Cars parking in the cycle lane on a busy Road.

System

If cyclist expect a minimum of 1.5m clearance how do they cope with oncoming traffic? A 2-way road only needs to be 4.2m wide so unless the cyclist is riding in the gutter then the clearance is impossible to achieve.

Ideals are all very good but reality must burst into your world at times

Johno100

Well if they can do it in the chosen land of Holland, then they can do it here, that's right isn't it?

System

Johno100 wrote: »

Well if they can do it in the chosen land of Holland, then they can do it here, that's right isn't it?

What can and does happen in Holland, considering their different geographical structure, doesn't translate to what is feasible or possible, both physically and financially, in the UK.

spiro

!!!!!! wrote: »

If cyclist expect a minimum of 1.5m clearance how do they cope with oncoming traffic? A 2-way road only needs to be 4.2m wide so unless the cyclist is riding in the gutter then the clearance is impossible to achieve.

Ideals are all very good but reality must burst into your world at times

it's not what the cyclist expects it is what the law requires. Basically if a road is only 4.2m wide then a driver can't pass the cyclist until there is nothing coming the other way.

brat

!!!!!! wrote: »

If cyclist expect a minimum of 1.5m clearance how do they cope with oncoming traffic? A 2-way road only needs to be 4.2m wide so unless the cyclist is riding in the gutter then the clearance is impossible to achieve.

Ideals are all very good but reality must burst into your world at times

Unless I'm very much mistaken, 2.1 metres of lane (half of 4.2) will give me plenty of room. Approaching cars are always easier for a cyclist to manage because you can see it's path and plan your own route. You also know precisely when and where it will pass you, unlike the car behind, which could try to pass when you are approaching a pothole or a wet drain cover on a bend.

Like I say, 1.5 metres minimum please. It's not too much to ask. If, while overtaking, you were to collide with a cyclist who had to alter course by a metre to avoid a pothole, you would certainly have some questions to answer, both civilly and criminally.

System

But the point is, with a 4.2m road, then if the cyclist is 1m from the kerb (which is a sensible position to take considering the state of the edges of a lot of roads) then even if the overtaking vehicle is completely on the other side of the road then the chances of 1.5m clearance between the cyclist and the left hand side of the car is unachievable unless the car driver drives in the right hand gutter

Spiro. What law mandates that 1.5m clearance must be given

Marco_Panettone

If you cannot overtake safely, don't try to overtake. It's that simple. If you're walking on the pavement, how close to you would you like a cyclist to ride? I'd suggest any less than arm's length away would feel too close. Now, apply that to a motor vehicle - how close would you like me to drive to you if you're on the pavement? How close 'feels' safe to the more vulnerable road user?


If you think less than 1.5m is ok you're more than welcome to stand in the road while I drive past you at speed close enough that you could touch the car...

antrobus

spiro wrote: »

The other option to protect cyclists is to introduce the same law as in France, when overtaking a cyclist in a town you need to give 1.5m clearance, outside of towns 2m clearance.

The AA says in its February 2014 guide to France and Monaco;

When overtaking a bicycle, drivers must leave a distance of at least 1m in built-up areas and 1.50m outside built-up areas between their vehicle and the bicycle.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/touring_tips/france-monaco.pdf

antrobus

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

... If you're walking on the pavement, how close to you would you like a cyclist to ride? .....

The cyclist isn't supposed to be on the blOOdy pavement in the first place, now are they? What is about the bit in the Highway Code that says "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" that people don't understand?:)

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

I just find it rather odd, that people will argue that we ought to have some rules that govern how other people behave on the roads, but don't appear to be interested in following the rules themselves.

dacouch

antrobus wrote: »

The cyclist isn't supposed to be on the blOOdy pavement in the first place, now are they? What is about the bit in the Highway Code that says "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" that people don't understand?:)

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

I just find it rather odd, that people will argue that we ought to have some rules that govern how other people behave on the roads, but don't appear to be interested in following the rules themselves.

I witnessed two cyclist both jump a red lights at a major very busy crossroads (All were on red for pedestrians to cross).

They were travelling at right angles to each other, both knew they had jumped the light and were not paying attention. They missed crashing into each other by a few mm.

It would have amused me if they had crashed into each other