Half of drivers unaware of Highway Code advice on passing cyclists

Mr Blissta wrote:

Are motorists going to get their imaginary rulers out for each pass on a cyclist? Giving a measurement is dumb. The rule should simply be: use the other side of the road (defined by the white lines down the middle!).

If a motorist can't judge a simple distance without a ruler, then they shouldn't be driving. Do they need their ruler for stopping distances too?

Using "the other side of the road" would be nice except for all the exceptions (e.g. one way roads) and I think it would lead to more confusion.

The advantage of specifying a minimum distance is clarity - everone knows what 1.5m is.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Mr Blissta wrote:

Are motorists going to get their imaginary rulers out for each pass on a cyclist? Giving a measurement is dumb. The rule should simply be: use the other side of the road (defined by the white lines down the middle!).

If a motorist can't judge a simple distance without a ruler, then they shouldn't be driving. Do they need their ruler for stopping distances too?

Using "the other side of the road" would be nice except for all the exceptions (e.g. one way roads) and I think it would lead to more confusion.

The advantage of specifying a minimum distance is clarity - everone knows what 1.5m is.

To your ruler point- frankly many drivers haven't a clue what their stopping distances are either!  Actually they do have those chevrons on short sections of motorways to show recommended separation between cars.  Maybe they could start painting those on roads to show the recommended gap between car and cyclist. 

My rule of thumb in a car is always to give enough room so that if the cyclist fell off sideways as I passed, I would avoid them.  If there was not enough room to do this on a narrow road, then I slow down to pass at a speed at which I could stop if necessary.

A minimum distance of 1.5m would at least give a quantifiable threshold for prosecution if a complaint is raised.

brooksby wrote:

I wish we could set up a poll: how many road.cc people have ever been overtaken by any other road user with a separation at the distance shown in the photo at the top of the article?  Ever??

My guesstimate is about 50% of overtakes are at that distance or even greater. It also depends on the road as overtakes in and around cities tend to be a lot closer than on less congested roads. I've got no stats to back that up, though and usually people only remember the bad overtakes.

brooksby wrote:

I wish we could set up a poll: how many road.cc people have ever been overtaken by any other road user with a separation at the distance shown in the photo at the top of the article?  Ever??

Odlly enough, I went out for an amble on my bike on Saturday in S London and was pleasantly surprised to note that not one single driver failed to overtake with an acceptable degree of respect and caution.

brooksby wrote:

I wish we could set up a poll: how many road.cc people have ever been overtaken by any other road user with a separation at the distance shown in the photo at the top of the article?  Ever??

Loads of times - town and country - and i'm in the same neck of the woods as you. A decent group of passes are nearer but still not at all worrying due to relative speed or other conditions. Rarely get a really shitty pass, more pull-outs than those, but then again I hardly ever go through the city centre and tend to not bother with busy urban roads where it makes sense / have another, nicer route even when I commute.

kie7077 wrote:

1. "give cyclists at least as much space as you would a car" is not good enough and needs changing. some drivers would happily give another car inches.

2. "driving instructors are to be offered bespoke training" This is also not good enough, tell them they have training they need to take, or they will have their training license removed.

give as much room, not pass as close to, a car does not fit in inches, not sure if you are misinterpreting the rules, or suggesting that drivers all misinterpret them as they are not clear.

wycombewheeler wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

1. "give cyclists at least as much space as you would a car" is not good enough and needs changing. some drivers would happily give another car inches.

2. "driving instructors are to be offered bespoke training" This is also not good enough, tell them they have training they need to take, or they will have their training license removed.

give as much room, not pass as close to, a car does not fit in inches, not sure if you are misinterpreting the rules, or suggesting that drivers all misinterpret them as they are not clear.

The problem is that the rule is ambiguous - when you 'give room', is the room that you are giving that between you and the other road user, or is it all of that available to the left of you for the other road user to occupy? Someone who interprets it as the former would leave a lot less space than someone who assumes the latter, and it's not clear which was intended when it was written.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I appreciate the thinking behind the advanced drivers use of indicators, but it's really poorly thought out. If you only indicate when you can see the "target" of your indicating then you are going to be compounding any situation where you don't happen to see the other road user or pedestrian. However, if you mindlessly indicate whenever you make a maneouvre, then I can't think of any situation where that actually causes a problem.

Unfortunately, it's all too common to see cars pull out of parking spaces or side roads without indicating and the perps never look like advanced drivers to me, otherwise wouldn't they have recognised the possibility that traffic could approach unseen and thus need the warning that a vehicle is about to perform a maneouvre? Don't even get me started on people's observation skills and the number of drivers that don't spot cyclists and thus don't indicate for their benefit.

Another situation where drivers may not indicate is when there's 2 lines of slow moving/stationary traffic and a vehicle changes lanes. Most of the time, they wouldn't be able to see a cyclist filtering between the lines yet the only advanced clue that the cyclist would get would be the indicators.

That's not what has been said, read again what actually has been said, indicate IF someone else in the vicinity will benefit from an indication. You assess where there might be people you could reasonably expect to appear from, a blind junction for instance, an overgrown hedge, possibly even dark shadow. That's why I said it's about making you think about the why, you're not just assessing the overtake but those around you and possibilities of those that might come into play. There are many circumstances where indicating is utterly futile and wasteful, it shows lack of thinking/assessment on the part of those that do it 'automatically'. That automatic/little thinking driving gets replicated all the time and people get into bad habits/stop thinking enough about each and every manoeuvre they take whilst behind the wheel of a killing machine. This is in part why we have over a million crashes/180,000+ injuries on the road every year in the supposed third best country in the world. Driving is reduced to moronic levels and even those with the best intentions fail to grasp why they do x all the time and from that mistakes are made.

If you aren't assessing your driving and why you do stuff all the time then you aren't doing it right.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I appreciate the thinking behind the advanced drivers use of indicators, but it's really poorly thought out. If you only indicate when you can see the "target" of your indicating then you are going to be compounding any situation where you don't happen to see the other road user or pedestrian. However, if you mindlessly indicate whenever you make a maneouvre, then I can't think of any situation where that actually causes a problem.

Unfortunately, it's all too common to see cars pull out of parking spaces or side roads without indicating and the perps never look like advanced drivers to me, otherwise wouldn't they have recognised the possibility that traffic could approach unseen and thus need the warning that a vehicle is about to perform a maneouvre? Don't even get me started on people's observation skills and the number of drivers that don't spot cyclists and thus don't indicate for their benefit.

Another situation where drivers may not indicate is when there's 2 lines of slow moving/stationary traffic and a vehicle changes lanes. Most of the time, they wouldn't be able to see a cyclist filtering between the lines yet the only advanced clue that the cyclist would get would be the indicators.

That's not what has been said, read again what actually has been said, indicate IF someone else in the vicinity will benefit from an indication. You assess where there might be people you could reasonably expect to appear from, a blind junction for instance, an overgrown hedge, possibly even dark shadow. That's why I said it's about making you think about the why, you're not just assessing the overtake but those around you and possibilities of those that might come into play. There are many circumstances where indicating is utterly futile and wasteful, it shows lack of thinking/assessment on the part of those that do it 'automatically'. That automatic/little thinking driving gets replicated all the time and people get into bad habits/stop thinking enough about each and every manoeuvre they take whilst behind the wheel of a killing machine. This is in part why we have over a million crashes/180,000+ injuries on the road every year in the supposed third best country in the world. Driving is reduced to moronic levels and even those with the best intentions fail to grasp why they do x all the time and from that mistakes are made.

If you aren't assessing your driving and why you do stuff all the time then you aren't doing it right.

Okay - that's a fair point about indicating for a possible target and that does mitigate some of my concerns.

However, it's the failure mode that worries me. If you make a mistake in judgement and decide not to indicate when there is a hidden cyclist then you compound the mistake in a dangerous fashion. If instead, you mistakenly indicate when there's no-one around who cares, then you've just wasted a tiny bit of effort.

I certainly agree with the continual self-assessment/improvement aspect of driving/cycling and the idea of being mindfull/aware as lack of awareness is probably the biggest driving mistake. It's interesting to get the reasoning behind the advanced driving tuition even though I've never got around to learning to drive as I see it just from the cyclsts' point of view. Personally, I'm not concerned about drivers indicating when overtaking so much as it's usually easy to tell from the sound of a vehicle that it's about to overtake (and also I'd have to look behind/use a mirror to see the indicator).

The big problem for me is drivers pulling out or turning without indicating and the idea that drivers dont have to indicate for pedestrians (I'm not saying that you're pushing that idea) really bugs me. On my bike, I always make an effort to indicate (stick out a hand) when it could be useful for a pedestrian and, following my own advice, sometimes do it when noone's around.

hawkinspeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I appreciate the thinking behind the advanced drivers use of indicators, but it's really poorly thought out. If you only indicate when you can see the "target" of your indicating then you are going to be compounding any situation where you don't happen to see the other road user or pedestrian. However, if you mindlessly indicate whenever you make a maneouvre, then I can't think of any situation where that actually causes a problem.

Unfortunately, it's all too common to see cars pull out of parking spaces or side roads without indicating and the perps never look like advanced drivers to me, otherwise wouldn't they have recognised the possibility that traffic could approach unseen and thus need the warning that a vehicle is about to perform a maneouvre? Don't even get me started on people's observation skills and the number of drivers that don't spot cyclists and thus don't indicate for their benefit.

Another situation where drivers may not indicate is when there's 2 lines of slow moving/stationary traffic and a vehicle changes lanes. Most of the time, they wouldn't be able to see a cyclist filtering between the lines yet the only advanced clue that the cyclist would get would be the indicators.

That's not what has been said, read again what actually has been said, indicate IF someone else in the vicinity will benefit from an indication. You assess where there might be people you could reasonably expect to appear from, a blind junction for instance, an overgrown hedge, possibly even dark shadow. That's why I said it's about making you think about the why, you're not just assessing the overtake but those around you and possibilities of those that might come into play. There are many circumstances where indicating is utterly futile and wasteful, it shows lack of thinking/assessment on the part of those that do it 'automatically'. That automatic/little thinking driving gets replicated all the time and people get into bad habits/stop thinking enough about each and every manoeuvre they take whilst behind the wheel of a killing machine. This is in part why we have over a million crashes/180,000+ injuries on the road every year in the supposed third best country in the world. Driving is reduced to moronic levels and even those with the best intentions fail to grasp why they do x all the time and from that mistakes are made.

If you aren't assessing your driving and why you do stuff all the time then you aren't doing it right.

Okay - that's a fair point about indicating for a possible target and that does mitigate some of my concerns.

However, it's the failure mode that worries me. If you make a mistake in judgement and decide not to indicate when there is a hidden cyclist then you compound the mistake in a dangerous fashion. If instead, you mistakenly indicate when there's no-one around who cares, then you've just wasted a tiny bit of effort.

I certainly agree with the continual self-assessment/improvement aspect of driving/cycling and the idea of being mindfull/aware as lack of awareness is probably the biggest driving mistake. It's interesting to get the reasoning behind the advanced driving tuition even though I've never got around to learning to drive as I see it just from the cyclsts' point of view. Personally, I'm not concerned about drivers indicating when overtaking so much as it's usually easy to tell from the sound of a vehicle that it's about to overtake (and also I'd have to look behind/use a mirror to see the indicator).

The big problem for me is drivers pulling out or turning without indicating and the idea that drivers dont have to indicate for pedestrians (I'm not saying that you're pushing that idea) really bugs me. On my bike, I always make an effort to indicate (stick out a hand) when it could be useful for a pedestrian and, following my own advice, sometimes do it when noone's around.

Unfortunately BTBS is convinced of his own infallibility. He's absolutely certain that every time he looks carefully he will see everything he needs to see. This is categorically, neurologically, physiologically, and logically utterly indefensible. He is trying to make out that an intense effort that has catastrophic costs if it fails is somehow a superior strategy to a simple habit that has no cost if it is unnecessary. The silly thing is, the good  driver will do all of his things, and still indicate because they recognise their own fallibilty, and that it is a superior, safer strategy. . 

madcarew wrote:

Unfortunately BTBS is convinced of his own infallibility. He's absolutely certain that every time he looks carefully he will see everything he needs to see. This is categorically, neurologically, physiologically, and logically utterly indefensible. He is trying to make out that an intense effort that has catastrophic costs if it fails is somehow a superior strategy to a simple habit that has no cost if it is unnecessary. The silly thing is, the good  driver will do all of his things, and still indicate because they recognise their own fallibilty, and that it is a superior, safer strategy. . 

I'm more interested in why driving instructors (advanced or not) are teaching the "optional" indicating philosophy rather than any one person's driving ability/safety. BTBS is not the only person who has been taught this method, so I'm wondering why this is so.

If a driver does a good job of considering all relevant blind spots, then their behaviour becomes indistinguishable from a driver that habitually indicates.

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Unfortunately BTBS is convinced of his own infallibility. He's absolutely certain that every time he looks carefully he will see everything he needs to see. This is categorically, neurologically, physiologically, and logically utterly indefensible. He is trying to make out that an intense effort that has catastrophic costs if it fails is somehow a superior strategy to a simple habit that has no cost if it is unnecessary. The silly thing is, the good  driver will do all of his things, and still indicate because they recognise their own fallibilty, and that it is a superior, safer strategy. . 

I'm more interested in why driving instructors (advanced or not) are teaching the "optional" indicating philosophy rather than any one person's driving ability/safety. BTBS is not the only person who has been taught this method, so I'm wondering why this is so.

If a driver does a good job of considering all relevant blind spots, then their behaviour becomes indistinguishable from a driver that habitually indicates.

In my case, the driving instructor explained it as careful observation and then not indicating was prefereable to careful observation and indicating for the sake of it because the latter could just be habitual, without the careful observation bit.

I totally disagreed with him over that interpretation and the assumption of careful observation, we had a brief debate about what was more useful in The Real World vs impressing an examiner, then another about omniscience, and then I signalled all the time just to piss him off.

davel wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Unfortunately BTBS is convinced of his own infallibility. He's absolutely certain that every time he looks carefully he will see everything he needs to see. This is categorically, neurologically, physiologically, and logically utterly indefensible. He is trying to make out that an intense effort that has catastrophic costs if it fails is somehow a superior strategy to a simple habit that has no cost if it is unnecessary. The silly thing is, the good  driver will do all of his things, and still indicate because they recognise their own fallibilty, and that it is a superior, safer strategy. . 

I'm more interested in why driving instructors (advanced or not) are teaching the "optional" indicating philosophy rather than any one person's driving ability/safety. BTBS is not the only person who has been taught this method, so I'm wondering why this is so.

If a driver does a good job of considering all relevant blind spots, then their behaviour becomes indistinguishable from a driver that habitually indicates.

In my case, the driving instructor explained it as careful observation and then not indicating was prefereable to careful observation and indicating for the sake of it because the latter could just be habitual, without the careful observation bit.

I totally disagreed with him over that interpretation and the assumption of careful observation, we had a brief debate about what was more useful in The Real World vs impressing an examiner, then another about omniscience, and then I signalled all the time just to piss him off.

"Careful observation" is one of those things that can cover any idealised situation (e.g. you should have spotted from the direction of the wheels of a parked car that it may suddenly pull out) but realistically human observation has a number of known weaknesses (despite mitigations).

As long as someone is paying attention on the road, then most incidents can be avoided, so it's the inattentive people that need to improve their skills. Inattentive and indicating is not ideal but is much better than inattentive and not indicating.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I appreciate the thinking behind the advanced drivers use of indicators, but it's really poorly thought out. If you only indicate when you can see the "target" of your indicating then you are going to be compounding any situation where you don't happen to see the other road user or pedestrian. However, if you mindlessly indicate whenever you make a maneouvre, then I can't think of any situation where that actually causes a problem.

Unfortunately, it's all too common to see cars pull out of parking spaces or side roads without indicating and the perps never look like advanced drivers to me, otherwise wouldn't they have recognised the possibility that traffic could approach unseen and thus need the warning that a vehicle is about to perform a maneouvre? Don't even get me started on people's observation skills and the number of drivers that don't spot cyclists and thus don't indicate for their benefit.

Another situation where drivers may not indicate is when there's 2 lines of slow moving/stationary traffic and a vehicle changes lanes. Most of the time, they wouldn't be able to see a cyclist filtering between the lines yet the only advanced clue that the cyclist would get would be the indicators.

or when turning into a side road, even though indicating would inform pedestrians intending to cross what the driver is intending, especially key as the majority of drivers are unaware they should give way to pedestrians crossing side roads when they are turning into them.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

We meet and there are two inches between me and the motorvehicles wing mirror.

Did you consider sticking your elbow out a bit?

I had someone go past me last week at 40mph+ with only a few inches to spare - not a pleasant experience.

brooksby wrote:

It's like those cases you see on Youtube where a motorist goes off the deep end because a cyclist touched their car (I know! apparently that, like, attracts an actual death penalty in some Merican states ) - anyway, they don't ever seem able to grasp that if the cyclist could touch their car then they were way too close...

Mind you, many motorists also seem unable to grasp that a cyclist passing stationary motor vehicles on their inside with just enough room to get their handlebars through (we've all done it) is in no way the same as a motor vehicle close passing a bicycle at 10-20 mph speed difference.

I've been close passed, caught up with the motorist (who stopped in a traffic queue fifty yards further on, naturally), and had them tell me that it was fine because they'd seen me going just as close up the inside of the queue (of stationary traffic!).

I can't remember where I read this, but a comparison that might make the difference between passing and being passed clear to people in general: Go to a car park and walk between the rows of parked cars, get as close as you can, brush their wing mirrors. Then stand still while someone drives past you with the same clearance.