Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

ThePinkOne
Posts: 246
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 9:21pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by ThePinkOne »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 7:41pm
cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 6:41pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 5:40pm
What I'm saying is that close passes will always happen regardless of the law and cyclists will always have to deal with them.
I believe that close passes currently happen mostly out of habit and ignorance more than anything else - but thanks to the highway code changes and police enforcement, in my area, at least they are happening less and drivers on the whole seem to be more cyclist aware :-D
Police enforcement - where and how?. Rode 85 miles on Monday on a variety of roads. Several close passes and almost all under 1.5 metres apart from HGV drivers. Didn't see a single rozzer anywhere. If anything hatred of cyclists is on the increase.
Not just hatred of cyclists, but aggression in general seems to be on the increase. Or maybe it's entitlement- "I've been shut away for a couple of years so now I am let out I will do what I blinking well want and I don't care what anyone else thinks" sort of thing. De-socialised.

My work is "essential" so I worked throughout COVID including traveling and staying away from home at times. Compared with pre-COVID, the roads have become grim and the standard of much car-driving dropped dramatically IME. Nor does setting a good example help; just last Friday, I was coming home in the work van from a week away (working), overtook a cyclist with my van wholly over the white line to give plenty space. But the car which had been tailgating me for the past couple of miles (as I had the nerve to do no more than 50mph- i.e. the speed limit on a single carriageway road for a big van) passed very close to the cyclist, then dangerously overtook me. MGIF on steroids. I also still see a lot of folks on the phone or (worse) texting in their cars- you see a lot from a higher up vehicle.

I admit that I no longer ride on the road. I had an ankle injury a while back which reduced my ability to walk and cycle, and I didn't really get the nerve back. Too many SUVs full of angry people about.

TPO
JohnW
Posts: 6667
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by JohnW »

ThePinkOne wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 5:30pm
Not just hatred of cyclists, but aggression in general seems to be on the increase. Or maybe it's entitlement- "I've been shut away for a couple of years so now I am let out I will do what I blinking well want and I don't care what anyone else thinks" sort of thing. De-socialised.

My work is "essential" so I worked throughout COVID including traveling and staying away from home at times. Compared with pre-COVID, the roads have become grim and the standard of much car-driving dropped dramatically IME. Nor does setting a good example help; just last Friday, I was coming home in the work van from a week away (working), overtook a cyclist with my van wholly over the white line to give plenty space. But the car which had been tailgating me for the past couple of miles (as I had the nerve to do no more than 50mph- i.e. the speed limit on a single carriageway road for a big van) passed very close to the cyclist, then dangerously overtook me. MGIF on steroids. I also still see a lot of folks on the phone or (worse) texting in their cars- you see a lot from a higher up vehicle.

I admit that I no longer ride on the road. I had an ankle injury a while back which reduced my ability to walk and cycle, and I didn't really get the nerve back. Too many SUVs full of angry people about.

TPO
I'm sorry to learn about your injury.
Has your ability to walk/cycle returned? - and it's the current motorists that are now keeping you off the wheels?
There'll be rejoicing in the rank of motorists for just one cyclists less.
I do identify and fully sympathise with what you say -
jimster99
Posts: 210
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 7:00pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by jimster99 »

Stevek76 wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 4:17pm The 1.5m passing guidance does not apply to cyclists and motorcyclists passing motor vehicles.
Interesting. Your view intuitively makes sense (at least for cycles), but I can't verify it in the code. Can you explain why you say this?

Note there is a section of the highway code for cyclists (rules 59-82), but it doesn't disapply other sections of the code for cyclists. Further, other sections of the code (e.g. 103-158) are stated to apply to ALL road users including cyclists and are not referenced in the cycle-specific section, so I have always understood that the cycle-section isn't the only part of the code that cyclists need to consider.

The 1.5m gap requirement is contained in rule 163 (link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203) and it says "You should [...] leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph [...]". Rule 163 is contained in a section titled "Rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.".

I can't see anywhere where it says that rule 163 applies to cars only (and it must surely also apply to buses/lorries/motorcycles). If it was intended to apply to cars only, it would have been put in the car-specific section of the code. Am I missing something?
Last edited by jimster99 on 27 Jun 2022, 10:39am, edited 2 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Jdsk »

jimster99 wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:26am
Stevek76 wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 4:17pm The 1.5m passing guidance does not apply to cyclists and motorcyclists passing motor vehicles.
Interesting. Your view intuitively makes sense, but I can't verify it in the code. Can you explain why you say this?

Note there is a section of the highway code for cyclists (rules 59-82), but it doesn't disapply other sections of the code for cyclists. Further, other sections of the code (e.g. 103-158) are stated to apply to ALL road users including cyclists and are not referenced by rules 59-82.

The 1.5m gap requirement is contained in section 163(link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203) and it says "You should [...] leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph [...]".

I can't see anywhere where it says that rule 163 applies to cars only. Am I missing something?
I checked after your previous post, and I see what you're saying. And I was surprised.

Part of the answer might lie in the meaning of overtaking:
viewtopic.php?p=1703853#p1703853

Jonathan
jimster99
Posts: 210
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 7:00pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by jimster99 »

Jdsk wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:34am Part of the answer might lie in the meaning of overtaking:
viewtopic.php?p=1703853#p1703853

Jonathan
I haven't checked but I've always understood overtaking to be going past something travelling on the same road and in the same direction as you (e.g. another car) whereas passing means going past any object (e.g. a tree).

So overtaking is also always passing (I overtook the car / I passed the car) whereas passing is not necessarily overtaking (I passed the tree, I did not OVERTAKE the tree).
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Stevek76 »

jimster99 wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:26am "You should [...] leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph [...]". Rule 163 is contained in a section titled "Rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.".

I can't see anywhere where it says that rule 163 applies to cars only (and it must surely also apply to buses/lorries/motorcycles)
"overtaking cyclists" is the consideration here here, not overtaking (or filtering past, which is treated as a different thing normally) cars. So yes, one cyclist buzzing another at higher speeds might be considered careless and that seems reasonable to me, no one likes the idiots on time trail bikes treating a crowded 3m shared path as their personal training circuit! Similarly cyclists shouldn't be close passing pedestrians, nor horses.

Remember the code is not the law. It sometimes refers to the law (where it uses MUST wording and provides references to the relevant law) and it can have a degree of influence in court cases, particularly civil ones, but what is considered to be 'careless driving' in terms of passing distance is largely a matter of what the minimum standard for a 'careful and competent' driver is considered to be by a jury and this will vary based on the relative harm potentials and vulnerabilties of the two road users in question. The 1.5m is largely informed from what was being successfully prosecuted in court (by the forces bothering to pursue such matters)

Though I think most cyclists without a death wish tend to take care and slow somewhat when passing cars closer than 1.5m purely because of dooring risks.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
jimster99
Posts: 210
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 7:00pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by jimster99 »

Stevek76 wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 1:58pm
jimster99 wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:26am "You should [...] leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph [...]". Rule 163 is contained in a section titled "Rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.".

I can't see anywhere where it says that rule 163 applies to cars only (and it must surely also apply to buses/lorries/motorcycles)
"overtaking cyclists" is the consideration here here, not overtaking (or filtering past, which is treated as a different thing normally) cars. So yes, one cyclist buzzing another at higher speeds might be considered careless and that seems reasonable to me, no one likes the idiots on time trail bikes treating a crowded 3m shared path as their personal training circuit! Similarly cyclists shouldn't be close passing pedestrians, nor horses.

Remember the code is not the law. It sometimes refers to the law (where it uses MUST wording and provides references to the relevant law) and it can have a degree of influence in court cases, particularly civil ones, but what is considered to be 'careless driving' in terms of passing distance is largely a matter of what the minimum standard for a 'careful and competent' driver is considered to be by a jury and this will vary based on the relative harm potentials and vulnerabilties of the two road users in question. The 1.5m is largely informed from what was being successfully prosecuted in court (by the forces bothering to pursue such matters)

Though I think most cyclists without a death wish tend to take care and slow somewhat when passing cars closer than 1.5m purely because of dooring risks.
All agreed; but does the 1.5m rule apply to cyclists or not? This is quite an important point for us all to understand as I for one don't like being fined by the police! :)
Post Reply