- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Boardman in SPACE.pngVideo: Chris Boardman demonstrating safe overtaking of cyclists
Close passes are something most, if not all, UK cyclists, are likely to have experienced and, in a bid to educate drivers a newly-released video shows Chris Boardman explaining how to safely overtake cyclists.
The video, also featuring cycling club Exeter Wheelers and master driving instructor Blaine Walsh, demonstrates how much room a cyclist or group of riders need, and why they might need it, including to avoid imperfections in the road. As Boardman points out, riders aren't just an obstacle to be avoided, they are people's loved ones.
Walsh says overtaking is the most dangerous manoeuvre, and that most drivers don't know rule 163 of the Highway Code says "give a cyclist at least as much room as you give a car" when overtaking, and that you don't have to look too far on YouTube to see many drivers don't realise this.
- Chris Boardman films cycle safety video instructing drivers how to pass safely
Boardman says: “People on bicycles aren't just obstacles, something to be avoided, they're flesh and blood, they’re mums and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters – they need motorists to give them space when overtaking."
He says the dynamic envelope, the space riders need to stay upright, is often bigger than you might think, and stretches when riders need to avoid imperfections in the road. This, he explains, should be thought of as an "exclusion zone, that you must not enter".
The video, by BikeBiz editor, author and campaigner, Carlton Reid, demonstrates what this looks like in the real world with Walsh overtaking a group of Exeter Wheelers riders.
Blaine Walsh says: "Overtaking is one of the riskiest things you can do as a driver. It's critical to get it right, for your safety and the safety of other road users. Sadly you don't have to search YouTube very hard to find some incredibly dangerous and close overtaking of cyclists."
"Clearly these drivers are not aware of what the Highway Code says about the space they are required to give cyclists."
As Walsh overtakes, he points out that he crosses to the other carriageway to do so. When complete, he says: "There. Job done. I'm safe, they're safe."
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- mattsccm 2 sec ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 53 min 50 sec ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 1 hour 7 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 1 hour 19 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 1 hour 28 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
- wtjs 1 hour 24 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 56 min ago
I saw something about the Smart Lever a month or so ago, and was intrigued enough to put it on my Xmas list, so maybe I'll get to have a play with...
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 28 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
- PRSboy 7 hours 13 min ago
Rather better than my effort on Coll de Rates at 28:05, but in my defence it was 30c, I'd had a big lunch and a beer and climbed it on an old MTB I...
- Secret_squirrel 7 hours 27 min ago
Surely these are only as good as your knowledge of their placement? They seem a bit pointless without a decent amount of Sports Massage / Physio...
Add new comment
95 comments
When Boardman decided not to wear a helmet in this video I'm sure he was more concerned with public safety than his own personal safety. If we want to guess whether he was right and not wearing a helmet was safer for the public we need to consider the dangers of inactivity — heart disease etc, and the dangers caused by driving — pollution and crashes.
There's an argument that by wearing a helmet he would have potentially made cycling look more dangerous, and put people off, leading to more physical inactivity and driving, and greater overall danger.
Nice video - I hope it's shown to both learner and existing drivers somehow.
It's not my definition, Paul.
And it's not a cop-out. If I try to give you a simple definition, you'll fail to understand it, fail to realise you've not understood it, and quote it back in a way you don't understand is out of context. Just like when you "skimmed" the article.
The cop-out is thinking that understanding can be achieved on the cheap. It can't. You either make the effort to understand, or you fail to know what you are talking about.
It's not a difficult article.
Plenty to like about this video, not least Chris Boardman's wonderful calm delivery. Am I the only one surprised by the chosen example of how and where to overtake? Check from around 1:45 to 2.00. Great so far as giving sufficient space to cyclists goes, but the car appears to be overtaking not only a short way before the start of the brow of a hill, but also over a crossroads.
Please don't feed the helmet-obsessed troll.
You were quite happy to, Chris, until it turned out you didn't know what you were talking about, and had only the loosest idea what the study you cited meant.
FTFY
First, I'm explicitly not making an argument from authority - I've told Paul where and how he can find the information for himself, if he's willing to invest the time and effort.
Second, that's an empirical study; it has nothing to do with logic. Paul accused me of making a fallacious argument, an error of logic. That doesn't depend on evidence. A factual error is something quite different, if that's what I'm making. (I'm not: see below)
Third, you know what *is* a fallacy? And *is* an argument from authority? "These people are famous and say X, therefore X".
Fourth, nobody is talking about helmet *legislation* here, and I don't support it. That's what they come out against. In fact, they state that the evidence *supports* my point, which is that helmet use confers a protective benefit.
Tip: always *read* the study you're citing. It's embarrassing when you just hand your opponent free evidence.
That's a cop-out. It should be easy to state your definition of "analogy" and how it an argument based on one about A to B allows one to make claims about B based on A. Shouldn't take more than a few lines to get the gist across, either in english or whatever formalised version you want. "It's there somewhere, but I'm not telling you where" doesn't cut it - and I have skimmed most of that article now, I don't really see anything that contradicts what I said that you can't claim one thing has a property just because some other analogous thing does.
Anyway, it's not relevant to the original topic.
Helmets are like arguments by analogy: a massive distraction from the substantive issues. Also, I guess this must mean that arguments by analogy are therefore made from styrofoam and often sweaty after use. QED.
well I'm glad you chaps said it - we are used to motorists deliberately missing the point Chris is making but for our own to do it "shish!!" - can we get back to the point please?
"Overtaking is the most dangerous driving manoeuvre" and that is so for anyone using the road
A real shame that the thread went off the point the video is making about trying to make roads safe for all users irrespective whether your an individual driving a car, riding a bike or as they do in my neck of the woods riding a horse on the road.
So how do we get the general public to see this? Perhaps we need to team up with others who will benefit from this rule being applied properly - school children riding to school, horseriders, pedestrians walking on country lanes, etc. I miss the old public information films that used to do this, that one with those kids playing with their frisbee near the electricity substation still gives me nightmares!!
If your on Facebook, Twitter, etc, just share it, I know it won't get it to everyone and I know a lot of people may not watch it. But as facebook by default autoplays videos, you may just capture a few peoples attention.
Every little helps as Tesco say.
Beyond that I guess we need CTC and BC to push for a wider circulation, maybe Carlton can answer what the bigger plan is.
Did somebody say, "helmets"?
Wish you winkers would shut the feck up about fecking helmets. Go play somewhere else.
I'm bored of this futile helmet debate, I'm not hearing anything new. But I'm going to throw a grenade in here:
Wasn't there a recent study which showed that cyclists wearing helmets were given LESS room when vehicles overtook them? And it's known that closer overtakes are MORE dangerous. So, one could argue that helmet-wearing makes you less safe.
Not exactly a grenade, it's been discussed already. Indeed, I was the one who brought it up.
Not particularly recent, either; it was 2006.
The question would be whether that increase in danger outweighs the protective effect helmets have when collisions do take place. All the evidence suggests that it doesn't even come close.
"Not with a bang, but with a whimper."
I lecture logic. There is such a thing as the philosophy of logic, but logic is logic. Formal logic is formal, whether done by philosophers or mathematicians. Indeed, there is no clear distinction between philosopher and mathematician where logic is concerned. You find logicians, doing the same work, in both kinds of department.
I'm not asking you to accept my authority. I've pointed you to exactly where you can find the relevant information.
If you don't want to take the time to, that is absolutely your own decision. But you will not understand the issues if you do not.
Looks like you're laying claim to being an authoritative source based on logic. Well you're up against tough opposition. Both David Spiegelhalter and Ben Goldacre have made their views on helmets clear. Both have found sufficient logical argument to pen a joint opinion against helmet legislation in an Oct 2013 editorial of the BMJ.
Look, CLEARLY British Steel should have taken more responsibility for their safety record, and done whatever they could to prevent accidents.
But I'd also wear a hard hat if I was going to a steel plant. ESPECIALLY if I knew it to be unsafely and irresponsibly run.
And your missing the whole point, some one decided that it had to stop. The same as at Dupont and other dangerous work places. It didn't start with hi viz, steel toe caps ( or at Ijmuiden wooden clogs!) and hard hats. It started by looking at working practices, by training, by segregation, where nothing else worked then PPE came out. BUT it was always the last line of defence.
And accidents like this make you think, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/web34.pdf
Yes, I AGREE that it has to stop. And that mostly has to do with culture, driver education, and infrastructure.
The point is that none of that means one should not ALSO wear a helmet.
SO WTF ARE YOU WASTING SO MUCH BANDWIDTH ON HELMETS!!!!!!
most road deaths are nothing to do with head injuries! What is the F***ing point arguing helmets!!!!
I am out.
A nice positive story about someone trying to address the elephant and......
Bravo.
Well said mrmo. A number of cyclists pull this clip together to distribute amongst driving instructors and show to motorists and a number members end up squabbling about helmets. It's unreal. We should be posting a link to the clip on any social media sites we are part of. I'm keen to see the other clip as well once released.
No more than you are. It's not a very scarce resource.
What's depressing is that CB isn't making this video for us,cyclists,readers of this forum ,but the general public whose helmet hysteria he anticipates by issuing a disclaimer
Judging by the helmet distraction comments on this forum suggests CB has got a far harder job on his hands thN he thought
Forget helmets folks-wear one,don't wear one-just focus on the driver education/shit infrastructure issue-every post moaning about helmets is a distraction from the real topic
Personally I think CB should be PM- I think eventually though he will give up and go live in Holland
Can we please give up on the Helmet debate, IT IS POINTLESS!!!!!
Can we please deal with the f***ing elephant!
Drivers are, usually, not deliberately dangerous, they are just stupid. Teach drivers share the video, make people understand why cyclists do what they do.
Drivers do not set out to kill people, but they, far too often behave in a way that does kill people.
something like 5 people have been killed on the roads today, most of those deaths were totally avoidable if someone didn't act like a dick.
I can remember a H&S talk i had where i used to work, it started by saying that at one time British Steel virtually accepted people died, steel plants were dangerous, shit happens. At some point some one started to realise that you can't just kill employees, they are people, they go to work, they expect to go home. They have families, parents,kids. Do you want to be the person who knocks on the door and tells someone that there partner/father/etc isn't coming home.
Also you NEVER use PPE as a first line defence, it is always the last option!
So why the f*** do we accept that people will die on the roads and blame the victim?
PaulJ - well, first, the article is *titled* "Analogy and Analogical Reasoning", but if you had bothered to read it, it explicitly concerns *arguments* by analogy too. After all, to quote the third line, laying out the subject matter of the article: "An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists."
A "logical fallacy" ("fallacy" will do, there isn't any other kind) is after all just an argument which depends on invalid reasoning. The argument that I made doesn't.
You say you have "some background" in "logical reasoning (incl. formal)". Well, I lecture on the subject at a top 5 UK university. So you'll have to trust me when I tell you:
You are simply wrong. An argument by analogy is not a fallacy of any sort. You can show that the analogy does not hold, and that the conclusion in one case depends on features not replicated in the other. But you haven't done so. You've simply dismissed the mode of argument - incorrectly - as fallacious.
I mean, you don't *have* to trust me. You could read the article carefully and try to understand it fully, rather than scan the title, then skim for a quote which you reckon, out of context, might well support your position. But I doubt you'll bother, tbh.
A is "like" B (for a definition of "like" which explicitly doesn't admit perfect equivalence). A has property x. Any argument that tries to claim B must have x based on that I can definitely dismiss as fallacious, and I don't need to read up on classical philosophy to know that.
I'm not denying analogies have a place, but, as a further skim of that article continues to suggest to me, there's no reasonable way you can use an analogy of A to B to assert a claim about B given a property of A, based on my understandings of the words "argument" and "analogy" (which I've tried to state; note that for me an A where all its properties map onto B, even if B has further properties not in A, is not an analogy to my mind - A is a subset, simplification and/or model of B, depending on context).
Maybe the problem is we have different views of that word, and maybe that article provides a definition at odds with mine, but I didn't see it from a skim. Perhaps you could point it out.
Generally I have found that arguments by analogy can be a distraction. You waste time arguing over the analogy and whether and how it fits, what its gaps are, rather than the actual issue. We've taken that to an even more meta-level!
Paul, I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about. This is all gibberish.
You will need more than a skim. You will need to sit down, carefully, and read it until you understand it. I can't do that for you. I could talk you through it, but it would take a significant amount of my time and effort as well as yours, and I don't work for free.
But without you taking the trouble to more than barely acquaint yourself with argument forms, fallacies, and the like, I'm afraid that anything you say about them will continue to be gibberish. So if you're only prepared to skim I'd advise you to let it go. Either tackle the analogy, or accept it. The argument form is not problematic.
Pages