How wide is a bike?

[gaz]

I like to have an evidence base for my opinions, the withdrawn LTN 2/08 will do.

2.2.2 For simplicity, the dynamic width (actual width plus deviation) of a cyclist on the road may be taken as 1metre.

[[XAP]Bob]

A bike is the widest vehicle in the road.

If you are passing it, then it needs the full lane it is in.

If it is passing you then it needs as much room as you can reasonably afford to give it.

[Audax67]

Judging from the width accorded most of the bike "lanes" I know, width varies from 30 cm (yes!) to about 80 and keep your elbows in. This may of course be shared with gratings, manpersonhole covers and cobbles.

[Tangled Metal]

If the question needs interpretation then what value will the range of answers be? Are we all answering the same question?

I'm sorry but this poll is worthless other than for the OP to get a discussion going. I've not answered the question with a poll answer and it's the first poll for awhile I've not even been curious to see what the results looked like.

Can the op redo the poll with a further definition for clarity and reset it? The discussion stands but if the op is genuine with wanting a valid answer he'll explain what exactly he uses wanting to find out.

Sorry if that makes me cantankerous, difficult, argumentative, pedantic or all of the above.

[freeflow]

If the question needs interpretation then what value will the range of answers be? Are we all answering the same question?

I'm sorry but this poll is worthless other than for the OP to get a discussion going. I've not answered the question with a poll answer and it's the first poll for awhile I've not even been curious to see what the results looked like.

Can the op redo the poll with a further definition for clarity and reset it? The discussion stands but if the op is genuine with wanting a valid answer he'll explain what exactly he uses wanting to find out.

Sorry if that makes me cantankerous, difficult, argumentative, pedantic or all of the above.

The whole point of the question is to get people thinking. I won't be changing the question or the poll. Feel free to refrain from participating.

[pwa]

If the question needs interpretation then what value will the range of answers be? Are we all answering the same question?

I'm sorry but this poll is worthless other than for the OP to get a discussion going. I've not answered the question with a poll answer and it's the first poll for awhile I've not even been curious to see what the results looked like.

Can the op redo the poll with a further definition for clarity and reset it? The discussion stands but if the op is genuine with wanting a valid answer he'll explain what exactly he uses wanting to find out.

Sorry if that makes me cantankerous, difficult, argumentative, pedantic or all of the above.

The whole point of the question is to get people thinking. I won't be changing the question or the poll. Feel free to refrain from participating.

To get people thinking about what?

The answer is 46cm. I have just measured a bike and it is 46cm. Other bikes will be different.

[Paulatic]

The whole point of the question is to get people thinking. I won't be changing the question or the poll. Feel free to refrain from participating.

Sorry, I didn’t think. I answered the question using my bikes for reference

[Ellieb]

I take it that those who answered 3.0m and above dutifully stop their bikes and wait when faced by a 2.5m gap in traffic such as one on the inside of a car waiting to turn right? Thought not.

[Tangled Metal]

If the question needs interpretation then what value will the range of answers be? Are we all answering the same question?

I'm sorry but this poll is worthless other than for the OP to get a discussion going. I've not answered the question with a poll answer and it's the first poll for awhile I've not even been curious to see what the results looked like.

Can the op redo the poll with a further definition for clarity and reset it? The discussion stands but if the op is genuine with wanting a valid answer he'll explain what exactly he uses wanting to find out.

Sorry if that makes me cantankerous, difficult, argumentative, pedantic or all of the above.

The whole point of the question is to get people thinking. I won't be changing the question or the poll. Feel free to refrain from participating.

Thinking about what exactly? It's a funny way to get people thinking. Ask a poorly defined question about bike width when, and I am guessing, you actually mean to get a discussion about how much room passing cars should give bikes.

[[XAP]Bob]

I take it that those who answered 3.0m and above dutifully stop their bikes and wait when faced by a 2.5m gap in traffic such as one on the inside of a car waiting to turn right? Thought not.

There is all the difference in the world between a cyclist negotiating a narrow gap and a motorist passing a moving cyclist with enough energy to kill the cyclist several times over.

Anyone equating the two is an idiot

[freeflow]

Thinking about what exactly? It's a funny way to get people thinking. Ask a poorly defined question about bike width when, and I am guessing, you actually mean to get a discussion about how much room passing cars should give bikes.

I'm sorry my question has got you so riled. If I wanted a discussion on how much room should a car give cyclists I wouldn't have asked the question.

[Tangled Metal]

Not riled just making the point that you've asked a poorly defined question that's meant for education but at it's basic level is measurable, in my case the bars are 440mm wide. In order to have any educational function for motorists you've got to consider the cyclist as well and safe passing distances. But you've not brought that into the original post leaving it for respondents to consider. Just don't find being obtuse a good trait if you have educational aims.

[Ellieb]

I take it that those who answered 3.0m and above dutifully stop their bikes and wait when faced by a 2.5m gap in traffic such as one on the inside of a car waiting to turn right? Thought not.

There is all the difference in the world between a cyclist negotiating a narrow gap and a motorist passing a moving cyclist with enough energy to kill the cyclist several times over.

Anyone equating the two is an idiot

Sadly I wasn't equating the two. I was pointing out that if you genuinely think a bike is 3 metres wide you are going to end up in some funny situations on the road because it seems this isn't a question about how much room to give a cyclist. Clearly it is about how wide a bike is.... apparently

[freeflow]

Not riled just making the point that you've asked a poorly defined question that's meant for education but at it's basic level is measurable, in my case the bars are 440mm wide. In order to have any educational function for motorists you've got to consider the cyclist as well and safe passing distances. But you've not brought that into the original post leaving it for respondents to consider. Just don't find being obtuse a good trait if you have educational aims.

By being more specific in the question you limit the considerations that might be given to the answers. You might think its a poor question, I don't. I don't ask poor questions.

[Ellieb]

Not riled just making the point that you've asked a poorly defined question that's meant for education but at it's basic level is measurable, in my case the bars are 440mm wide. In order to have any educational function for motorists you've got to consider the cyclist as well and safe passing distances. But you've not brought that into the original post leaving it for respondents to consider. Just don't find being obtuse a good trait if you have educational aims.

By being more specific in the question you limit the considerations that might be given to the answers. You might think its a poor question, I don't. I don't ask poor questions.

Perhaps other people are best positioned to make that judgement.