Near Miss of the Day 627: Close passes over solid white line

And after repeating my question (How close is too close?):

In my letter advising you of the warning issued to the erring driver I stated thus:

“The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking. It is recommended that you allow a minimum overtake distance of 1.5 metres.”

Notwithstanding the above I have explained that a formal warning is deemed appropriate in the first instance as both the evidential threshold / public interest considerations would have to be met in any decision to prosecute.

I will no longer engage in any further communications about this as the decision to warn has been made.

So basically, "I can't be bothered with this - go away"

Yes, it's advisory, and the wording on its own it's ambiguous, as you say. However, the illustration which accompanies this rule in the Highway Code shows what is intended (though it's a personal bugbear that they didn't take a pic with the car fully over the white line). The upcoming changes to the Highway Code are proposing new language which stipulates passing distances to avoid confusion.   

Point taken My bad, I was viewing the online version but NoScript was active - whoops, image appeared underneath

quiff wrote:

Yes, it's advisory, and the wording on its own it's ambiguous, as you say. However, the illustration which accompanies this rule in the Highway Code shows what is intended (though it's a personal bugbear that they didn't take a pic with the car fully over the white line). The upcoming changes to the Highway Code are proposing new language which stipulates passing distances to avoid confusion.   

interesting that when a saftey campaign was run, drivers complained a car passing in this manner was not safe and ASA banned the adverts

although I see they later withdrew this decision

https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/advertising-watchdog%E2%80%99s-helmet-rul...

It's really badly worded.  The HC states you should give at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. The police guidance says that this should be at least 1.5m; this recommendation is not currently in the HC.  However, the update due later this year will specify distance(s).

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

It's really badly worded.  The HC states you should give at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. The police guidance says that this should be at least 1.5m; this recommendation is not currently in the HC.  However, the update due later this year will specify distance(s).

Ridiculous wording, isn't it - clearly the intention was to say "overtake a cyclist as if they were as wide as a car" but as AK notes, it's actually saying if you overtake cars stupidly closely you can do the same with a cyclist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

It's really badly worded.  The HC states you should give at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. The police guidance says that this should be at least 1.5m; this recommendation is not currently in the HC.  However, the update due later this year will specify distance(s).

Ridiculous wording, isn't it - clearly the intention was to say "overtake a cyclist as if they were as wide as a car" but as AK notes, it's actually saying if you overtake cars stupidly closely you can do the same with a cyclist.

no it isn't "as much room" is not "as close to"

wycombewheeler wrote:

no it isn't "as much room" is not "as close to"

"Give a cyclist as much room as you would when passing a car" can clearly be logically interpreted (even if that wasn't the intended meaning) as "You can pass a cyclist as close as you would a car." 

Allen Key wrote:

In the police response above, the phrasing used is, "The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking". Rule 163, I believe, but I thought it actually says "should give" not MUST - so it's advisory only? Also, if I'm a total idiot and I like to overtake cars (in MY car) giving them, say, 2 foot of space... it means I can do the same with cyclists, because that's how much room "I" personally give another car, 2 feet. It doesn't mention the 1.5m bit in the highway code as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong)

as much room does not mean as close to. In fact the entire clause pertaining to cyclists reads

"163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
...

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

So are you saying you would really pass within 2 feet of a horse? Because whatever your views on whether give as much room means give as much room or pass as close to, clearly cyclists and horses should be treated identically.

I doubt many would even pass cars at 2 feet despite what they say. 2 feet would be small for the gap between cars in a car park. Don't think I've ever seen cars overtake cars with such a small gap. maybe people might drive past parked cars at that distance at low speeds.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I doubt many would even pass cars at 2 feet despite what they say. 2 feet would be small for the gap between cars in a car park. Don't think I've ever seen cars overtake cars with such a small gap. maybe people might drive past parked cars at that distance at low speeds.

You can see this in action at any motorway roadworks with narrow lanes and the wariness of (most) drivers overtaking with a couple of feet to spare.

On a 30 but on 50 that is a bigger risk which only requires one misjudgement. How many overtakes before you meet your objective?

I do it on 60mph roads too. Wait for a gap in the traffic, position yourself just left of central of lane and hold it. There could be dozens of close passes on a few mile stretch. Every driver just follows the next. Calm the speed down, much safer

As far as I could see, the cyclist in this vid did just that - as soon as there was a safe gap in the traffic. But while they were waiting for that gap, a number of drivers close passed them. 

So how many overtakes until the gap in the traffic? And if you are near centre, then when they use the other lane, they will be even nearer.
Not really seeing how this improves things on nsl or near nsl.

At the very start of the video, the rider was too close to the kerb, a few cars passed him, ( follow the leader mode) getting closer as they tried to stay on the left side of the white line, with oncoming vehicles. He eventually moves more central once in the no overtaking section of road. By then though, he had the close pass.

Did you notice that once he took primary position, the drivers moved further around him.

There seems to be some mental process with drivers, that if they can squeeze by a rider whilst maintaining position to the left of the white line, they will try. Once you remove the squeeze by option, they seem to accept crossing the white line is OK and tend to do it, and mostly move completely into the other lane to overtake- as per highway code 'ideal' overtake method

If Bikeability, Cyclecraft and others experts recommend 'riding primary', why is there no mention of it in the Highway Code. I say this, because I feel it would be very useful to be able to quote the advice (in something they know) and have some legal backing. Some drivers see it as some sort of political pro-cyclist statement, or possibly an overtaking "challenge"

Forgive the cynicism, but if you want to be able to quote advice from a source that drivers know, then the Highway Code is not a great candidate.

Less cynically, the proposed changes to the Highway Code include advice to cyclists to ride primary in some situations (on quiet roads, in slow moving traffic, and when approaching junctions or road narrowings), and advice to drivers that cyclists may do so. So fingers crossed you will soon be able to refer them to that.  

It will be part of the revised highway code

Having ridden motorcycles, you position yourself to the right of the lane, to ensure good visibility and to put off vehicles from making stupid overtakes- this is when riding at the same speed as the flowing traffic.

Not every driver is a pyscho out to intentionally hurt you. Most drivers are in 'follow my leader' inattentive mode. When cycling, creating a rolling road block, they are broken out of the 'follow' mode. Each driver then has to plan to overtake you. The other benefit is you now have wide safety area to your left for when someone does decide to drive too close.

I will employ this tactic for any road and only cede position when I decide its safe. Ive been doing this for a few years now and my incidents of close passes has significantly reduced.

Oh, I fully agree with what you're saying and it's clearly working if the 'close pass' incidents have decreased.
I just wish drivers were more aware of the reasons for riding centrally, and it was explained in the highway code.
Hopefully the new revisions will help make things better.

Hopefully the new revisions will help make things better

No they won't, whatever they are (which probably won't be much specific), because the police will continue to thwart the apparent intentions by refusing to enforce them. Still no response whatsoever from the much-despised (by me, anyway) b******s at Lancashire Constabulary to this of 6 weeks ago: over double white lines at speed while frighteningly close

Allen Key wrote:

If Bikeability, Cyclecraft and others experts recommend 'riding primary', why is there no mention of it in the Highway Code. I say this, because I feel it would be very useful to be able to quote the advice (in something they know) and have some legal backing. Some drivers see it as some sort of political pro-cyclist statement, or possibly an overtaking "challenge"

Some police forces recommend it on narrow roads if that counts.

If a driver with temperament issues perceives a cyclist deliberately holding up traffic by riding centrally, that's when punishment passes can occur when they eventually get a chance to overtake; I keep to the left as much as is safe to avoid dooring by someone getting out of a parked vehicle and most drivers pass safely, with only the occasional cyclist hater deliberately doing a close pass, clearly designed to send a message to me that cyclists don't belong on 'their' road.

Where do you go when someone does a close pass, when a kerb is so close to the left and a pothole in front of you?