Overtaking
Re: Overtaking
Eh? Of course the rule applies, like every other rule in the Highway Code unless stated otherwise, but we've moved on from that; how do you express that in behaviour? Bearing in mind that, a) the rule is itself circumstantial and incomplete (it does not tell you how much more to leave at higher speeds); b) the rule is drawn up, like all of the HC, from a motorist's perspective; c) the rule is a should not a must.
-
- Posts: 3572
- Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm
Re: Overtaking
If we separate risk of collision, and risk of injury, then its not illogical.rareposter wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 7:22amYes of course it's courteous and safe to leave as much space as possible when passing/being passed by other cyclists - I'm not suggesting that we all ride round skimming each others elbows - but to argue that The Rules must be identical is illogical.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 6:45am Let's just keep this thread in the back of our minds to remind such cycling exceptionalists about their argument should they argue the opposite when it's a car doing it.
Actually by separating risk of collisions and risk of injury, it becomes illogical to have an overtaking distance for a bicycle which varies depending on which vehicle is doing the overtaking.
Let's take this example; person a is cycling along the road at 12 mph and is overtaken at a distance of 1 metre by person b travelling at 18 mph.
On the second day all things are the same except the passing distance is 1.5 metres.
(Remember - we're not taking about risk of injury but risk of collision. Let's not get confused). Clearly, there is less risk of a collision between person a and person b on the second day as person b has given more room to pass person a.
And that risk is a constant, irrelevant of whether person b is hopping down the road on a space hopper or anything else - because the risk of collision is dependent on either cyclist a or/and person b having space (or room) to suddenly changing their direction of travel without contacting the other one.
Indeed if you think about it logically, there is more reason for a passing cyclist to give more room to overtake another cyclist than a motorist.
After all, if a cyclist swerves while being overtaken by a car is the car driver at risk of any injury? No, they've got a big metal shell around them.
If, while being overtaken by a cyclist, the first cyclist swerves, is the overtaking cyclist at risk of injury - yes, there's nothing to protect them, and the over-taking cyclist injuries might actually be worse, as they were going faster.. and then there's bike damage. Chances are the cyclist being overtaken doesn't have a carbon fibre frame, or wheels with only 24 spokes in - but the overtaking cyclist might and now the bike's been thrown down the road because of a sudden swerve.
The other thing I've kinda picked up on, is the subtext that its okay for two bikes to collide. That it's somehow safer, or even worth the risk.
No, its not. Collisions have unintended consequences. You don't know if a collision will result in a broken pelvis or wrist or a fractured spine, or even a bleed on the brain . You can't know. The best you can say is, that it hasn't happened yet.
And that's before we get onto following vehicles - if you fall from your bike and there's a following vehicle, do you know it's going to stop in time?
That's why the 1.5 metre rule is present and says for all road users. To reduce the incidencies of collisions, and ensure that the cyclist which is being overtaken has the room to deviate from the line of travel (in order to avoid an object or pot hole or slippery drain cover) that the overtaking road user expected them to follow.
Re: Overtaking
In theory, there is zero risk of collision with a passing distance as small as 1cm or even 1mm. As long as that distance does not decrease during the overtake. In practice, no vehicle, not even with four wheels, travels in a constant straight line. The longer the overtake lasts, the greater the risk of the passing distance become zero. Therefore, a longer vehicle needs to leave a greater passing distance.
But that's not the only factor. There's also risk of the overtaken vehicle swerving because the driver or rider is shocked. That's a risk that is difficult to predict because it varies so much from person to person but some of the factors will, or are likely to, include the speed and size of the overtaking vehicle. You're more likely to flinch when overtaken by a swan than a sparrow, regardless of how far away the wingtips are! But these factors induce that reaction because they are a proxy for threat; and it's very difficult to know exactly what any one individual will perceive as a threat.
But that's not the only factor. There's also risk of the overtaken vehicle swerving because the driver or rider is shocked. That's a risk that is difficult to predict because it varies so much from person to person but some of the factors will, or are likely to, include the speed and size of the overtaking vehicle. You're more likely to flinch when overtaken by a swan than a sparrow, regardless of how far away the wingtips are! But these factors induce that reaction because they are a proxy for threat; and it's very difficult to know exactly what any one individual will perceive as a threat.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
Re: Overtaking
Which is of course EXACTLY the same pathetic excuse given by close-passing motorists.slowster wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 4:07pm 1.5m would be inappropriate on many urban roads with traffic in the oncoming lane, because it would potentially place the overtaking cyclist within ~40cm of the middle of the road, and very often only 1m - or even significantly less - from motor vehicles in the oncoming lane.
If there isn't enough space to overtake safely then you need to wait until there is.
If you are choose to ride on a narrow cycleway then you should expect to encounter slow moving cyclists and to slow down to their pace.
Re: Overtaking
It is quite noticeable that the cycle way (sc3) used in the main by cycling commuters is used with very little difference then drivers on the road. More so that some others think they are faster and better at riding and take undue risks putting others in peril.
All that has happened is the road mentallity of a car driver has morphed over to the cycle lane.
With bi directional travelling on a quite narrow cycle lane , it is totally bonkers that some of the cyclists need to try and prove they are so called faster and better.
At one point one or two cyclists spill out on to the main carriageway , being very fortunate they weren't struck by any passing vehicle traffic on which looks like a buse lane.
All that has happened is the road mentallity of a car driver has morphed over to the cycle lane.
With bi directional travelling on a quite narrow cycle lane , it is totally bonkers that some of the cyclists need to try and prove they are so called faster and better.
At one point one or two cyclists spill out on to the main carriageway , being very fortunate they weren't struck by any passing vehicle traffic on which looks like a buse lane.
Re: Overtaking
Yes, as I mentioned above - viewtopic.php?p=1752785#p1752785.
What's going on is a very good example of what happens when there are few rules, or it's so perceived and that there's little or no accountability. This may work to an extent when there is room for everyone, but reduce space and there's a safety tipping point. But as much as anything I'd call this sort of behaviour the London or big city mentality.
Does anyone know if there were any repercussions for the cyclist who caused the crash in the video?
Re: Overtaking
It's not quite the "mentality of a car driver". Reckless overtaking is recorded as far back as the Romans. In all probability it goes back to the first domestication of the horse. We nowadays associate it with car driving because that's the dominant vehicle form it will take more than the removal of the car to remove this impulse.
Re: Overtaking
Well said.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑6 Feb 2023, 12:47pm It's not quite the "mentality of a car driver". Reckless overtaking is recorded as far back as the Romans. In all probability it goes back to the first domestication of the horse. We nowadays associate it with car driving because that's the dominant vehicle form it will take more than the removal of the car to remove this impulse.
Jonathan
Re: Overtaking
And likely from way before Roman times, probably before the Greeks waged war in Eqypt - who were well known for their lightweight, agile and strong chariots. The human brain has changed very little down the millenia, risk-taking is part of our pysche.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑6 Feb 2023, 12:47pm It's not quite the "mentality of a car driver". Reckless overtaking is recorded as far back as the Romans. In all probability it goes back to the first domestication of the horse. We nowadays associate it with car driving because that's the dominant vehicle form it will take more than the removal of the car to remove this impulse.
Re: Overtaking
What an interesting post! Thanks for this. I had never heard of the Idaho Stop but now I shall be writing to my MP encouraging him to get cracking with bringing this in for London!rareposter wrote: ↑1 Feb 2023, 1:43pm US has the Idaho Stop (where cyclists can treat a red light as a Stop sign and a Stop sign as a Give Way). Paris trialled right turn on red for cyclists and found no difference in accidents / injuries so that is now permanent.
I'd take those odds rather than the same little old man vs an articulated lorry.
-
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:39am
Re: Overtaking
I've had a few fellow pedestrians pass me closer than 1.5m when out walking too. 'anging's too good for 'em.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑6 Feb 2023, 12:47pm It's not quite the "mentality of a car driver". Reckless overtaking is recorded as far back as the Romans. In all probability it goes back to the first domestication of the horse. We nowadays associate it with car driving because that's the dominant vehicle form it will take more than the removal of the car to remove this impulse.
Re: Overtaking
"Idaho stop":jimster99 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 3:18pmWhat an interesting post! Thanks for this. I had never heard of the Idaho Stop but now I shall be writing to my MP encouraging him to get cracking with bringing this in for London!rareposter wrote: ↑1 Feb 2023, 1:43pm US has the Idaho Stop (where cyclists can treat a red light as a Stop sign and a Stop sign as a Give Way). Paris trialled right turn on red for cyclists and found no difference in accidents / injuries so that is now permanent.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
including references to studies, outcomes and legislation.
Jonathan