Video: Chris Boardman demonstrating safe overtaking of cyclists

It's a damning indictment of the contempt some drivers have for others' safety that the video had to be made in the first place.

Lycra Lout wrote:

Gizmo_ wrote:

Of course, the difficult part is getting through to the intended audience. I posted it on a facebook group earlier and was informed that "I'll start giving cyclists space when they stop jumping red lights..." >sigh<

That sort of attitude is mind boggingly stupid.

So this individual is happy to deliberately endanger every person the see simply because of their choice of vehicle? That person needs help.

No.

In addition, it's a private road circuit, the lights aren't real.

Jacobi wrote:

Knowing rule 163 of the Highway Code by heart should be made a compulsory part of the driving test.

Isn't knowing all the rules of the Highway Code a compulsory part of the driving test? Where the driving theory test fails is it only tests on a few subjects, gives multiple choice answers (doesn't work like that in the real world : "Sorry, you ran over that child, please turn around and have another go..") and also that it is not required that you re-test every few years. The Highway Code is updated regularly, but once you've passed your test it is forgotten about.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

Good to see Chris wearing a helmet for his safety video.

Obviously never heard his (Pretty reasonable.) views on them then.
Though he did wear one when doing his cycling uphill bits of the Tour coverage.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

Good to see Chris wearing a helmet for his safety video.

]Boardman, who has spoken out a number of times on the issue, was heavily criticised in November 2014 after appearing on the BBC Breakfast news programme discussing cycling safety while not wearing a helmet.

“I had the audacity to ride a bicycle in normal clothes and was pilloried for it,” he said.

“I dressed as I would to drive down the shops. I have nothing against helmets.If I go on long ride I wear one – sometimes out of habit, often on a mountain bike – but I am under no illusion about the effect on my safety. I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect.

“They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t. We should focus on how we stop accidents not what happens to people who have them.”

[My emphasis]

For the record, i am well aware of Chris Boardman's opinion on the matter. I was being facetious and just happen to disagree. Having been hit by a car last November and being taken to hospital, the surgeons and radiologists determined that my helmet saved me from a serious head injury.

I believe that regardless of going on a long ride or just 'popping to the shops' a helmet should be mandatory.

As an ambassador for the sport I believe that he should promote all areas of safety. It isnt hard for him just to pop a helmet on regardless of his own safety opinions.

I do think that he is doing a good job at emphasising safety for cyclists and motorists, but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

I believe that regardless of going on a long ride or just 'popping to the shops' a helmet should be mandatory.

Do you feel the same way about helmets for pedestrians and drivers?

That is quite pedantic.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

I believe that regardless of going on a long ride or just 'popping to the shops' a helmet should be mandatory.

Agreed, for all road users and pedestrians. It would save many lives, mostly for vehicle occupants.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

... but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).

No, it is not. The magic hat does not stop someone driving into you.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

... but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).

No, it is not. The magic hat does not stop someone driving into you.

Yes it is. Not because of what it does or does not mean but because it's what a large number of people tend to concentrate on. It could be a film about a cyclist shooting fluffy kittens in a barrell and if the cyclist is lidless some people will be all 'did you see that cyclist shooting the kittens? Wasn't wearing a bloody helmet!'

In my view, the problem with rule 163 is that it's too flexible. Soome road users pass all other traffic on the road as closely as they pass cyclists (in some instances) so in theory they are giving cyclists as much room as they would a car.

adscrim wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

... but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).

No, it is not. The magic hat does not stop someone driving into you.

Yes it is. Not because of what it does or does not mean but because it's what a large number of people tend to concentrate on. It could be a film about a cyclist shooting fluffy kittens in a barrell and if the cyclist is lidless some people will be all 'did you see that cyclist shooting the kittens? Wasn't wearing a bloody helmet!'

In my view, the problem with rule 163 is that it's too flexible. Soome road users pass all other traffic on the road as closely as they pass cyclists (in some instances) so in theory they are giving cyclists as much room as they would a car.

"As much space" not "as close to" if they are more than a car width from the kerb and are still too close then I am probably too far out.

Agree wholeheartedly.

It seems Chris Boardman overlooks the possibility of simply coming off your bike and banging your head. A helmet will provide a level of protection in those particular instances. Personally speaking, I am prepared to wear a helmet every single ride on the basis that it may just be the difference between walking away and something far, far worse.

Ugh! This was meant to be in reply to samkeetleyjohnson.

spacedyemeerkat wrote:

Agree wholeheartedly.

It seems Chris Boardman overlooks the possibility of simply coming off your bike and banging your head. A helmet will provide a level of protection in those particular instances. Personally speaking, I am prepared to wear a helmet every single ride on the basis that it may just be the difference between walking away and something far, far worse.

At risk of this falling into another pointless debate, and detracting from the message of the video AGAIN!!!!, note the child was wearing a helmet. Do you wear a helmet whilst out on the piss? If not why not, surely the risk is far higher falling over when pissed than when riding along at a leisurely bimble?

Can we please agree to disagree on helmets, the debate is achieving nothing constructive. Do we spend hours arguing that women should wear chastity belts and that if they don't getting raped is their fault? The issue is drivers and the crap driving that too many deem acceptable. The issue is not whether helmets may or may not help in the event of a minor tumble, let alone being hit by a car doing 30+mph.

spacedyemeercat wrote:

... A helmet will provide a level of protection in those particular instances. Personally speaking, I am prepared to wear a helmet every single ride on the basis that it may just be the difference between walking away and something far, far worse...

A helmet *will* provide a level of protection? Well it *may* but that could be true of many day to day activities as a visit to a head trauma unit will reveal. Assault is the second largest cause of head injury after road incidents and we're all at risk of that, but women in relationships are at particular risk. Perhaps they should be compelled to wear helmets?

spacedyemeerkat wrote:

Agree wholeheartedly.

It seems Chris Boardman overlooks the possibility of simply coming off your bike and banging your head. A helmet will provide a level of protection in those particular instances. Personally speaking, I am prepared to wear a helmet every single ride on the basis that it may just be the difference between walking away and something far, far worse.

Ugh! This was meant to be in reply to samkeetleyjohnson.

Chris Boardman wrote:

They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t. We should focus on how we stop accidents not what happens to people who have them.”

Helmets have an incredibly low design specification and are only good for propping your bike up to take photos.

Having been driven through by a car turning right at speed across/through me, the surgeons and radiographers were glad I hadn't been wearing a helmet as there is no doubt I would have received a percussion injury and probable whiplash.
26 X-rays later it was determined I had received no broken bones at all.
It took me 3 years to recover.
I am in no doubt that not wearing a helmet saved my live that day, and did not contribute to me being hit in the first place.
I will wear one when I choose to or when I have to when racing.
Chris Boardman is right we should not contribute or get distracted by the helmet debate, helmets do not prevent incidents and as he says, and I agree from personal experience, current helmets do little to help in both percussion or leverage injuries, especially when hit by another vehicle.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

For the record, i am well aware of Chris Boardman's opinion on the matter. I was being facetious and just happen to disagree. Having been hit by a car last November and being taken to hospital, the surgeons and radiologists determined that my helmet saved me from a serious head injury.

I believe that regardless of going on a long ride or just 'popping to the shops' a helmet should be mandatory.

As an ambassador for the sport I believe that he should promote all areas of safety. It isnt hard for him just to pop a helmet on regardless of his own safety opinions.

I do think that he is doing a good job at emphasising safety for cyclists and motorists, but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).

Sadly you're wasting your breath (or fingertips) on here 'cos some believe that if you push helmets you somehow discourage people from cycling - yep some really shallow thinkers on some of these pages. You get just a couple of upticks for a sensible, reasoned comment (plus the usual incoming flak) and some wag writes a halfwit line about pedestrians/drivers and gets 8 upticks - says it all.

A helmet saved your bonce. I have seen it save someone else's bonce in a RTA (bounced off and smashed in a Jag windscreen) and as we saw so graphically at the TdF a helmet saved 'G' from having his smacked in by a telegraph pole. Facts like that fly straight over the flat earth dwellers' heads though 'cos it mucks up their argument.

samkeetleyjohnson wrote:

For the record, i am well aware of Chris Boardman's opinion on the matter. I was being facetious and just happen to disagree. Having been hit by a car last November and being taken to hospital, the surgeons and radiologists determined that my helmet saved me from a serious head injury.

What makes you think that surgeons and radiologists are experts in cycling helmets? They probably have as much of an authority to speak on the matter as you do.

Check the Highway Code, it is acceptable to cross the white lines when overtaking cyclists, if the conditions are otherwise safe to overtake.

I suspect the reason he do not overtake there was because of the multiple bends in the road.

Grubbythumb wrote:

Check the Highway Code, it is acceptable to cross the white lines when overtaking cyclists, if the conditions are otherwise safe to

You need to check the highway code closer if you believe what you have written to be true.

Quote:

129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

How many adult cyclists are traveling that slowly?

oh and before some one mentions it

Quote:

169

Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

Note the absence of a MUST, so feel free to let cars past if you so wish but if you don't it isn't against the law. Same as feel free to ride 3 or 4 abreast, there is nothing that says you can't.

Grubbythumb wrote:

Check the Highway Code, it is acceptable to cross the white lines when overtaking cyclists, if the conditions are otherwise safe to overtake.

Rule 129:

Quote:

You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Few cyclists do less than 10 mph on the flat.

That said, this rule is a bit silly. My commute involves a busy, twisty road with lots of double white lines. I don't think I've ever encountered a driver who has obeyed the above rule to the letter, but it really doesn't bother me. There are lots of places on the double whites where you can pass a single cyclist doing 20mph or so perfectly safely.

Most drivers overtake safely, and the few that don't need double white lines in order to overtake badly.

pdw wrote:

That said, this rule is a bit silly. My commute involves a busy, twisty road with lots of double white lines. I don't think I've ever encountered a driver who has obeyed the above rule to the letter, but it really doesn't bother me. There are lots of places on the double whites where you can pass a single cyclist doing 20mph or so perfectly safely.

I don't mind cars ignoring the rule, If a car can overtake and leave me a couple of metres wobble room, then fine. However on narrow roads I will take the lane and force the driver to wait,

on my commute,

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9209305,-2.0701503,3a,75y,26.64h,67.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxeYukUKSJATv2L7tpGTxlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I have picked this point because it shows how narrow the road is, it is also at times very busy with cars going both ways, has a blind bridge, a blind corner, is on a hill... and you will get cars try and force their way past with on coming traffic.

qwerky wrote:

Can I also highlight that you're supposed to indicate right when you are overtaking. There is no need to indicate left as you are pulling in - that just screams of left hook.

Hmm, are you? I don't believe that it states anywhere in the Highway Code that you MUST indicate before overtaking or turning for that matter.

The video will be sent to driving instructors by the Driving Standards Agency. A previous one I did was also distributed in this way.