south in England, close passes can be reported online but in the north in Scotland, an officer has to come out & very little actually gets done about it
There's a Dutch idea that removing road markings and traffic lights make the roads safer for everyone. Apparently, this has been tried and tested not only in NL, but also in Germany, and it has been deemed a great success.
In our village they decided to remove the white lines down the centre of the road. All that happens now is that oncoming traffic is often in the centre of the road, refusing to get over to the left. This is on a road that was configured for 2 lanes with room to spare.
People always use the dutch as an example, when they are in fact the exception when it comes to cycling. They have been perfecting their roads for almost a century. Any other country that thinks they can match them in a year or two is seriously delusional.
In the Netherlands and certainly where I live all rods of 50km/h (~30mph) have a hard border between the cycle ad and the traffic and the cycle lane is wide enough to allow cyclists to overtake each other safely most town centres and residential areas are 30km/h limited with total priority to cyclists. Here if a motorist hits a cyclist the motorist is automatically at fault.
@@lordstevewilson1331 . It has never been legal for cyclists to use the footpaths, not have they ever been allowed to, I've can think of several incidents over the years, where the police have ordered a cyclist to get off the footpath.
@@grahvis So rather than an impartial investigation by the police to determine fault the car driver has to prove his innocence. That doesn't seem fair.
In my opinion the change in rules to 1.5 Metres width between motor vehicles and cycles negated those original , narrow cycle lanes as a viable road marking , so they should have all been removed , otherwise it muddies and clouds the actual law and makes everyone insecure , stressed and less safe as a consequence .
I spent 10 years commuting 13 miles a day across central London (Charing Cross to Hammersmith and back) each day. You learn to be incredibly defensive and prepared to be sideswiped at any time. Luckily I only ever had one accident that landed me in hospital needing surgery - so many people blame cyclists for abusing road rules, but don't appreciate their vulnerability. Buses were by far the worst offenders, followed by white vans. Lorries & cars were good, taxis mostly good. Thankfully, I'm now retired & no longer risking life & limb on a daily basis.
I will start by saying I agree with the 1.5 m rule, when I can I give more regardless of speed. For horses I give the entire lane or will stay behind until they pull over to let people pass. I will say this horse riders are far more likely to pull to one side to let vehicles pass when they have created a little bit of a tail back than cyclists. Now I would say make the cycle lanes 1.5 m but we all know what will happen then. Too many cyclists will ride at the 1.5 m line and that would mean vehicle drivers would be 3 m away from the curb to pass safely. Now talking about inconsistency. I have to agree there is far too much of it between individual officers, stations, areas etc. The law is 1.5 m so it doesn't matter were the line is if the vehicle passes on the line they are most definitely breaking the highway code and should be prosecuted. As for the cab company not naming the driver I would suggest that should be made an offense in of itself with the punishment being a suspension of the licence that allows them to operate as a cab company. Of course our police cannot be everywhere, so it would seem they are allowing the public (I mean cyclists) to send in video evidence to police so they can have someone prosecuted. I can go out today and video cyclists breaking the law and send that in but nothing will happen because it is near impossible to identify a cyclist, so you have inconsistency there. Driver breaks the law and there is video evidence, driver is prosecuted, cyclist breaks the law and there is video evidence nothing happens. Same laws broken two different outcomes.
Cyclists should be insured and have an easily visible identifier, on a high visibility jacket maybe, to even up the playing field. They aren't always the innocent party.
@ Mark Gilligan - you make some very valid points. The main thing that came to my mind was the number of times a law was broken, and the risk of that law being broken. Drive at the national speed limit on the motorway and count how many law breakers there are, watch to see how many drivers slow down for a speed camera, look for illegal parking on pavements, and of course, ride a cycle and count the 'illegal' close passes... Cyclists doing similar (breaking laws, not following highway code) is equally frustrating but then equate this to risk of injury... Being a cyclist and a driver - I'm very aware in which of my vehicles I break the law most frequently, and in which situation I'm most likely to kill someone... Btw - I try and be as safe as possible on all my journeys - honest!
@@chrisb5824 There is no equating the risk, I have already stated that I am more than happy with the hierarchy and follow it. That said there is no hierarchy about abiding by the law. We are all equal under the law and the law SHOULD apply equally to us all. The problem is that drivers are quite easily identified and prosecuted when they break the law, cyclist are near impossible to identify and therefore not easily prosecuted. For me and many others the imbalance is more than frustrating it is unfortunately creating a them and us mentality which isn't good for either group. Where application of the law is concerned, the scales are clearly tipped in favour of cyclists. Btw we all as road users should be as safe as possible on all our journeys. Curtesy and good manners would also go a long way to reducing the friction between the two groups. Unfortunately some cyclists believe that the hierarchy gives them the right to do as they please.
@@MarkGilligan4 Personally, as a cyclist I'd have no objection to my bike carrying a practical registration plate, so that I can be identified. I comply with the law e.g. I walk rather than cycle through red lights, when I don't wish to wait for them to change to green. I rather doubt that even if cyclists could be identified the police would markedly increase prosecutions. Possibly for cycling on pavements were there are large numbers of pedestrians, where they do pose a risk to third parties. For cycling through red lights, I rather doubt it as the risk is low. Infact, cyclists are permitted to ride through red lights in Paris, Canada and some US states, as it has been found to be safer than having the cyclists moving off at the same time as the vehicles.
Malcolm In Catalonia Spain its a very serious offence to hurt a cyclist whatever the cause. Drivers respect cyclists in fact respect runs through society. Possibly why I cycle mainly in Europe. I now live most of the year in Catalonia
I've found that using the Primary/Secondary position, regardless of the presence of a dedicated cycle lane has kept me safe on the roads. Other road users tend to react positively to this and in my experience, 99% of the time, will wait and then pass wide once you return to secondary to let them pass.
The problem pertains to motorists who assume that the cycle lane line is the limit, not the 1.5 metres which they routinely give cyclists on regular roads. It's one reason why we often tend to avoid cycle lanes, unless completely separate from the road.
Having lived in Germany - in the late 90’s and early part of the new millennia, it makes me inclined to smile - in a somewhat sardonic way - to see Britain trying (retrospectively) to create the “ideal” ( that is, the longed for arrangement) of having dedicated lanes for cyclists. On the evidence of my own experience of regularly cycling, to and from my work place, around three of Germany’s busy cities, the Germans had the foresight to build cycle lanes into the infrastructure way back and the issues of vehicles having to give cyclists “ a wide berth” effectively eliminated. Note: if you were “cut up” by a vehicle it was more than likely because you were not using the cycle track. To attempt to emulate this “ideal”, retrospectively, is a big ask. There has to be a compromise. And, just for the record, unless changed in the past couple of decades, Germans were allowed to cycle on the footpaths, but however, would be scowled at if they did. Except for being sworn at by a German, for cycling on the cycle track against the normal traffic flow, I never once was involved in or witnessed any ‘near misses’ with motorised vehicles of any kind. Cycling in Germany was not only safe, it was a pleasure: cyclists, on the whole, were considerate, courteous and careful.
I've also cycled in Germany and what you say is quite correct. Part of the problem in the UK is that we seem to have an abundance of brain dead cyclists who seem to get off on jumping traffic lights, cycling at night with no lights and dark clothes and cycling around with the mindset that they can behave any way they f...n like. It makes vehicle drivers despise them and less likely to care about them.
I lived in Belgium for three years and it is the same there, and the Netherlands obviously so! It would appear to be quite normal in norther Europe to have good cycling infrastructure? I have driven in France and Spain often, but don't recall the system there? I have often said the £100 billion plus wasted on a 100 miles railway line that hardly anyone will benefit from, they could have improved the cycling infrastructure with that money to German/Belgian/Netherland standards!
@@rollyunicorn That's just anti-cycling prejudice lacking any kind of factual basis whatsoever. People like you simply hate cyclists because they have the temerity to encroach upon what you believe, as a motorist, is your rightful inheritance of almost total hegemony over the transport infrastructure in the UK.
As a motorcyclist I always give pushbikes a very wide berth and personally ride in the centre of my lane or near the crown when in town. If all cyclists did that, ie ignored the cycle lane and used the centre of the main lane, it might cause enough upset to get the cycle lane policing looked at more consistently and some high profile prosecutions. In court I would think you might argue that the cycle lanes are not fit for purpose in their current form.
A basic problem in these cases is the use of the bike lane to artificially narrow the roads as a traffic calming measure. It leads to these small lanes that make cyclists feel even more vulnerable as it seems to embolden the drivers into driving closer to cyclists (as long as they don't cross the line it is OK).
The way I understand it is irrespective of the cycle lane width, the safe passing space is the distance from the cyclist to the overtaking vehicle. In the video examples, it appears people are commenting on closeness to the cycle lane border. It's closeness to the road user that matters.
I had a woman overtake me then turn left into my path to drive onto her drive. I screamed, she stopped, we had an argument. She said “I wasn’t looking where I going” because she had tried to catch my attention from within her car. She then said “I have the right to drive onto my drive”. I was so shaken after nearly ploughing into her, I was still shaking ten minutes later when I arrived at work, it scare me and made me really angry at the entitled attitude she had.
@@247ADIE Her entitlement to turn onto her drive stops at the point where she drives into another road user to do that. It seems you don't think a cyclist has any right to use the road at all.
@@RexxSchneider Indeed. Her "entitlement" is to cross the footpath using the dropped kerb when it is safe to do so. She is not entitled to place other road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) in danger. And recent changes to the Highway Code emphasise the responsibility that we have towards more vulnerable road users.
It partly comes down to how drivers respond to lane markings. If this was two normal width lanes for traffic running in the same direction, then it's assumed as long as everyone stays within their lane, then passing distance isn't considered to be an issue. And usually way less than 1.5m. But applying the same logic with a cyclist falls foul of the 1.5m guideline. So I would conclude a narrow cycle lane is setting cyclists up for close passes, & it would probably be better in the light of the rules to erase any cycle lane less than 2m wide.
Head on cyclists are routinely coming within 1.5metre of on coming traffic and vehicle drivers cannot control or avoid that. Also at traffic lights, stop and give way junctions cyclists again routinely squeeze between (at the time) stationary vehicles and kerbs.... what's the answer?
Due to the inaction of the local police I have actually stopped cycling. I have had many close passes that when reported the police have taken no action to the point of not even watching the videos I have given them. There is no protection from the law on the roads and as such the roads in the Greater Manchester area can be seen as lawless.
I can remember travelling to work one morning on my motorbike up the A34 heading north to Manchester, just coming out of Alderley Edge. Coming out of the 30mph speed restriction through the village there are a couple of nice swoopy bends which can be quite fun to go round but I could see A LOT of brake lights coming on through the trees so I kept the speed down. As I exited the second bend could see a line of traffic moving at about 20 mph extending as far as the eye could see. There were sufficient gaps in oncoming traffic that I could overtake the vehicles three or four at a time and a few gaps that allowed for ten at a time but it was nonetheless slow going. Eventually (after a couple of miles or so) the road straightened out and I was able to get to the front of the queued traffic which I'd thought was a heavily laden 7.5 ton lorry but I was wrong, the lorry was stuck behind a lycra clad cyclist who was 'saving the plannit' completely oblivious to all the traffic backed up behind him stuck in second or third gear.
Yep been doing my motorbike theory test and if i've riding a slow moped with traffic backed up behind your supposed to pull over to let traffic overtake
OrkStuff So if there was safe room for you, on a motorcycle to overtake cars, then there was safe room for the car, at the head of the queue to overtake the cyclist. Could it be that the car driver was too nervous to pass the cyclist? Or maybe a driver unfit for the road? Conclusions leapt to, here, I think.
Absolutely agree on lack of consistency. I had to make a complaint on one case of a close pass I reported where the car took up half the left hand lane and was certainly not 1.5m when overtaking me. It was out of line with other similar cases on the same road I cycle on. I suggested the digital evidence team to go out and cycle with cameras so they can experience what it is like to be close passed as part of their training if they are not cyclists. Otherwise they are just peeps In front of a computer viewing these incidents and making judgements. Edit: I must have reported at least 80 close passes in the past year. Usually the police are consistent but there are a few which they refuse to take any action and don’t give any reasons apart from it has been reviewed by an investigator and not deemed to meet the thresholds. Sometimes you just got to follow it up and complain again and have someone have a proper look at it.
Simple fact is that so long as a cyclist is in the cycle lane, many drivers think it’s ok to pass them at a short distance so long that they don’t cross the line marking the cycle lane. I find I usually get given more room when there’s no cycle lane.
I cycled in England for so many years and, somehow survived. On retirement I moved to Germany and... I was in heaven. Cycleways everywhere and well away from the traffic. Cyclists have "Recht" unless you can prove they were 100% at fault. A bloke came out of a 'T' Junction last year and hit me when I stupidly rode on a main road, and stumped up the €350 to repair the minor damage with only my word as to how much that was (I was honest, honest!). The thought of cycling again in the UK fills me with terror!
@@mikewade777 A lot of times you have to reverse the vehicle, I have a transit and reverse using mirrors only, many people struggle if they have to reverse 100 m down the lane.
An alternative you do not suggest is to simply cycle in the travel lane, as cyclists are legally permitted to do. In primary or secondary position, depending. As another commenter pointed out, cyclists riding in a cycle lane needing to move into the travel lane must yield to traffic already in the travel lane approaching from their rear. Given that motorists may be approaching at 2-3x the 15-20mph speed of a cyclist and given that it is difficult for a cyclist to look rearwards more then briefly without risking crashing (balancing on 2 wheels, remember?), moving outwards safely can be a problem. If you are ALREADY in the travel lane, no problem. Visibility to crossing traffic at junctions is another consideration.
Whilst I wouldn't go driving close to cyclists like in those videos, I find that cyclists ignore the new HWC "hierarchy" rules in central London - it's like they think all pedestrians should give way to them. They never slow down - and isn't just the delivery riders.
@@RacingAnt I think it's everyone. Everyone in London is in such a rush. I have never ridden a bike or driven a car in Central London. Being a pedestrian commuter, I ALWAYS assume no one will give way to me because I will always assume the cyclist/rider/driver is not aware of the new HWC rules - as is many (if not, most) non driving pedestrians.
Something that is very common in my experience as a pedestrian is how when you cross a road, oncoming cars don't slow down, they sometimes even speed up!
Worth a note that although there is inconsistency everwhere due to prosecution decisions being down to individual officers, and some police forces having seeming policies never to prosecute close passes, the second clip is Police Scotland where reporting is far more time consuming due to the lack of an online reporting portal,
It seems to me that frequently cycle lanes are installed to make the road appear to be narrower than it is as a traffic calming measure. The above comment regarding insentives to install cycle lanes might be part of this. The issue is that to make the cycle lane wide enough for a safe pass then it needs 0.9m between the kerb and the cyclist plus another 1.5m to the passing traffic. At this point it is almost as wide as a normal traffic lane and can't be fit in the road space. I would only use a lane like those if the traffic beside me was stationary.
Here in Gateshead we have two cycle lanes that's the biggest in the UK, the local council managed to put in two bus lanes which buses never use, one makes a bus having to switch lanes on basically a narrow bridge where the council decided to put traffic lights in at the end of the first bus lane and the second one the bus can't turn at a 45° corner.
When the van passed the cyclist , a large truck was approaching the van from the opposite direction . It was over the centre line . (1:44) A close call for the van on both sides. The cycle lane is far too narrow with no room for error (500mm) . In NZ the cycle lanes are 1000 mm wide and our roads are wider than yours where cycle lanes and marked .
As soon as you said “inconsistencies”, I gave this video a 👍 Buses and vans can be the worst in my experience. (I don’t ride any more due to hit and run accident and a week in Intensive Care. I tried to ride again about 18 months later but was so scared on the road that it wasn’t worth it imo)
I like the 'everyone should use the road with courtesy to other users' point of view. The majority of road users - pedestrians, cyclists, drivers - are in this category, and for the most part, everyone gets along. As someone who's been cycling in the area where that bus passed for about 30 years, if the guy can't deal with a bus passing at that distance, he should really be on it, not cycling next to it. There is a broader point about the design of cycleways in general. They can often be terrible, ill thought out; often nothing more than a box ticking exercise.
Daniel, thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments on this video. Many vehicle drivers are driving far to close to others, but especially close to pedestrians and cyclists. Thank you also for explaining two words I have never come across; malfeasance and nonfeasance. We learn something new every day. Keep up the great work. PS, are you available for a consultation?
Another problem I find with this type of cycle lane is that they are not resurface when the rest of the road is, making them rough. If your riding a road bike it has a massive impact on resistance making them unfit for purpose. Also the drains in them make them unusable for road bikes, or bikes with narrow wheels.
Thx for the video. People are adjusting to the new rules in London. Surely these cycle zones are totally unnecessary. And the last thing you need on two wheels, is more "paint" on the road. It's treacherous when wet.
Yes. I have wondered about malfeasance. I believe that most cycle lanes and paths don't meet the relevant standards. If so, I would think that there would be a legal obligation to meet them?
A lot of the confusion seems to be that lanes are painted on the road. It needs to be clearer in the highway code. And what use are lanes if you can't pass by someone the lane to your left if you are in your lane? Yesterday we had a cyclist pull into one of these lanes off the pavement directly in front of us. Scary. Cycle lanes should be full width and cyclist should be easily identifiable so that police can deal with them when they take liberties. A quick visit to Grimsby would show how common that is.
Thanks - appreciate your objective view on these issues. Grateful if you could explain how this is supposed to work on country lanes? Many lanes aren’t wide enough to pass a cyclist with the new minimum distance. But with care and some consideration from driver and cyclist at the appropriate point you can pass safely. However would that be breaking the law? What about country lanes in Cornwall when you slow to a crawl to pass a walker? Isn’t that technically breaking the rules?
There is no hard and fast rule on this, which is why Rule 163 is a "You should" and not "You must". The original part of the rule "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would overtaking a car". Which often may be only half a meter, thus you have complied with the rule. But it was deemed at some point cyclists may need more room. So they added "As a guide" the leave 1.5m part to help people understand what is considered a reasonable distance. That is not to say you can not overtake closer, but if you do you 'may' be considered for prosecution. But as seen in this video it is judged on an individual basis. So back to your point as long as you do it safely there is no issue. The problem comes as what you deem as safe and what the police/CPS deem safe is often different.
think you've answered your question when you say 'slow to a crawl to pass a walker'. If you can't give the advised 1.5m to a cyclist because of a narrow road, then you reduce your speed significantly.
I wouldn't apply too much blame upon the police, as they've been given unworkable laws to enforce. The blame primarily lies with the DfT; failing to build adequate cycling infrastructure for many decades, and then creating unrealistic highway code amendments that pass the burden of responsibility onto drivers, cyclists, and the police.
You said that the bus 'Did not break the law because everybody was in their own lane' and the still photo shows exactly that but when you watch the video the bus does enter the cycle lane because it is cutting the corner on the bend in the road. This is the same argument as showing a photo of two people and saying 'no crime is being committed here!' when the video that the image was taken from clearly shows one person attacking the second person.
So we need a line @ 2½m ? 1m to cycle in avoiding potholes, manholes etc +1½m clearance. Though near me there are plenty of places where a cyclist would need to cycle 2m or more from the kerb to avoid whole stretches of potholes and badly finished trenches.
In my city the council have took the bus lane back and part of the footpath put a raised curb in between the road and the old bus lane, and made a large two lane cycle path with automatic traffic lights just for the cycle path. I go down that section of road on a regular basis and I have yet to see a cyclist using it , but when it was a bus / cycle lane the only place you saw cyclist was in the bus lane .
Our learned friend puts the matter concisely and hits the nail on the head. The whole reason behind the 1.5m passing distance is because bicycles are inherently unstable, as he puts it, "they wobble". Is introducing a "safe passing" distance the correct control measure? Not according to the HSE, the organisation considered to be the authority on such matters. The HSE advocates a hierarchy of control measures. 1 is elimination. Remove bicycles from the environment entirely. This would probably be judged as not reasonably practicable where dedicated cycle lanes cannot be installed and would require a change to the Highway Code to mandate their use where they are available. If we look at 2 & 3 of the hierarchy however we are presented with viable alternatives. 2 is substitution, 3 is engineering controls. The safest reasonably practicable solutuion is to either substitute bicycles for the inherently more stable tricycle or require engineering controls in the form of stabilisers fitted to bicycles to eliminate or at least significantly reduce wobbling.
I would agree, but I was in Leeds yesterday where they're building a whole network of dedicated cycle paths separate from the road by kerbs and dropped below the footpath (effectively a separate road) and saw a cyclist on the pavement next to it...
Kingston hill has segregation of cyclists, yet they still ride on the car lane causing massive tailbacks , I asked a cyclist why, he said he didn’t like the cycle lane, probably because he was try to beat his Strava times
I cycle often in Glasgow city centre. I am comfortable using cycle lanes that are physically separated from the vehicles (e.g. Berkeley St & Elderslie St ) but otherwise I ride primary, i.e. in the centre of the lane. That way any vehicle wanting to pass has to have the other lane clear in order to do so. When I do this, and although as far as I know it is legal, I do not filter to the front at lights or other junctions but take my turn in the same as every other vehicle. I find this reduces the likelihood of confrontation with drivers who regard you as "cheating" if you filter to the front. Be safe everyone, regardless of your mode of transport!
Uk roads aren't that wide, to overtake at 1-5 metres you would straddle the white line..driving into on coming vehicles, any time of day roads to busy. I do cycle & drive, but maintaining that distance on bike/ car/ do to road layout is impossible
Yes, you have to go across the centre line and if it is unsafe to do so then the overtake that one was intending to do is most likely not legal and they need to wait until it is clear.
@@benjamindesson5326 yes for sure but I live in the West Midlands, the road's are always full & more often I'm in a streem of vehicles drive past cyclists, in the 2 instances BBB highlites there seems light traffic & giving the cyclists just half a metre more would have been safer & respectfull.
Do you still have to indicate when passing? I do, but followed a police car , who passed closer than allowed and failed to indicate. Thank you for your great vids.
@pixies64 Only this very morning I was behind a police car which failed to observe a 20mph limit (albeit not by very much) and then went on to turn left at a roundabout without signalling...
Hiya, I do enjoy your programme, so keep it up. As regards those white painted cycle lanes. I really believe that because there is a white line, most drivers see it, that as long as they are keeping clear of the line even if it only by an inch then this is totally ok, & can disregard the 1.5 metre rule. I think the white line encourages this attitude. Get rid of them & put in some protected lanes, much safer & more pleasant for all of us. I am a car driver & cyclist.
It can be hard to judge distance when recording or watching the footage of a camera as sometimes the distance looks closer then it actually is. In some places i have seen ballads inplace of the white lines. The bus does not seems to go over the cycle lane untill after it passes the cyclist if it was to stay even further from the curb it would be on the other side of the road as the road looks small
The bus needs to pass the cyclist and leave almost 2 meters from the curb, if this means crossing the centre line , so be it. The driver will just have to follow the bike until it is safe to pass !
@@malgf4145 fair enough the transit van was more closer to the cycle lines then the bus was. But the bus did not cross the lines untill it passed the cyclist which i know even if no one is in the cycle lane you can not cross anyway. At the end of the day just two different examples being used. i believe it's least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds but hard to tell what speed any of them are going. If none of the cycle lanes were there maybe drivers would give them more space as all the lines indicate to the driver is to not go over them which the transit did not. I guess there using the lines as a guidance instead of useing the 1.5meters rule. Or thay are thinking thay don't need to give them more space because thay have there own little cycle lane so as long as thay are in there and dont cross the haching the driver does not need to give more space if you know what i mean
Some roads in my area do not have a bike lane but have warning bicycle triangles painted on the tarmac from time to time. Perhaps this is a better sollution to the issue.
Many rules aren't enforced by the police- cyclists with no lights or high visibility clothing at night; cyclists riding on the pavements, and close passing pedestrians, including the elderly, children, etc, and quite often at speed; cyclists riding down one way streets the wrong way; cyclists with unsafe loads, on their mobile phone, even drinking alcohol while riding; cyclists blatantly going through red lights; cyclists wheeling and weaving around traffic; and so on and so forth. WANT CHANGE, BE THE CHANGE, or stop moaning.
As far as I know there's no law under which cyclists are obliged to wear high viz clothing at night. Functional front and rear lights yes and even though many cycle without them I don't feel safe doing so. In the Netherlands police put up checkpoints around corners at the beginning of Autumn when days get shorter, and hand out fines to any cyclist without lights. But nobody there wears high viz clothing. To suggest that they should is like suggesting all cars should be painted in flourescent colours for the same reason - most are grey which is urban camouflage.
@@simonh6371 You're right, there's no law obliging cyclists to wear hi-viz clothing, hence I said either/or. Ultimately, your safety is primarily your own responsibility. But, I suppose, if a law had to be made in order to prevent people from poisoning their own children with cigarette smoke in confined spaces, such as cars, not much surprises me any more.
@@progecodiversruleok I don't think there should be such a law either. Like I said good front and rear lights are imperative and I've been very pissed off when lights I've bought have failed on me, especially rear lights switching themselves off due to vibrations on the road, finally I've bought some reliable and strong lights for my bike. Btw I never have them flashing as that's just bloody annoying for other drivers and cyclists alike, that should be outlawed. As should having lights on helmets instead of on the bike...because if you're waiting to pull out of a junction, looking both ways, it looks like your bike is facing the direction you are looking i.e. going the wrong way! In daylight it shouldn't be neccessary to wear high viz clothing, just as it isn't neccessary to paint your car luminous colours! Most cars nowadays are in fact some kind of grey or silver, which is an urban camo colour! If a road users' eyesight is so bad that he can't see another road user in daylight unless the other road user is high viz/luminous, he shouldn't be on the road.
@@simonh6371 I totally agree about the flashing lights. Here in the UK, however, and in my own experience, anything goes. Even red lights in front and white ones in the back. HAHAHAHA Also, wit the Netherlands being so big on cycling, and quite well organised about it, I don't understand why the UK doesn't take more notice. As for the hi-viz, all I was saying is that if you don't have lights at least wear one. And as for the cars, I also agree. Here, even on dark rainy days most still have no lights on, even professional drivers, such as lorry drivers, emergency drivers, bus drivers, etc, which makes it very difficult to see in the wet wing mirrors.
Having been reading the highway code to do a motorcycle theory test drivers can't cross over into the cycle lane but those vids they touched the white line but didn't go over it. Seems wierd why you need to give 1.5m even though its a marked off lane and it doesn't differentiate between a cycle lane and a cyclist riding on the road without a lane. 1.5m i would say is without a lane otherwise the cycle lane should be painted 1.5m aswell.
I completely agree with you. The highway code reads "leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph". It doesn't say "unless they're in a cycle lane".
Works both ways, if you have a tail of several cars, pull over and let them pass, funnily enough, where I live most farmers will do this in their massive tractor, whom are effectively impervious to the negative consequences of another vehicle playing silly buggers. But I've seen cyclists do everything within their power to impede the flow of traffic (I'm assuming they're activist types, but none the less)
You make cyclists out to be saints. They don't pay road tax and they often cycle two abreast, without any concern about the driver behind. It is time cyclists were banned from the streets and cycled only for fitness - off the roads.
To be fair, on passing the bus wasn't on the line, it was at least a foot away, however when it got to the pedestrian crossing lights it was on the line. The only thing wrong with the pass was it moved to left extremely quickly after passing. I'm both a cyclist and a car driver, I grew up in a world without cycle lanes so will often ignore the ones that push you onto paths, I learned that paths were for pedestrians so I normally do not ride on pathways even if they are separated. I've never once been knocked off a bike and never had an arrogant car driver. My bikes have always had 4 lights on, two front, two back, two static and two flashing. Never had any issues as I've always made sure I'm seen. A LOT of the cyclists I've seen these days don't have any lights, will refuse to wear hi-vis/bright clothing and a lot of them take off reflectors. I'm amazed and astounded there isn't a lot more fatalities with cyclists. Standards have dropped and I think Police should also stop and approach those cyclists. From last inspection the highway code also insists lights are on bikes too and you should be seen as possible. Don't see many bike riders being fined for it and this should also change too. It's down to common sense really and I think it shouldn't always be down to car drivers to face charges for getting close, or indeed hitting a cyclist they've not seen because they had no lights/wearing dark clothes. Police these days would rather fine the driver than a moron on a bike who doesn't want to be seen.
@justagameshow in Manor Park and Ilford there are dozens of fast food delivery riders on push bikes riding around at night without any front or rear lights or any reflective clothing I've had a couple of close calls with these cyclists suddenly appearing out of no where late at night. . I know this is contentious but I think it's time all cyclists had number plates insurance and had to pass a test of competency before being allowed on the road and maybe children under a certain age not allowed on major roads unless accompanied by an adult. Talking of near misses I have seen several police cars overtaking cyclists whilst passing by traffic islands on narrow roads
As a cyclist living in Germany for over 24 years, I have only been endangered by 2 car drivers, both cases involving UK drivers. In Germany car drivers also understand that they are cyclists, parents, pedestrians when they are not in their cars. And cylists are often also drivers when they are not on their bikes
BBB From my perspective of watching the second clip with the bus, I put it to you that when compared to the first clip, the nearside tyres of the van in the first clip,were on the outer line of the cycle lane whereas the nearside tyres of the bus were not on the line. The issue I see with cycle lanes , the new Highway Code rules & British Roads is that NOBODY has enough space. Finally, as a car driver I regularly see cyclists using the footpaths but that seems to go unpunished because as you yourself said, that is itself, illegal!
I suppose Im a cyclist. Ive toured the South coast from Wales to Sussex. Ive rode horses in Australia, Spain, Sweden and here, Im an advanced motorcyclist recovering from a month in hospital after being hit by a car. Ive driven HGVs and busses, and worked as a tractor driver. Ive raced cars and even driven a train. I read law for three years and realised I know nothing. That said, the highway code often contradicts itself. But, one rule above all others, dont crash. I dont want to crash my bike, it hurts. I dont want to bend my car I like my no claims and dont like fixing bodywork. If I catch up to you, Im going to assess my chances of passing you cleanly. If you look drunk, or a kid screaching at his mates on the other side of the road, Im going to be as far away from you as I can get. If you look like you can ride I will give you enough space that my wash wont affect you - especially if we are in lanes and hope you will afford me the same.
There are lots of roads in Lambeth and Wandsworth that are almost at a standstill if there is a slow moving cyclist (usually doing it on purpose to go extra slow) as the cars etc would have to almost be completely be in the oncoming lane to get past while giving them the required 1.5m distance.
ro63rto Roll up, roll up, see the Great Roberto. From his isolated and insulated position in a locked cage, can tell the audience, with no degree of accuracy, what everyone around him is thinking.
You cannot have a cyclist having over 1.5m on the average road; otherwise, you will have a head-on accident with vehicles coming the other way. What a pity the very people who PAY for the roads to the tune of £40 billion a year. Compared to the money earned by cyclists, NOTHING! In fact, they cost the country money when they rely on the NHS to fix them after falling off the road!
What I always do is ride out in the middle of the lane if there isn't enough room for a car (or bigger vehicle) to pass me safely. This blocks the vehicles option to pass and so doesn't put my safety at risk. A manoeuvre that I think is perfectly reasonable and justified. I think motorists just think I'm stroppy but none have ever said anything or gestured to me. I think it's important to do this confidently and boldly. Wobbling and gingerly trying to take the space doesn't work and encourages drivers to risk your safety.
My MTB handlebars are 800mm wide, so a 500mm cycle lane leaves my hand 300mm beyond the line [ assuming I'm leaving minimal clearance for pedestrians and road furniture at the kerb ] in short, I think I'd be commanding the centre of the lane here and ignoring the dangerous cycle lane markings
It occurs that cycle lanes should have a 1.5 metre strip between them and the lane for faster vehicles. In other words, cycle lanes should be redesigned with this law in mind. Near where I live, islands with kerbs are being installed between a cycle lane and the lanes for motor vehicles.
I'm a cyclist and I feel for car drivers at times because in some place's the roads are so narrow under the 1.5M you mentioned a car would never be able to pass with out going into oncoming traffic. This is why it's much easier for me simply to stop and let vehicles pass. Just like the clip with the Bus.
Not the same situation due to simple physics. Cycle hits car at 5mph = no one hurt. Car hits cycle at 30 mph = very grave chance of cyclist being hurt.
@@smiffy925 Cyclists that close pass cars can and do cause accidents, they are a danger to themselves and every other road user, especially other cyclists, pedestrians, prams and wheelchair users and they don't travel at 5 MPH, very often they are travelling at a much greater speed.
I've been cycling since I was 14, have to ride on a bit of 60 and a bit of 50 on my journey, and for me personally there's a variation of relative speed, size or wind effects caused by the vehicle, length of vehicle vs the closeness of the vehicle. My strategy is to maintain a shoulder falling distance away from the kerb, hoping in the worst to fall inwards and either hit my head on grass/hedge or give it a good distance to a whack on the path. I give a quick finger to every vehicle that passes too close because education is important and universal sign language the only means of possible communication.
Simply creating a cycle lane in an urban street by painting a 1metre strip in the gutter and making the whole street barely available to 2 lanes of traffic and residents on street parking is going to make friction between road users just as adding another pavement would constrict the flow , there is also the difference between a car near side mirror and a bus near side mirror on those big mounts, the times I have walked back from the shops and the Wells bus has blasted along the A road about 3 inches out from the kerb with the mirror well over the kerb at head height.
Absolutely correct, on the money 👍🙂
@@TheWebstaff google "injury by bus wing mirror", famous or not, they hit hard
Many of us that cycle regularly, and I do for work, consider that these type of cycle lanes make things worse. We’re better off without them.
So many people use bike lanes for parking, it means cyclists have to pull out in front of traffic regularly anyway. Which is probably less safe than if there was no cycle lane like you say.
Agree. I am a cyclist too
In nearby Hull, cyclists share a lane with buses. This sounds bad, but actually, the lane system is heavily monitored and enforced. If a car puts a wheel across that lane, he will receive an instant fine. I'd rather wait behind a bus until it departs than go around a car parked in a cycle lane into busy traffic. Also, buses are less frequent than cars.
@@ewanrollo5562 No , cyclists do NOT have to pull out in front of traffic , regularly or otherwise : it is incumbent on cyclists , as it is upon ALL ROAD USERS , before overtaking any vehicle , static or moving , to first take rear observation and ensure that they will NOT be pulling out into the path of faster traffic , and if so doing would occasion that , then they MUST remain behind the vehicle they wish to overtake and only move out when it is safe to do so . I see so many cyclists recklessly doing this that it beggars belief ; very few do as I do and check behind , then stop if necessary and wait until it is safe to pass . That is what everyone should do and is indeed required by law to do . Pull out into someone's path and get knocked down - you will have no one to blame but yourself . Cyclists are primarily responsible for their own safety , no one else is going to look out for you .
@@ewanrollo5562 Cycle lanes are so often painted on roads where there are no parking restrictions - it is perfectly legal to park there .
the difference with the second clip is probably police dont want to prosecute a public transport
That's partly it and most drivers that regularly use such routes likely commit the same offence on a daily basis.
wont let me reply to your post whasapp no mobile whatsapp or whasapp
@@adeptusmagi Okaaaaaay... 🤔
100%
So are you saying the police are being disingenuous? Is that OK considering what their role is?
I drive service buses for a living and you must always look out for vulnerable road users and give the required space. If the cycle lane is sectioned off say with bollards then fair enough but just markings on the roads means there are going to be cyclists so watch out for them and be prepared to adjust your speed to accommodate them.
Same with horses, slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary and give plenty of room as you pass.
It’s not just road safety but good manners.
Yeah, I agree with you whole heartedly. HGV and bus drivers should all be aware of the effect they have when passing cyclists, I'm pretty sure it's part of the tests.
@@morpheusmemnoch4160 Are they? You know that for sure? 100% of the time? If true, then many bus/HGV drivers are knowingly risking injury to cyclists.
@@silkdestroyer No they are not 100% sure they are "pretty sure". Do you know for sure that it is not?
@@Patchitt Let me point out what I was replying to:
"HGV and bus drivers are ALL aware of the effect they have when passing cyclists, I'm pretty sure IT'S PART OF THE TESTS.".
Having had plenty of close shaves with passing buses/HGVs, I'M pretty sure that many do not realise the effect they have, other wise, as I said, they are being totally reckless.
@@morpheusmemnoch4160 unfortunately there are as many psycho I hate cyclists bus and lorry drivers as car drivers.
Yes, it appears that the cycle lanes are somewhat pointless as our roads were not constructed wide enough for this purpose. It will as it always did depend on the patience, curtesy and common sense of road users, be they cyclists or motorists.Thanks again and Happy Resurrection Sunday.
Delivery cyclist are forced to break the rules. Run red lights etc. To be able to earn
@@jerrykudos9445 Who 'forces' them?
@@markrainford1219 That's racist 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
^humour Mark^
Our roads are wide enough - our cars are too wide
@@JohnR31415 The drivers are too selfish.
Working as a van courier in central London for 25+ years, it's very apparent that the rules and laws for buses are extremely relaxed. Red lights, stopping in yellow box junctions, cycle lane infringements etc are completely ignored by the police.
Every bus driver exceeds the 20mph limit
@@richcolour Most of the bus drivers have a system on board where they get given disciplinary methods if they drive dangerously, that being said, things like yellow boxes especially on roundabouts can be caused because the car in front has crossed lanes, read the highway code why this isn't allowed, and as all buses have cctv, this could be taken into account regarding convictions as it's rarely their fault, but there are also bus drivers who have a superiority complex, one we get in Bristol is 'why can't we pass at less than 1.5m to a cyclist when they can do it in inches to us, my reply is usually 'do you think the air flow of a bus doing 20mph is the same as a bike doing 5mph? Hand in your licence as you are clueless' that one doesn't end well as they don't like facts getting in the way of their opinions.
@@dakariszuluwhich drivers have to turn on themselves 😂😂
@@richcolour yeah but when it is 30 they regularly do 20 😂
I can vouch for the fact that the airflow from a bus is much stronger than that of a cyclist doing about 5 miles an hour. About thirty years ago, I got knocked off my bike from the airflow behind a bus and hit my head on the kerb. Luckily I was wearing a cycle helmet but I still have the remnants of a scar in my left eyebrow to prove it happened.
Perhaps the problem is that cycle lanes are being created on roads that are unfit for this. Other road users expect cyclists to stay within dedicated cycle lanes, however they would be entitled to position themselves in the middle of the normal sized lane where there is no provision for a cycle lane. Road and road junction designs often leave a lot to be desired. It is often blindingly obvious that some roads have been designed by a committee of unskilled laymen.
I am unsure where you have found any reference to cyclists being "entitled" to position themselves in the middle of a lane on a carriageway. I appreciate that some cyclists try to cycle in such a position, however they are putting themselves up for cycling without consideration for other road users. I expect there will be an outcry over this, however there are always two sides to any coin. No road user has any 'right of way' over another road user. Some road users are more at risk than others and where all road users demonstrate awareness of the presence of other road users the degree of risks will be lessened.
@@green856w Riding in the middle of the lane is called ‘primary position’ and is taught by the Bikeability government cycle training scheme. It is to be used on roads with slow moving traffic and roads that are narrow. The Highway Code says that bikes and horses should be given the same room as a car when overtaking. To overtake another car you have to move completely out of your lane onto the other side of the road…
@@cerdicw9998 Yes cycles are alowed to ride in the middle of the lane, also side by side so they are more visibel to other road users but they are supposed to move over to let traffic pass
They MUST also follow the highway code like all other road users
some of the new changes to the highway code are ment to keep the vunarable road users safe but the problem is some of the changes are not fully understood by most road users, and some of the changes can put cycles in danger by letting them undertake other vehicles when going in a strait line even when a vehicle is turning left. Also pedestians have more priority when crossing the road at a junction, again not all road users fully understand the new rules which will in my opinion put people at risk
We don't make the rules, some idiot with a pen did. We just have to follow the rules even when they are daft
@@jeffmay2697 They are only supposed to move over when safe to do so. If there is not enough space for a car to overtake without coming within 1.5 meters, the cyclist should remain in primary position because moving over is just encouraging an unsafe overtake.
the design by 'unskilled' does not necessarily follow. The designers are limited by available space… which can change temporarily or permanently. Some roads are no longer suitable for cycles or horses, too many cars, buses and lorries. I don't have the answer but I would say that cyclists/horses are too vulnerable nowadays and may want to consider other safer options.
In the first clip the white van was avoiding an oncoming lorry/tanker 1:07 which was moving out due to a parked car half on the road/pavement 1:35 Although the white van got uncomfortably close to the cyclist the driver avoided any collision. However the bus, to me, was MORE in the wrong since there wasn't any oncoming traffic and could easily have given the cyclist plenty of room 3:33
Correct. The tanker moved out at the last second whe the van was passing. Don't think it was intentionally done by the van driver, just caught up in the situation.
The Van driver should have waiting until the way was clear and was ahead of the parked cars on the right or if no cars were coming from the right. This would have given the van driver more room to pass the cyclist as per the new rules to the highway code. Perhaps the van driver was in a rush? and possibly impatient? Because they see the cyclist in the gutter/cycle lane they may have thought the 1.5 meter rule wrongly did not apply them (which could be why they later did not respond either).
@@ranxxerox6407 Watch the video again, both the van and the lorry coming towards the cyclist cross the centre white line and leave the silver van nowhere to go, that driver did the best that he could with the position other road users put him in. It's the white van and the lorry that should have stopped.
Anyway, typical hyper aggressive cyclist shown here, his 'go to' reaction is to shout 'move the f*ck over', so his preference was for the 2 vans to collide. Honestly, most cyclists are a menace on the road. And yes, I do cycle myself.
@Trollybus Driver "although vey close the van did not cross the white line," That's not the point. it's about the distance between the van and the bike.
"he had already committed to pass the cycle"
Then he shouldn't have. He should be looking ahead and anticipating. And remember that he has the power of brakes!
No people like you with your attitude are a menace.
I always try to leave extra room for cyclists, even where there is a cycle lane. I know from my own cycling experience that these lanes can have potholes or other defects that could result in the cyclist wobbling, or veering to one side.
Sadly this is harder to do when traffic is busy.
If the police had prosecuted the bus driver then the bus service in that particular town would probably have to be withdrawn for safety looking at the road width. On this basis the police knew they couldn't prosecute and the council will not or cannot widen the road. These rules are introduced without any thought for the consequences.
The police also know that bus companies have great lawyers and will fight tooth n nail so its not worth it.
So gy carrying on they will at some point almost certainly kill a cyclist, and then another?
Very good. If the road is busy and does not allow overtaking, it would mean that buses and large vehicles would have to travel at ghe same speed as the cyclist.
@Rob BURROWS it's bad in Cambridge, someone is killed on a bike fairly frequently
Perhaps one rule for the ordinary person who will pay up and another for the Bus company who might fight back? We need to protect all road uses but with correct infrastructure it just a dangerous mess for both the driver and the cyclist
Most urban streets in the UK are a width for infrequent horse traffic and speed, which disappeared well over a century ago. - Impatience is the cause of a lot of near-misses and accidents. - Every vehicle user wants to travel at max speed, and every ciylist wants penty of room. - This isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
That's the case with many roads near me in Cheshire. Indeed, some serve as de facto trunk roads despite being laid down before motorcars were a thing.
Yes , and the impatience is usually on the part of cyclists who feel it imperative to overtake everything else , regardless of the restricted space available or the dangers of hitting pedestrians who are trying to cross between queuing traffic .
As a cyclist, cars always pass closer when there is a cycle lane. I think they think that if they are not 'in' the cycle lane then they are fine.
As a pedestrian, cyclists often pass closer when there is a footpath.
@@TheWebstaff Then don't overtake on the inside.
They ARE .
@@MrEdrftgyuji overtaking is irrelevant .
That style of cycle lane has never been fit for purpose especially when there are drains, etc for the cyclist to hit. Since the introduction of the new highway code they are only leading to confusion; it's clear from the clip with the bus that even the Police are confused about the rules in these cases.
IMO if a cycle lane can't be 1.5M wide then the councils should be removing the markings to prevent further confusion, maybe put up signs to remind motorists of the new rules?
The Police are not confused, as always looking after corporations and not the Public.
1.5 wide plus a margin to account for drains etc and the width of a cyclist. Probably 450+ 800+ 1500 mm from the curb. 2.75m.
@@Cous1nJackthe 800 is a bit generous as the wheel will be at 450, and you only need half of a cyclist. Even so it's a bit tight, you need to treat overtaking them like you would a car.
To that end like a powered vehicle 🚜 they should not be undertaking people that have overtaken them already if they can't keep up with the normal moving traffic speed, and should pull over to allow vehicles to pass if the queue behind them is over 6 vehicles. The 6 vehicles thing is probably a byelaw aimed at tractors, but seems fair if you are meant to be considerate of other road users.
@@Cous1nJack I really like the raised bike lanes we have here in Denmark, there is a curb between the road and the bike (and again between the pavement and bike path). This allows a slight slope on the bike path towards the road which means no drains on the bike path. They should also be 2.2m wide but if necessary can be down to 1.7m and there are many that are wider, some of the busier places in Copenhagen have bike paths that are 5m wide for each direction.
You are lucky in my town dual carriageways have been reduced to single just for a cycle lane
The 2nd clip was in Edinburgh, most cycle lanes in Edinburgh are actually separated with bollards now and as such the local authority will just say they’re barriering off the cycle lanes to ensure cyclist are safe within them but not gotten round to having them all done as yet. This will almost certainly get them off the hook. As such, like you said near the end of the video if they haven’t done so then don’t use them and ride in the main lane instead. I’m a van driver and not currently a cyclist, but I would rather be pissed off with having to follow behind a cyclist than be responsible for killing one due to them hitting a drain/pothole/foreign object.
I live and cycle in Edinburgh, and in my experience, the police here are a complete waste of space.
It needs to be made mandatory for cyclists to use their designated spaces , and certainly to be found at fault where they fail to do so and cause collisions as a result , where it will be shown that the collision would not have occurred had they been in their proper places .
Another excellent and informative vid Mr BBB. Thank you. Could I just ask, what distance does a cyclist need to leave when overtaking anything /anyone ?? another cyclist ??? Is speed relevant too, and road position ?? Seems a little crass for motorists to be leaving 1.5 m distance from cyclists but they appear happy to be within inches of other vehicles sometimes, due to undertaking/overtaking.
cyclist need to leave an open cars door distance when passing I belive but could be wrong. P.s don't dm the scammer above 😅
Brilliant! Proving: The Law... Is an ASS! But I don't have your filters.. just the blatantly obvious one which seems to be working just fine.
It’s the element of risk. The motorist is required to allow 1.5m when travelling at 30mph due t their travelling faster and operating 1.5 tonnes of metal. When a cyclist is passing slow/static traffic be it on the near or offside and is called filtering with only caution required. These lanes of 0.5m force the cyclist into passing traffic very closely so the infra is at fault especially when unprotected. The only time a cyclist is recommended to give space is when passing parked vehicles in order to avoid what is known as the door zone.
@@TheGiff7 I don't think it's just the element of risk. I wonder why cyclists are not allowed on motorways too. It's because cyclists and motorised vehicles are incompatible with using the current road systems all over the world, and that most cyclists are never prosecuted for any offence-ever. I see most motorists being courteous to cyclists, but this is almost never reciprocated by cyclists. It would be easier to educate 6 million cyclists than 35 million motorists..... but it is much more profitable to fine 35 million motorists.
@@w.o.o.d.y very well put!
Good morning Sir,
while I am a cyclist myself, as a general comment, I have followed and saved many of your posts. I should like to thank you for touching on aspects of law many of us are somewhat naive about. Your comments on the law are very informative and being for-armed as it were, is a distinct eye opener to many of us who in our normal lives have very little to do with the legal system until we fall foul of it. There are very few barristers or indeed solicitors who open their training to Joe Bloggs, which makes you somewhat unique , so thank you once again for sharing your command of law with us.
Where I live the roads are simply too narrow to have continuous cycle lanes, leading to the ridiculous (and very dangerous) sudden ending of the cycle lane wherever the road gets too narrow, with it reappearing again a few yards further on.
Thank you. I've been pointing out that issue for the last few years ever since they added cycle/shared lanes to a main road near where I live. The lanes not only start and stop randomly, but also will randomly appear on the other side of the road. Additionally there are traffic islands inbetween the sections of lane, which make it all but impossible to safely (and legally) pass cyclists. And then there is the issue of it being a lane shared with motorcyclists, taxis and buses so if a bus is stopped at a bus stop, the cyclist is forced to either stop and wait for the bus, or leave the lane.
The whole thing is ridiculously dangerous. I've already witnessed countless motorists overtaking cyclists dangerously close to the cyclist and approaching cars, overtaking too close to the traffic islands and nearly clipping them and also motorists overtaking cyclists by going around the wrong side of the traffic islands. My opinion is that it has made things more dangerous by adding more hazards to the road for idiots to hit and made it more frustrating for more sensible motorists.
In that case you're supposed to do an acro bike hop into the pavement and then back down 😂
The cycle lanes where I used to live in the Midlands were like that, and worse. One in the footway, on a fast bypass, required cyclists to give way four separate times at every side road joining from the left- including to traffic coming from *behind* you. It was lethal. It was far safer to stay on the road and have right of way across such junctions, as the other traffic does (and the bypass, though single lane each way, was easy for cars to overtake on using the opposite carriageway as it was never busy). Cycle lanes are more dangerous than riding on the adjoining road- and that sort of thing is one of the reasons why.
More roads need to be designated NO CYCLING , with cyclists diverted onto quieter side roads where they don't cause a nuisance to everyone else , pedestrians and drivers alike .
when I'm working I cycle around the new forest regularly, and then when I'm home i cycle around Doncaster. the difference is astonishing. The drivers back home drive as though I'm either invisible or a target for them, I was almost flattened by two huge tractors with trailers on last weekend passing within a similar distance to the van in this video, whereas down in the new forest, drivers are generally very tolerant & careful around cyclist.
Speaking as a cyclist, I never cycle that close to the kerb as it practically invites close passes such as we see in this and many, many other videos. I ride much further out as this gives me space to move over if someone passes me too closely.
I think I should do this too, but I know from experience it doesn't matter where I ride I'm still going to get the close pass.
@@paulhayes6920but cycling further out gives you more room to move away. I have stopped cycling in the road because it causes too much of an obstruction now a days, I think about all the pollution caused by vehicles following being stuck behind a bike
When I took cycling lessons my instructor taught me the only things seen in the gutter is rubbish. I was taught as a road user that wants to be seen and be safe, I should behave like a car and stay seen.
Obviously I give way where possible.
I keep my place and never dart in between cars.
@@1988dgs The 'pollution ''following being stuck behind a bike'' isn't the fault or responsibility of the cyclist They are not stuck behind the bike they're competing for space with other obese vehicles. With many making journeys that barely warrant the use of a three piece suite on wheels.
@@mikewade777 I drive my car everywhere even for journeys within a 5min walk. What’s your point
This is why I always pedal with enough space on my left to be able to move left a full meter AND still avoid any ditch or sewer openings.
I will also move left a bit when there is enough space for the driver to pass me safely. And will signal the driver so that he/she knows I know they are there, and I am giving them space.
I will NOT move left if you honk at me because I know that honkers will very often follow up with a close call overtake even when there is space to avoid it. On purpose.
This has kept me safe and, often, if I fail to follow those rules, I end up regretting it.
In 2013 I cycled solo from Stoke on Trent to Barcelona. The scariest part was Stoke to Dover. Surprisingly , French drivers didn’t want to kill me
I ride all over Europe and parts of the UK.
The UK driver's are the most aggressive and inconsiderate.
Spain is the most considerate. Probably because in the main fines are eye watering.
Cyclists are bellends sooooo
Once out of the UK and into France or Germany, they respect their cyclist I have had no problems in these countries. In general British motorists do look down on cyclist and have a bad attitude. Its really class distinction and has been passed down through generations from the 1920/30s when you were so high in society to own a car and the cyclist was seen as the poor relation. In France they see the cyclist as courageous and they love their racing weather they ride or not. In Germany you better have a good excuse if you knock a cyclist down, they take kids to school in shopping basket carriers there and motorists just keep away, no one is bothered. At various Semain Federale events in France many Europeans tell me they wont come to the UK to cycle due to the reputation of our drivers. Sad really.
They probably didn't realise you were a Brit or they might have tried.🤣
@@superloopy24v Must of been the string of garlic and the beret that kept me safe 😂
Excellent as ever and thank you for your work.
You are totally correct and the law should be applied the same across the country - and we all know it's not.
Thank you.
Personally, I love your sofa as a measure, "Give or take the fluffy bits on the side", 3:08, had me rolling on the floor.
Big thumbs up.
:)
🤔 in this instance ‘cycling’ but the key word here is INCONSISTENCY in British law enforcement. & very much applied depending on ‘who you are’ rather than on any particular occurrence.
It’s more about where u r & not who u r as down south in England, close passes can be reported online but in the north in Scotland, an officer has to come out & very little actually gets done about it
Ride in the middle of the road - primary position in towns to prevent close pass … it works and your out of the gutter …
There's a Dutch idea that removing road markings and traffic lights make the roads safer for everyone. Apparently, this has been tried and tested not only in NL, but also in Germany, and it has been deemed a great success.
See also Coventry
Sounds like a good idea. A lot of traffic lights serve only to frustrate drivers rather than manage traffic
In our village they decided to remove the white lines down the centre of the road. All that happens now is that oncoming traffic is often in the centre of the road, refusing to get over to the left. This is on a road that was configured for 2 lanes with room to spare.
Ashford in Kent.
People always use the dutch as an example, when they are in fact the exception when it comes to cycling. They have been perfecting their roads for almost a century. Any other country that thinks they can match them in a year or two is seriously delusional.
In the Netherlands and certainly where I live all rods of 50km/h (~30mph) have a hard border between the cycle ad and the traffic and the cycle lane is wide enough to allow cyclists to overtake each other safely most town centres and residential areas are 30km/h limited with total priority to cyclists. Here if a motorist hits a cyclist the motorist is automatically at fault.
Is the driver automatically at fault whatever the circumstances?
In UK the roads are narrow and not designed for pedestrians and cyclists, cyclists used to use footpaths before.
@@WillCamx .
The onus lies on the driver to show they were not to blame.
@@lordstevewilson1331 .
It has never been legal for cyclists to use the footpaths, not have they ever been allowed to, I've can think of several incidents over the years, where the police have ordered a cyclist to get off the footpath.
@@grahvis So rather than an impartial investigation by the police to determine fault the car driver has to prove his innocence.
That doesn't seem fair.
In my opinion the change in rules to 1.5 Metres width between motor vehicles and cycles negated those original , narrow cycle lanes as a viable road marking , so they should have all been removed , otherwise it muddies and clouds the actual law and makes everyone insecure , stressed and less safe as a consequence .
I spent 10 years commuting 13 miles a day across central London (Charing Cross to Hammersmith and back) each day.
You learn to be incredibly defensive and prepared to be sideswiped at any time.
Luckily I only ever had one accident that landed me in hospital needing surgery - so many people blame cyclists for abusing road rules, but don't appreciate their vulnerability.
Buses were by far the worst offenders, followed by white vans.
Lorries & cars were good, taxis mostly good.
Thankfully, I'm now retired & no longer risking life & limb on a daily basis.
I will start by saying I agree with the 1.5 m rule, when I can I give more regardless of speed. For horses I give the entire lane or will stay behind until they pull over to let people pass. I will say this horse riders are far more likely to pull to one side to let vehicles pass when they have created a little bit of a tail back than cyclists. Now I would say make the cycle lanes 1.5 m but we all know what will happen then. Too many cyclists will ride at the 1.5 m line and that would mean vehicle drivers would be 3 m away from the curb to pass safely.
Now talking about inconsistency. I have to agree there is far too much of it between individual officers, stations, areas etc. The law is 1.5 m so it doesn't matter were the line is if the vehicle passes on the line they are most definitely breaking the highway code and should be prosecuted. As for the cab company not naming the driver I would suggest that should be made an offense in of itself with the punishment being a suspension of the licence that allows them to operate as a cab company.
Of course our police cannot be everywhere, so it would seem they are allowing the public (I mean cyclists) to send in video evidence to police so they can have someone prosecuted. I can go out today and video cyclists breaking the law and send that in but nothing will happen because it is near impossible to identify a cyclist, so you have inconsistency there. Driver breaks the law and there is video evidence, driver is prosecuted, cyclist breaks the law and there is video evidence nothing happens. Same laws broken two different outcomes.
Cyclists should be insured and have an easily visible identifier, on a high visibility jacket maybe, to even up the playing field. They aren't always the innocent party.
@@chava2uk150 cyclists don't kill/injure thousands of people each year
@ Mark Gilligan - you make some very valid points. The main thing that came to my mind was the number of times a law was broken, and the risk of that law being broken.
Drive at the national speed limit on the motorway and count how many law breakers there are, watch to see how many drivers slow down for a speed camera, look for illegal parking on pavements, and of course, ride a cycle and count the 'illegal' close passes...
Cyclists doing similar (breaking laws, not following highway code) is equally frustrating but then equate this to risk of injury...
Being a cyclist and a driver - I'm very aware in which of my vehicles I break the law most frequently, and in which situation I'm most likely to kill someone...
Btw - I try and be as safe as possible on all my journeys - honest!
@@chrisb5824 There is no equating the risk, I have already stated that I am more than happy with the hierarchy and follow it. That said there is no hierarchy about abiding by the law. We are all equal under the law and the law SHOULD apply equally to us all. The problem is that drivers are quite easily identified and prosecuted when they break the law, cyclist are near impossible to identify and therefore not easily prosecuted. For me and many others the imbalance is more than frustrating it is unfortunately creating a them and us mentality which isn't good for either group. Where application of the law is concerned, the scales are clearly tipped in favour of cyclists.
Btw we all as road users should be as safe as possible on all our journeys. Curtesy and good manners would also go a long way to reducing the friction between the two groups. Unfortunately some cyclists believe that the hierarchy gives them the right to do as they please.
@@MarkGilligan4 Personally, as a cyclist I'd have no objection to my bike carrying a practical registration plate, so that I can be identified. I comply with the law e.g. I walk rather than cycle through red lights, when I don't wish to wait for them to change to green. I rather doubt that even if cyclists could be identified the police would markedly increase prosecutions. Possibly for cycling on pavements were there are large numbers of pedestrians, where they do pose a risk to third parties. For cycling through red lights, I rather doubt it as the risk is low. Infact, cyclists are permitted to ride through red lights in Paris, Canada and some US states, as it has been found to be safer than having the cyclists moving off at the same time as the vehicles.
Malcolm
In Catalonia Spain its a very serious offence to hurt a cyclist whatever the cause. Drivers respect cyclists in fact respect runs through society.
Possibly why I cycle mainly in Europe.
I now live most of the year in Catalonia
I've found that using the Primary/Secondary position, regardless of the presence of a dedicated cycle lane has kept me safe on the roads.
Other road users tend to react positively to this and in my experience, 99% of the time, will wait and then pass wide once you return to secondary to let them pass.
I am impressed with your faith in human nature 😱
The problem pertains to motorists who assume that the cycle lane line is the limit, not the 1.5 metres which they routinely give cyclists on regular roads. It's one reason why we often tend to avoid cycle lanes, unless completely separate from the road.
Having lived in Germany - in the late 90’s and early part of the new millennia, it makes me inclined to smile - in a somewhat sardonic way - to see Britain trying (retrospectively) to create the “ideal” ( that is, the longed for arrangement) of having dedicated lanes for cyclists. On the evidence of my own experience of regularly cycling, to and from my work place, around three of Germany’s busy cities, the Germans had the foresight to build cycle lanes into the infrastructure way back and the issues of vehicles having to give cyclists “ a wide berth” effectively eliminated. Note: if you were “cut up” by a vehicle it was more than likely because you were not using the cycle track. To attempt to emulate this “ideal”, retrospectively, is a big ask. There has to be a compromise. And, just for the record, unless changed in the past couple of decades, Germans were allowed to cycle on the footpaths, but however, would be scowled at if they did. Except for being sworn at by a German, for cycling on the cycle track against the normal traffic flow, I never once was involved in or witnessed any ‘near misses’ with motorised vehicles of any kind. Cycling in Germany was not only safe, it was a pleasure: cyclists, on the whole, were considerate, courteous and careful.
I spent some time in Freiburg im Breisgau and that was exactly my experience. There not getting away from it - Germany has some incredible engineers!
I've also cycled in Germany and what you say is quite correct. Part of the problem in the UK is that we seem to have an abundance of brain dead cyclists who seem to get off on jumping traffic lights, cycling at night with no lights and dark clothes and cycling around with the mindset that they can behave any way they f...n like. It makes vehicle drivers despise them and less likely to care about them.
I lived in Belgium for three years and it is the same there, and the Netherlands obviously so! It would appear to be quite normal in norther Europe to have good cycling infrastructure? I have driven in France and Spain often, but don't recall the system there? I have often said the £100 billion plus wasted on a 100 miles railway line that hardly anyone will benefit from, they could have improved the cycling infrastructure with that money to German/Belgian/Netherland standards!
*millennium
@@rollyunicorn That's just anti-cycling prejudice lacking any kind of factual basis whatsoever. People like you simply hate cyclists because they have the temerity to encroach upon what you believe, as a motorist, is your rightful inheritance of almost total hegemony over the transport infrastructure in the UK.
As a motorcyclist I always give pushbikes a very wide berth and personally ride in the centre of my lane or near the crown when in town. If all cyclists did that, ie ignored the cycle lane and used the centre of the main lane, it might cause enough upset to get the cycle lane policing looked at more consistently and some high profile prosecutions. In court I would think you might argue that the cycle lanes are not fit for purpose in their current form.
A basic problem in these cases is the use of the bike lane to artificially narrow the roads as a traffic calming measure. It leads to these small lanes that make cyclists feel even more vulnerable as it seems to embolden the drivers into driving closer to cyclists (as long as they don't cross the line it is OK).
It IS ok because it designates each part of the road for different road users and requires that each keep to their own part .
The way I understand it is irrespective of the cycle lane width, the safe passing space is the distance from the cyclist to the overtaking vehicle. In the video examples, it appears people are commenting on closeness to the cycle lane border. It's closeness to the road user that matters.
I had a woman overtake me then turn left into my path to drive onto her drive. I screamed, she stopped, we had an argument. She said “I wasn’t looking where I going” because she had tried to catch my attention from within her car. She then said “I have the right to drive onto my drive”. I was so shaken after nearly ploughing into her, I was still shaking ten minutes later when I arrived at work, it scare me and made me really angry at the entitled attitude she had.
Jeremy Vile did exactly the same thing, he sprinted up on his bike to make an issue of it!
yes, her entitled attitude was no match for yours !
@@247ADIE Her entitlement to turn onto her drive stops at the point where she drives into another road user to do that. It seems you don't think a cyclist has any right to use the road at all.
If she's crossing the pavement to get onto her drive, anyone who is crossing her path has the right of way - cyclist or pedestrian.
@@RexxSchneider Indeed. Her "entitlement" is to cross the footpath using the dropped kerb when it is safe to do so. She is not entitled to place other road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) in danger.
And recent changes to the Highway Code emphasise the responsibility that we have towards more vulnerable road users.
It partly comes down to how drivers respond to lane markings. If this was two normal width lanes for traffic running in the same direction, then it's assumed as long as everyone stays within their lane, then passing distance isn't considered to be an issue. And usually way less than 1.5m. But applying the same logic with a cyclist falls foul of the 1.5m guideline. So I would conclude a narrow cycle lane is setting cyclists up for close passes, & it would probably be better in the light of the rules to erase any cycle lane less than 2m wide.
Head on cyclists are routinely coming within 1.5metre of on coming traffic and vehicle drivers cannot control or avoid that.
Also at traffic lights, stop and give way junctions cyclists again routinely squeeze between (at the time) stationary vehicles and kerbs.... what's the answer?
Due to the inaction of the local police I have actually stopped cycling. I have had many close passes that when reported the police have taken no action to the point of not even watching the videos I have given them. There is no protection from the law on the roads and as such the roads in the Greater Manchester area can be seen as lawless.
I can remember travelling to work one morning on my motorbike up the A34 heading north to Manchester, just coming out of Alderley Edge. Coming out of the 30mph speed restriction through the village there are a couple of nice swoopy bends which can be quite fun to go round but I could see A LOT of brake lights coming on through the trees so I kept the speed down. As I exited the second bend could see a line of traffic moving at about 20 mph extending as far as the eye could see. There were sufficient gaps in oncoming traffic that I could overtake the vehicles three or four at a time and a few gaps that allowed for ten at a time but it was nonetheless slow going. Eventually (after a couple of miles or so) the road straightened out and I was able to get to the front of the queued traffic which I'd thought was a heavily laden 7.5 ton lorry but I was wrong, the lorry was stuck behind a lycra clad cyclist who was 'saving the plannit' completely oblivious to all the traffic backed up behind him stuck in second or third gear.
there supposed to move over if there's a big que according to the new rules but they seem to have skipped over that one, not seen it once
Yep been doing my motorbike theory test and if i've riding a slow moped with traffic backed up behind your supposed to pull over to let traffic overtake
@@davejohnson3474 never seen that happen ever...
@@chrisb5824 you need to get out more
OrkStuff So if there was safe room for you, on a motorcycle to overtake cars, then there was safe room for the car, at the head of the queue to overtake the cyclist. Could it be that the car driver was too nervous to pass the cyclist? Or maybe a driver unfit for the road? Conclusions leapt to, here, I think.
Absolutely agree on lack of consistency. I had to make a complaint on one case of a close pass I reported where the car took up half the left hand lane and was certainly not 1.5m when overtaking me. It was out of line with other similar cases on the same road I cycle on.
I suggested the digital evidence team to go out and cycle with cameras so they can experience what it is like to be close passed as part of their training if they are not cyclists. Otherwise they are just peeps In front of a computer viewing these incidents and making judgements.
Edit: I must have reported at least 80 close passes in the past year. Usually the police are consistent but there are a few which they refuse to take any action and don’t give any reasons apart from it has been reviewed by an investigator and not deemed to meet the thresholds.
Sometimes you just got to follow it up and complain again and have someone have a proper look at it.
Simple fact is that so long as a cyclist is in the cycle lane, many drivers think it’s ok to pass them at a short distance so long that they don’t cross the line marking the cycle lane. I find I usually get given more room when there’s no cycle lane.
I cycled in England for so many years and, somehow survived. On retirement I moved to Germany and... I was in heaven. Cycleways everywhere and well away from the traffic. Cyclists have "Recht" unless you can prove they were 100% at fault. A bloke came out of a 'T' Junction last year and hit me when I stupidly rode on a main road, and stumped up the €350 to repair the minor damage with only my word as to how much that was (I was honest, honest!). The thought of cycling again in the UK fills me with terror!
I live in S Devon and if a car passes in a country lane my elbows are generally touching the wing mirror, the law therefore cannot be applied.
you mean single track road where you can pull over and allow the faster vehicle to pass.
@@mikewade777 A lot of times you have to reverse the vehicle, I have a transit and reverse using mirrors only, many people struggle if they have to reverse 100 m down the lane.
An alternative you do not suggest is to simply cycle in the travel lane, as cyclists are legally permitted to do. In primary or secondary position, depending. As another commenter pointed out, cyclists riding in a cycle lane needing to move into the travel lane must yield to traffic already in the travel lane approaching from their rear. Given that motorists may be approaching at 2-3x the 15-20mph speed of a cyclist and given that it is difficult for a cyclist to look rearwards more then briefly without risking crashing (balancing on 2 wheels, remember?), moving outwards safely can be a problem. If you are ALREADY in the travel lane, no problem.
Visibility to crossing traffic at junctions is another consideration.
Whilst I wouldn't go driving close to cyclists like in those videos, I find that cyclists ignore the new HWC "hierarchy" rules in central London - it's like they think all pedestrians should give way to them. They never slow down - and isn't just the delivery riders.
You mean some, because i've seen plenty stop for pedestrians.
Classic whataboutism. Deflect from the real issue of cyclists being put at risk, and cast cyclists as the transgressors.
@@RacingAnt So cyclists shouldn't be called out for their bad behaviour?
@@RacingAnt I think it's everyone. Everyone in London is in such a rush. I have never ridden a bike or driven a car in Central London. Being a pedestrian commuter, I ALWAYS assume no one will give way to me because I will always assume the cyclist/rider/driver is not aware of the new HWC rules - as is many (if not, most) non driving pedestrians.
@@mikewade777 Oh, you are lucky to have encountered the good ones. It appears that I've got a target on my back.
Something that is very common in my experience as a pedestrian is how when you cross a road, oncoming cars don't slow down, they sometimes even speed up!
Worth a note that although there is inconsistency everwhere due to prosecution decisions being down to individual officers, and some police forces having seeming policies never to prosecute close passes, the second clip is Police Scotland where reporting is far more time consuming due to the lack of an online reporting portal,
It seems to me that frequently cycle lanes are installed to make the road appear to be narrower than it is as a traffic calming measure. The above comment regarding insentives to install cycle lanes might be part of this. The issue is that to make the cycle lane wide enough for a safe pass then it needs 0.9m between the kerb and the cyclist plus another 1.5m to the passing traffic. At this point it is almost as wide as a normal traffic lane and can't be fit in the road space.
I would only use a lane like those if the traffic beside me was stationary.
Here in Gateshead we have two cycle lanes that's the biggest in the UK, the local council managed to put in two bus lanes which buses never use, one makes a bus having to switch lanes on basically a narrow bridge where the council decided to put traffic lights in at the end of the first bus lane and the second one the bus can't turn at a 45° corner.
When the van passed the cyclist , a large truck was approaching the van from the opposite direction . It was over the centre line . (1:44)
A close call for the van on both sides. The cycle lane is far too narrow with no room for error (500mm) . In NZ the cycle lanes are 1000 mm wide and our roads are wider than yours where cycle lanes and marked .
As soon as you said “inconsistencies”, I gave this video a 👍
Buses and vans can be the worst in my experience. (I don’t ride any more due to hit and run accident and a week in Intensive Care. I tried to ride again about 18 months later but was so scared on the road that it wasn’t worth it imo)
I like the 'everyone should use the road with courtesy to other users' point of view. The majority of road users - pedestrians, cyclists, drivers - are in this category, and for the most part, everyone gets along.
As someone who's been cycling in the area where that bus passed for about 30 years, if the guy can't deal with a bus passing at that distance, he should really be on it, not cycling next to it.
There is a broader point about the design of cycleways in general. They can often be terrible, ill thought out; often nothing more than a box ticking exercise.
Daniel, thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments on this video. Many vehicle drivers are driving far to close to others, but especially close to pedestrians and cyclists. Thank you also for explaining two words I have never come across; malfeasance and nonfeasance. We learn something new every day. Keep up the great work.
PS, are you available for a consultation?
The first clip was fined for not giving details of the driver not the close pass
You have a legit John Cleese vibe when you do the humour - should defo not shy away from that!
Another problem I find with this type of cycle lane is that they are not resurface when the rest of the road is, making them rough. If your riding a road bike it has a massive impact on resistance making them unfit for purpose. Also the drains in them make them unusable for road bikes, or bikes with narrow wheels.
They are usually badly designed, and often badly maintained. I use the road, it's statistically safer.
Most of Britain's transport infrastructure is ridiculous...
What transport infrastructure? Would be nice to have one.
Thx for the video. People are adjusting to the new rules in London. Surely these cycle zones are totally unnecessary. And the last thing you need on two wheels, is more "paint" on the road. It's treacherous when wet.
Yes. I have wondered about malfeasance. I believe that most cycle lanes and paths don't meet the relevant standards. If so, I would think that there would be a legal obligation to meet them?
A lot of the confusion seems to be that lanes are painted on the road. It needs to be clearer in the highway code. And what use are lanes if you can't pass by someone the lane to your left if you are in your lane?
Yesterday we had a cyclist pull into one of these lanes off the pavement directly in front of us. Scary.
Cycle lanes should be full width and cyclist should be easily identifiable so that police can deal with them when they take liberties. A quick visit to Grimsby would show how common that is.
Thanks - appreciate your objective view on these issues.
Grateful if you could explain how this is supposed to work on country lanes?
Many lanes aren’t wide enough to pass a cyclist with the new minimum distance. But with care and some consideration from driver and cyclist at the appropriate point you can pass safely.
However would that be breaking the law? What about country lanes in Cornwall when you slow to a crawl to pass a walker? Isn’t that technically breaking the rules?
There is no hard and fast rule on this, which is why Rule 163 is a "You should" and not "You must".
The original part of the rule "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would overtaking a car". Which often may be only half a meter, thus you have complied with the rule. But it was deemed at some point cyclists may need more room.
So they added "As a guide" the leave 1.5m part to help people understand what is considered a reasonable distance. That is not to say you can not overtake closer, but if you do you 'may' be considered for prosecution. But as seen in this video it is judged on an individual basis.
So back to your point as long as you do it safely there is no issue. The problem comes as what you deem as safe and what the police/CPS deem safe is often different.
@@gavjlewis If it means getting a conviction against a member of the public then the police will always prosecute.
think you've answered your question when you say 'slow to a crawl to pass a walker'. If you can't give the advised 1.5m to a cyclist because of a narrow road, then you reduce your speed significantly.
I wouldn't apply too much blame upon the police, as they've been given unworkable laws to enforce.
The blame primarily lies with the DfT; failing to build adequate cycling infrastructure for many decades, and then creating unrealistic highway code amendments that pass the burden of responsibility onto drivers, cyclists, and the police.
I care about cyclists very much and it is a worry when driving. You do tend to dive within the lines when driving though. Nightmare
You said that the bus 'Did not break the law because everybody was in their own lane' and the still photo shows exactly that but when you watch the video the bus does enter the cycle lane because it is cutting the corner on the bend in the road. This is the same argument as showing a photo of two people and saying 'no crime is being committed here!' when the video that the image was taken from clearly shows one person attacking the second person.
Two years ago, you'd get arrested for walking that close to someone. That's all I need to know about certain civil servants consistency.
Just wait and see how bad it gets when everyone is given a Digital ID and tracked and traced in the Chinese style biometric police state.
You know what the army used to the sa80 rifle?the civil servant reason being you couldnt fire it was always on strike aka don't work.
So we need a line @ 2½m ?
1m to cycle in avoiding potholes, manholes etc
+1½m clearance.
Though near me there are plenty of places where a cyclist would need to cycle 2m or more from the kerb to avoid whole stretches of potholes and badly finished trenches.
In my city the council have took the bus lane back and part of the footpath put a raised curb in between the road and the old bus lane, and made a large two lane cycle path with automatic traffic lights just for the cycle path. I go down that section of road on a regular basis and I have yet to see a cyclist using it , but when it was a bus / cycle lane the only place you saw cyclist was in the bus lane .
Your tax money at work
Cool story, bro
Not Leeds by any chance? I was just there and saw a cyclist on the pavement next too one of those cycle roads...
Our learned friend puts the matter concisely and hits the nail on the head. The whole reason behind the 1.5m passing distance is because bicycles are inherently unstable, as he puts it, "they wobble". Is introducing a "safe passing" distance the correct control measure? Not according to the HSE, the organisation considered to be the authority on such matters. The HSE advocates a hierarchy of control measures. 1 is elimination. Remove bicycles from the environment entirely. This would probably be judged as not reasonably practicable where dedicated cycle lanes cannot be installed and would require a change to the Highway Code to mandate their use where they are available. If we look at 2 & 3 of the hierarchy however we are presented with viable alternatives. 2 is substitution, 3 is engineering controls. The safest reasonably practicable solutuion is to either substitute bicycles for the inherently more stable tricycle or require engineering controls in the form of stabilisers fitted to bicycles to eliminate or at least significantly reduce wobbling.
Ive said this for decades .there needs to be proper cycle lanes . Not just a line on the roads. A proper segregated lane for only cycles .
There needs to be a ban and cyclists taken off the road for everyones safety.
Or ban cyclists from city roads
There needs to be a ban and motorists taken off the road for everyones safety.
I would agree, but I was in Leeds yesterday where they're building a whole network of dedicated cycle paths separate from the road by kerbs and dropped below the footpath (effectively a separate road) and saw a cyclist on the pavement next to it...
Kingston hill has segregation of cyclists, yet they still ride on the car lane causing massive tailbacks , I asked a cyclist why, he said he didn’t like the cycle lane, probably because he was try to beat his Strava times
I cycle often in Glasgow city centre. I am comfortable using cycle lanes that are physically separated from the vehicles (e.g. Berkeley St & Elderslie St ) but otherwise I ride primary, i.e. in the centre of the lane. That way any vehicle wanting to pass has to have the other lane clear in order to do so. When I do this, and although as far as I know it is legal, I do not filter to the front at lights or other junctions but take my turn in the same as every other vehicle. I find this reduces the likelihood of confrontation with drivers who regard you as "cheating" if you filter to the front. Be safe everyone, regardless of your mode of transport!
Uk roads aren't that wide, to overtake at 1-5 metres you would straddle the white line..driving into on coming vehicles, any time of day roads to busy. I do cycle & drive, but maintaining that distance on bike/ car/ do to road layout is impossible
Yes, you have to go across the centre line and if it is unsafe to do so then the overtake that one was intending to do is most likely not legal and they need to wait until it is clear.
@@benjamindesson5326 yes for sure but I live in the West Midlands, the road's are always full & more often I'm in a streem of vehicles drive past cyclists, in the 2 instances BBB highlites there seems light traffic & giving the cyclists just half a metre more would have been safer & respectfull.
It's not the wheels on the line, it's the mirrors overhanging the line, slaming into you, that are the real problem.
Do you still have to indicate when passing? I do, but followed a police car , who passed closer than allowed and failed to indicate.
Thank you for your great vids.
Interesting question. I have done 5 driving tests. All but the car test said Yes.
haha you cnt trust the police to follow the rules
@pixies64 Only this very morning I was behind a police car which failed to observe a 20mph limit (albeit not by very much) and then went on to turn left at a roundabout without signalling...
Hiya, I do enjoy your programme, so keep it up. As regards those white painted cycle lanes. I really believe that because there is a white line, most drivers see it, that as long as they are keeping clear of the line even if it only by an inch then this is totally ok, & can disregard the 1.5 metre rule. I think the white line encourages this attitude. Get rid of them & put in some protected lanes, much safer & more pleasant for all of us. I am a car driver & cyclist.
It can be hard to judge distance when recording or watching the footage of a camera as sometimes the distance looks closer then it actually is. In some places i have seen ballads inplace of the white lines. The bus does not seems to go over the cycle lane untill after it passes the cyclist if it was to stay even further from the curb it would be on the other side of the road as the road looks small
The bus needs to pass the cyclist and leave almost 2 meters from the curb, if this means crossing the centre line , so be it. The driver will just have to follow the bike until it is safe to pass !
@@malgf4145 fair enough the transit van was more closer to the cycle lines then the bus was. But the bus did not cross the lines untill it passed the cyclist which i know even if no one is in the cycle lane you can not cross anyway. At the end of the day just two different examples being used. i believe it's least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds but hard to tell what speed any of them are going. If none of the cycle lanes were there maybe drivers would give them more space as all the lines indicate to the driver is to not go over them which the transit did not. I guess there using the lines as a guidance instead of useing the 1.5meters rule. Or thay are thinking thay don't need to give them more space because thay have there own little cycle lane so as long as thay are in there and dont cross the haching the driver does not need to give more space if you know what i mean
Some roads in my area do not have a bike lane but have warning bicycle triangles painted on the tarmac from time to time. Perhaps this is a better sollution to the issue.
Many rules aren't enforced by the police- cyclists with no lights or high visibility clothing at night; cyclists riding on the pavements, and close passing pedestrians, including the elderly, children, etc, and quite often at speed; cyclists riding down one way streets the wrong way; cyclists with unsafe loads, on their mobile phone, even drinking alcohol while riding; cyclists blatantly going through red lights; cyclists wheeling and weaving around traffic; and so on and so forth. WANT CHANGE, BE THE CHANGE, or stop moaning.
I don't do any of those things when cycling, am I allowed to moan then?
As far as I know there's no law under which cyclists are obliged to wear high viz clothing at night. Functional front and rear lights yes and even though many cycle without them I don't feel safe doing so. In the Netherlands police put up checkpoints around corners at the beginning of Autumn when days get shorter, and hand out fines to any cyclist without lights. But nobody there wears high viz clothing. To suggest that they should is like suggesting all cars should be painted in flourescent colours for the same reason - most are grey which is urban camouflage.
@@simonh6371 You're right, there's no law obliging cyclists to wear hi-viz clothing, hence I said either/or. Ultimately, your safety is primarily your own responsibility. But, I suppose, if a law had to be made in order to prevent people from poisoning their own children with cigarette smoke in confined spaces, such as cars, not much surprises me any more.
@@progecodiversruleok I don't think there should be such a law either. Like I said good front and rear lights are imperative and I've been very pissed off when lights I've bought have failed on me, especially rear lights switching themselves off due to vibrations on the road, finally I've bought some reliable and strong lights for my bike. Btw I never have them flashing as that's just bloody annoying for other drivers and cyclists alike, that should be outlawed. As should having lights on helmets instead of on the bike...because if you're waiting to pull out of a junction, looking both ways, it looks like your bike is facing the direction you are looking i.e. going the wrong way! In daylight it shouldn't be neccessary to wear high viz clothing, just as it isn't neccessary to paint your car luminous colours! Most cars nowadays are in fact some kind of grey or silver, which is an urban camo colour! If a road users' eyesight is so bad that he can't see another road user in daylight unless the other road user is high viz/luminous, he shouldn't be on the road.
@@simonh6371 I totally agree about the flashing lights. Here in the UK, however, and in my own experience, anything goes. Even red lights in front and white ones in the back. HAHAHAHA Also, wit the Netherlands being so big on cycling, and quite well organised about it, I don't understand why the UK doesn't take more notice.
As for the hi-viz, all I was saying is that if you don't have lights at least wear one. And as for the cars, I also agree. Here, even on dark rainy days most still have no lights on, even professional drivers, such as lorry drivers, emergency drivers, bus drivers, etc, which makes it very difficult to see in the wet wing mirrors.
Having been reading the highway code to do a motorcycle theory test drivers can't cross over into the cycle lane but those vids they touched the white line but didn't go over it. Seems wierd why you need to give 1.5m even though its a marked off lane and it doesn't differentiate between a cycle lane and a cyclist riding on the road without a lane. 1.5m i would say is without a lane otherwise the cycle lane should be painted 1.5m aswell.
Great share. Maybe an open hatched area alongside the cycle lane 1.5 metres wide. Just a thought.
I completely agree with you. The highway code reads "leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph". It doesn't say "unless they're in a cycle lane".
Come on drivers if you feel you may be in danger of getting too close , hang back until it's clear to pass. Be kind to all road users 💙
Cyclists are NOT kind to motor vehicles drivers
Works both ways, if you have a tail of several cars, pull over and let them pass, funnily enough, where I live most farmers will do this in their massive tractor, whom are effectively impervious to the negative consequences of another vehicle playing silly buggers.
But I've seen cyclists do everything within their power to impede the flow of traffic (I'm assuming they're activist types, but none the less)
@@ciupak7932 Oh yeah, they may just crash into the car and kill the driver.
@@brenda1378 or the might put a grove down the side of your car ,break a mirror which you pay for
You make cyclists out to be saints. They don't pay road tax and they often cycle two abreast, without any concern about the driver behind. It is time cyclists were banned from the streets and cycled only for fitness - off the roads.
To be fair, on passing the bus wasn't on the line, it was at least a foot away, however when it got to the pedestrian crossing lights it was on the line. The only thing wrong with the pass was it moved to left extremely quickly after passing.
I'm both a cyclist and a car driver, I grew up in a world without cycle lanes so will often ignore the ones that push you onto paths, I learned that paths were for pedestrians so I normally do not ride on pathways even if they are separated. I've never once been knocked off a bike and never had an arrogant car driver. My bikes have always had 4 lights on, two front, two back, two static and two flashing. Never had any issues as I've always made sure I'm seen.
A LOT of the cyclists I've seen these days don't have any lights, will refuse to wear hi-vis/bright clothing and a lot of them take off reflectors.
I'm amazed and astounded there isn't a lot more fatalities with cyclists. Standards have dropped and I think Police should also stop and approach those cyclists.
From last inspection the highway code also insists lights are on bikes too and you should be seen as possible. Don't see many bike riders being fined for it and this should also change too.
It's down to common sense really and I think it shouldn't always be down to car drivers to face charges for getting close, or indeed hitting a cyclist they've not seen because they had no lights/wearing dark clothes. Police these days would rather fine the driver than a moron on a bike who doesn't want to be seen.
Yep I agree I can't understand cyclists that don't do their best to make themselves visible it's crazy.
@justagameshow in Manor Park and Ilford there are dozens of fast food delivery riders on push bikes riding around at night without any front or rear lights or any reflective clothing I've had a couple of close calls with these cyclists suddenly appearing out of no where late at night. .
I know this is contentious but I think it's time all cyclists had number plates insurance and had to pass a test of competency before being allowed on the road and maybe children under a certain age not allowed on major roads unless accompanied by an adult.
Talking of near misses I have seen several police cars overtaking cyclists whilst passing by traffic islands on narrow roads
Could the 'Bus pass incident' be used as a precedent in a future case?
It didn't go to court, so no precedent. The conviction can be used as precedence, so the police force could be seen as failing to apply the law.
@@RacingAnt The police don’t apply the law they collect and present evidence.
As a cyclist living in Germany for over 24 years, I have only been endangered by 2 car drivers, both cases involving UK drivers. In Germany car drivers also understand that they are cyclists, parents, pedestrians when they are not in their cars. And cylists are often also drivers when they are not on their bikes
BBB From my perspective of watching the second clip with the bus, I put it to you that when compared to the first clip, the nearside tyres of the van in the first clip,were on the outer line of the cycle lane whereas the nearside tyres of the bus were not on the line. The issue I see with cycle lanes , the new Highway Code rules & British Roads is that NOBODY has enough space. Finally, as a car driver I regularly see cyclists using the footpaths but that seems to go unpunished because as you yourself said, that is itself, illegal!
I suppose Im a cyclist. Ive toured the South coast from Wales to Sussex. Ive rode horses in Australia, Spain, Sweden and here, Im an advanced motorcyclist recovering from a month in hospital after being hit by a car. Ive driven HGVs and busses, and worked as a tractor driver. Ive raced cars and even driven a train. I read law for three years and realised I know nothing. That said, the highway code often contradicts itself. But, one rule above all others, dont crash. I dont want to crash my bike, it hurts. I dont want to bend my car I like my no claims and dont like fixing bodywork. If I catch up to you, Im going to assess my chances of passing you cleanly. If you look drunk, or a kid screaching at his mates on the other side of the road, Im going to be as far away from you as I can get. If you look like you can ride I will give you enough space that my wash wont affect you - especially if we are in lanes and hope you will afford me the same.
There are lots of roads in Lambeth and Wandsworth that are almost at a standstill if there is a slow moving cyclist (usually doing it on purpose to go extra slow) as the cars etc would have to almost be completely be in the oncoming lane to get past while giving them the required 1.5m distance.
ro63rto
Roll up, roll up, see the Great Roberto. From his isolated and insulated position in a locked cage, can tell the audience, with no degree of accuracy, what everyone around him is thinking.
You cannot have a cyclist having over 1.5m on the average road; otherwise, you will have a head-on accident with vehicles coming the other way. What a pity the very people who PAY for the roads to the tune of £40 billion a year. Compared to the money earned by cyclists, NOTHING! In fact, they cost the country money when they rely on the NHS to fix them after falling off the road!
What I always do is ride out in the middle of the lane if there isn't enough room for a car (or bigger vehicle) to pass me safely.
This blocks the vehicles option to pass and so doesn't put my safety at risk. A manoeuvre that I think is perfectly reasonable and justified.
I think motorists just think I'm stroppy but none have ever said anything or gestured to me.
I think it's important to do this confidently and boldly. Wobbling and gingerly trying to take the space doesn't work and encourages drivers to risk your safety.
In Portugal, some cycle lanes have raised bumps, roughly 5cms high, sporadically spaced. It isn't perfect, but it's better than just a painted line.
driving nowadays is very dangerous,there’s to many cyclepaths on the road
My MTB handlebars are 800mm wide, so a 500mm cycle lane leaves my hand 300mm beyond the line [ assuming I'm leaving minimal clearance for pedestrians and road furniture at the kerb ] in short, I think I'd be commanding the centre of the lane here and ignoring the dangerous cycle lane markings
It occurs that cycle lanes should have a 1.5 metre strip between them and the lane for faster vehicles. In other words, cycle lanes should be redesigned with this law in mind.
Near where I live, islands with kerbs are being installed between a cycle lane and the lanes for motor vehicles.
I do cringer at how many times I see impatient drivers causing danger to others. Well done for highlighting.
I agree. It is ridiculous
I'm a cyclist and I feel for car drivers at times because in some place's the roads are so narrow under the 1.5M you mentioned a car would never be able to pass with out going into oncoming traffic. This is why it's much easier for me simply to stop and let vehicles pass.
Just like the clip with the Bus.
What about cyclists that close pass cars.
Not the same situation due to simple physics. Cycle hits car at 5mph = no one hurt. Car hits cycle at 30 mph = very grave chance of cyclist being hurt.
@@smiffy925 Cyclists that close pass cars can and do cause accidents, they are a danger to themselves and every other road user, especially other cyclists, pedestrians, prams and wheelchair users and they don't travel at 5 MPH, very often they are travelling at a much greater speed.
@@warlockuk6939 Nonsense. How likely are motor vehicle occupants to be killed or seriously injured by close passing cyclists? Not very.
@@smiffy925 You are obviously a deluded cyclist who cherry picks your answers to support your own conclusion.
I've been cycling since I was 14, have to ride on a bit of 60 and a bit of 50 on my journey, and for me personally there's a variation of relative speed, size or wind effects caused by the vehicle, length of vehicle vs the closeness of the vehicle. My strategy is to maintain a shoulder falling distance away from the kerb, hoping in the worst to fall inwards and either hit my head on grass/hedge or give it a good distance to a whack on the path. I give a quick finger to every vehicle that passes too close because education is important and universal sign language the only means of possible communication.