Overtaking

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Ron
Posts: 1382
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Ron »

jimster99 wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 11:43am, plus if you did collide, you're two roughly equal sized objects so there is a somewhat reduced chance of either cyclist being crushed or knocked over
I'm not sure that I like your thinking re risk assessment, one cyclist might be a little old man on his way to the doc for a check-up and the other a hefty rugby player in his prime who is used to a bit of rough and tumble.
DaveReading
Posts: 742
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by DaveReading »

rareposter wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 11:25amFrom riding track, it was drilled into you that you ALWAYS look over your shoulder before moving up the track so maybe that's stuck with me cos it's second nature to do it now in any urban riding environment. Motorcyclists tend to be very good at it too.
In fact, bikers call the over-the-shoulder look "the lifesaver" - the clue's in the name. :D
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Tangled Metal »

Are we still discussing whether the exceptionalism argument for cyclists apply to rules of the highway? If you are please get back in your car! Actually don't, I don't trust you on a bike or a car! :lol:
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Biospace »

What I find interesting in this sort of situation - I've ridden in conditions very similar but it's a rare event - is that the human brain works almost identically to how it does when driving motor vehicles. An element of competition, of not wishing to be slowed by anyone, taking risks while adrenaline is higher than usual and the assumption that others will avoid you.

So are the psychologists wrong in suggesting it's being cacooned in a 'safe' steel/alloy box which makes people behave as they do?

In a situation like this, a kerb seperating cyclists from other road traffic can lead to a worse outcome than if there were none.
rareposter
Posts: 1964
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by rareposter »

Tangled Metal wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 1:15pm Are we still discussing whether the exceptionalism argument for cyclists apply to rules of the highway? If you are please get back in your car! Actually don't, I don't trust you on a bike or a car! :lol:
To be fair, there are many rules of the road that don't or shouldn't apply to cyclists with anything like the same force as drivers.
Traffic lights, one way streets etc are all ripe for a much less strict interpretation to cyclists.

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. There are many many junctions where cyclists could quite easily proceed through a red light - if not in every direction then in at least one.

The general guidance in LTN1/20 now is that one-way streets for cars should in almost every case be 2-way for bikes since there is negligible effect on accident rates.

I'm not suggesting that cyclists should be given carte blanche to charge through every red light like they're in a finishing sprint but there are certain rules that really could do with some exceptionalism being applied. Not dissimilar with the 1.5m "rule". Two cyclists riding at very similar speed along a cycle way are in little danger of collision if one passes the other at only a couple of mph speed differential - it helps of course if there's a ring of the bell or a "passing on your right" comment but as a general rule the flow of riders along (eg) a London cycleway generally just works, even though the riders are routinely only a foot or so apart. I get that on a public road where speed differentials can be higher and there's other traffic to worry about as well then you'd expect to give / be given more space.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Overtaking

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Biospace wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 1:22pm What I find interesting in this sort of situation - I've ridden in conditions very similar but it's a rare event - is that the human brain works almost identically to how it does when driving motor vehicles. An element of competition, of not wishing to be slowed by anyone, taking risks while adrenaline is higher than usual and the assumption that others will avoid you.

So are the psychologists wrong in suggesting it's being cacooned in a 'safe' steel/alloy box which makes people behave as they do?
Risk compensation is known to be real, so the 'cocoon' effect cannot be dismissed.

But only a minority of drivers behave in this way. In fact, I'd say that probably fewer drivers engage in risky overtakes (of other motor vehicles) than the proportion of cyclists we see in that video or similar crowded situations. I'd suggest one of the biggest factors is opportunity; there are simply far more opportunities for a cyclist to overtake other cyclists than for a driver in a car to overtake another car. For myself, I'm by far most likely to overtake when walking on a busy pavement, and that's where my personal 'happy speed' is highest compared to the average.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Overtaking

Post by slowster »

I posted the Cycling Superhighway video link because I thought it was an important 'real world' contrast (in terms of narrowness of lanes and rider behaviour/risk tolerance) to the photograph used in the Highway Code to illustrate 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist. That photograph shows the textbook vehicle overtake, but clearly road conditions will not always be so straightforward for another cyclist considering overtaking instead of a car. For example,

1. Imagine there is a steady stream of motor vehicles in the oncoming lane, with no prospect of a break in the traffic. Is it appropriate to maintain that a cyclist behind may not overtake in such a situation? I think that it would be acceptable to overtake, despite the passing distance being less than 1.5m. Moreover, I think that is what would very often happen in the real world.

2. The speed limit in the photograph is probably 30mph or 40mph. The speed of motor vehicles will be a factor for a cyclist performing an overtake. If vehicles were instead travelling at 50mph or even more, especially oncoming traffic, that would make me want to stay well to the left of the road centre markings, i.e. to have a greater distance from oncoming vehicles than the cyclist I was overtaking.

3. If the road in the photograph had bends with poor sightlines, e.g. due to hedges, then again I would want to stay well left of the road centre markings. And again, greater motor vehicle speeds, such as a National Speed Limit applying on a country road, will increase that.

Bikeability Level 3 guidance on this subject is imprecise, and merely states that cyclists overtaking other cyclists should allow "plenty of room"*. I think that imprecision is telling, and suggests that the author(s) deliberately avoided confronting this issue. On a Bikeability course I would have expected pupils overtaking other pupils to feature during the course, and therefore I would be interested to learn what the Bikeability instructors on this forum teach (and I suspect there might be variation between instructors given the imprecise nature of the national guidance).

* https://www.bikeability.org.uk/wp-conte ... 2022-1.pdf

Image
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Biospace »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 2:10pm

Risk compensation is known to be real, so the 'cocoon' effect cannot be dismissed.

But only a minority of drivers behave in this way. In fact, I'd say that probably fewer drivers engage in risky overtakes (of other motor vehicles) than the proportion of cyclists we see in that video or similar crowded situations. I'd suggest one of the biggest factors is opportunity; there are simply far more opportunities for a cyclist to overtake other cyclists than for a driver in a car to overtake another car. For myself, I'm by far most likely to overtake when walking on a busy pavement, and that's where my personal 'happy speed' is highest compared to the average.
And roads for motor vehicles are clearly marked and with protective barriers and more to try minimise harm. If use of HPV (and some battery-assisted) rises, the relatively poor provision for them should improve. It's not inconceivable that a situtation approaching that of the Netherlands opens up in more nations as the century ticks by.

We just need a more relaxed, disciplined attitute to cycling than that in the posted video.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Tangled Metal »

rareposter wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 1:43pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 1:15pm Are we still discussing whether the exceptionalism argument for cyclists apply to rules of the highway? If you are please get back in your car! Actually don't, I don't trust you on a bike or a car! :lol:
To be fair, there are many rules of the road that don't or shouldn't apply to cyclists with anything like the same force as drivers.
Traffic lights, one way streets etc are all ripe for a much less strict interpretation to cyclists.

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. There are many many junctions where cyclists could quite easily proceed through a red light - if not in every direction then in at least one.

The general guidance in LTN1/20 now is that one-way streets for cars should in almost every case be 2-way for bikes since there is negligible effect on accident rates.

I'm not suggesting that cyclists should be given carte blanche to charge through every red light like they're in a finishing sprint but there are certain rules that really could do with some exceptionalism being applied. Not dissimilar with the 1.5m "rule". Two cyclists riding at very similar speed along a cycle way are in little danger of collision if one passes the other at only a couple of mph speed differential - it helps of course if there's a ring of the bell or a "passing on your right" comment but as a general rule the flow of riders along (eg) a London cycleway generally just works, even though the riders are routinely only a foot or so apart. I get that on a public road where speed differentials can be higher and there's other traffic to worry about as well then you'd expect to give / be given more space.
There's a difference between whether a rule should apply to cyclists or whether it does apply. It applies so it should be obeyed. If it should not apply for valid reasons then perhaps it should be changed. Until it is changed I think you should obey. Not sure picking and choosing rules to follow is the right way around.

I think if road rules, regulations and laws are not the best then that should be looked at but not ignored. Unfortunately with road use ppl can pick and choose without sanction.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3479
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by cycle tramp »

slowster wrote: 1 Feb 2023, 3:12pm I posted the Cycling Superhighway video link because I thought it was an important 'real world' contrast (in terms of narrowness of lanes and rider behaviour/risk tolerance) to the photograph used in the Highway Code to illustrate 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist. That photograph shows the textbook vehicle overtake, but clearly road conditions will not always be so straightforward for another cyclist considering overtaking instead of a car. For example,

1. Imagine there is a steady stream of motor vehicles in the oncoming lane, with no prospect of a break in the traffic. Is it appropriate to maintain that a cyclist behind may not overtake in such a situation? I think that it would be acceptable to overtake, despite the passing distance being less than 1.5m. Moreover, I think that is what would very often happen in the real world.

2. The speed limit in the photograph is probably 30mph or 40mph. The speed of motor vehicles will be a factor for a cyclist performing an overtake. If vehicles were instead travelling at 50mph or even more, especially oncoming traffic, that would make me want to stay well to the left of the road centre markings, i.e. to have a greater distance from oncoming vehicles than the cyclist I was overtaking.

3. If the road in the photograph had bends with poor sightlines, e.g. due to hedges, then again I would want to stay well left of the road centre markings. And again, greater motor vehicle speeds, such as a National Speed Limit applying on a country road, will increase that.

Bikeability Level 3 guidance on this subject is imprecise, and merely states that cyclists overtaking other cyclists should allow "plenty of room"*. I think that imprecision is telling, and suggests that the author(s) deliberately avoided confronting this issue. On a Bikeability course I would have expected pupils overtaking other pupils to feature during the course, and therefore I would be interested to learn what the Bikeability instructors on this forum teach (and I suspect there might be variation between instructors given the imprecise nature of the national guidance).

* https://www.bikeability.org.uk/wp-conte ... 2022-1.pdf

Image
...at this point I'm remembering the black Knight sequence in Monty Python's Holy Grail...just give it up.

In your first paragraph it is irrelevant what you think is 'safe' or 'appropriate' or what 'Bikeability teach'. Highway code is clear, for all road users to leave a 1.5 metres when overtaking a cyclist.

In your first paragraph, it is irrelevant as to what 'you think is acceptable' especially in the light of a large percentage of forum posters clearly stating that they would appreciate that all cyclists overtook them at 1.5 metre distance. It's not an unreasonable request.

However you have tried to make it seem unreasonable, by citing every argument that motorists have presented for their own reason to over take cyclists at a distance of less than 1.5 metres.

And that's the thing 1.5 metres is not only there for the safety of the cyclist who is being overtaken but also for the cyclist who is overtaking.

Let's take your last paragraph, and turn it on its head. You're on your bike, it's a bendy national speed limit b road, and there's another cyclist ahead. He's on a heavier bike with shopping - panniers full of the stuff. You overtake him at 70 cm... however he spooks, something in the road causes him to change course and he collides with you. Much like the video clip a few pages back- he's heavier and slower and stays upright.
Which is more than you do. The collision breaks your balance you go down hard on the road, most of you body is on the left hand side of the road apart from your outstretched right arm which is promptly run over by an on coming car...

Don't tell me s^!€ like this doesn't happen. I've worked on the council road phone lines long enough to know it happens. A landowner who doesn't know he's got to check for dead trees or an elderly driver who perhaps knows his skills aren't up to it any more.

Situations happen like this because people see a rule like 'leave 1.5 metres when you pass a cyclist', and think these rules are inconvenient to them. As a result they make up little get around things like 'oh, well perhaps they only mean it in this situation' or 'only on a Wednesday' or whatever.

And that is what your every argument in this thread has been about. Its too inconvenient to give other cyclists the safety they deserve. Now I've encountered this thinking with a fair few motorists, and it surprises me that I'm now encountering it on this forum and from a moderator.

Even worse is that you appear to be trying to encourage this behaviour.
Now, in all seriousness- are we done?
It's time to go :-)
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Tangled Metal »

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. There will be a motorist not overtaking at 1.5m thread along sooner or later to bring it up in. One argument for cyclists and another for motorists is actually a common thing on cycling forums IME. I call it cycling exceptionalism. Like American exceotionalism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
rareposter
Posts: 1964
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by rareposter »

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.
But that already happens. When you filter down the outside (or up the inside, which is still legal) of a line of stationary traffic, you don't give them 5ft of space.

That actually comes up as a complaint on social media quite routinely from drivers, usually when responding to Highway Code or police posts advising about the 1.5m rule.

Lots of bleating about "but they don't leave 5ft!!" from the drivers who clearly don't have any idea of basic physics.

The mass, speed and speed differentials of cyclist vs cyclist are vastly smaller than those of cyclist vs motor vehicle.

Yes 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.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Overtaking

Post by Bmblbzzz »

It's not exceptionalism to take account of circumstances.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Mike Sales »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 2 Feb 2023, 12:20pm It's not exceptionalism to take account of circumstances.
Indeed. Nor is it exceptionalism to point out that the nature of the vehicle determines that road behaviour must be different for different road users. The Highway Code itself makes this clear, with different sections for different types of user.
These include pedestrians, mobility scooters, cyclists, motorcyclists and drivers.
Drivers for instance, are not told to wear a helmet.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Overtaking

Post by Tangled Metal »

Its is exceptionalism when you're arguing that your mode of transport isn't covered by a rule when it clearly is based on the wording of the rule. The rule is 1.5m for overtaking. If you argue that it doesn't apply for cyclists you are arguing for an exception not defined in the rule. That's a form of exceptionalism.

The rule takes care of circumstances when it defines 1.5m when overtaking cyclist when traveling up to 30mph. Is that not clear?
Post Reply