Near Miss of the Day 817: “Both drivers gave me a wide pass – shame about the cyclist coming the other way”

JimM777 wrote:

 It's almost a certainty that the cyclists who are dead set against it are people who are wannabe racers who want to be seen to be looking at much like a pro racer as possible. They let their primitive emotional instinct to present a certain appearance to others override sensible alternatives - the similar situation can be seen in those people who drive massive 4x4s around city streets.

Or maybe, it's because Hi-Vis is generally hot, uncomfortable, restrictive, and hasn't been definitively shown to make any real difference. I wear kit that's comfortable and helps regulate my temperature so that I don't need to shower when I arrive at work - if I were to drape a bright-yellow plastic bag over myself, I arrive at work a disgusting sweaty mess.

Besides, if a driver is unable to see my light-coloured jersey and pulsing lights (solid at night), what exactly is Hi-Vis going to do?

To square the circle, the issue isn't Hi-Viz, it is wearing clothing that does not blend in with the road, so brighter colours rather than muted greys and browns.

I don't wear hi-viz, though my rain gear is typically bright yellow, but not reflective, but I do wear DHB orange and club colours are red white and blue in bold panels.

I do wear lycra, but then I'm not committing but riding long distances to no purpose other than to annoy Nigel.

Or hitting stationary Police cars, or motorway maintanance vehicles. I do ride with daytime lights and colourful clothing and bright yellow rucksack with hiviz strips, and still get close passed and "not seen" by drivers. But as I mentioned directly, the blue car made his manouvre because the car in front did so must be clear. They wouldn't have seen the cyclist with lights or bright clothing (or other vehicle) as he followed blindly. 

Although as silver car would have been blocking view of blue car as that driver is a lemming driver, I don't think being more visible would have helped. 

Crossing over into the other lane of traffic without ensuring it is clear and nearly causing a head on crash is careless driving which is what they charge close passers with anyway. 

AFAIK the 1.5 metre guideline only appears in the section on "Overtaking" and I don't think passing someone going in the opposite direction qualifies.

However, the law simply states that you must not drive "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place". The Highway Code has various rules advising care and consideration around other road users, especially vulnerable road users. Passing too closely in the opposite direction can therefore very easily fall under careless driving. 

Not sure what you are asking here. If you overtake and come into conflict with another road user then that is a form of careless or with out due care driving.

If you going in opposite directions, it's not an overtake, so 1.5m does not come into it. Although as Inspector Kevin demonstrated if you are going in the opposite direction, it is a good idea not to encroach over the central line in an attempt to intimidate cyclists.

mattw wrote:

Does the 1.5m guideline apply (in HC or Law) to people on bikes going in the opposite direction?

I don't know.

It will apply. If you've opted to overtake a vehicle without regard for oncoming vehicles  you can face a charge of careless driving especially if they are forced to brake or swerve. If they are cyclists the police may opt for a close pass wording. If you are in your own lane then no issue. If a narrower carriageway then good road craft advises to drop your speed. 

Same here. Submit and if they decide it doesn't have enough footage, well another minute of you panting up the hill is all they were going to get.

Or the driver could wait until it's safe to overtake.

Wait ?

But they would be doing the same thing with a solo cyclist, as shown just now. Although if it were two abreast coming down, a cyclist would have been KSI'd judging by the poor check of oncoming traffic by the lemming drivers. 

Totally agree. In many countries riding two abreast is simply illegal.

But it is legal in the UK and is advised in many situations. (And for good reason). I hope your car doesn't have two front seats as that makes it very hard to overtake it

Well I drive too and my car indeed has two front seats. But the roads were designed primarily for the 2.5m wide trucks that transport food, tools and our bicycles and bicycle components on their last leg of their journey from Asia.

I have to say that use bicycle almost exclusively for commuting, so an angry driver making close passes on me because he was previously pissed off with two guys chatting and cycling instead of having a run together, slowing down traffic doesn't make me very happy, because the possibility of being dead is not very nice. Not healthy altitute of these drivers but it actually happens.

But those two people on bikes side by side might well actually be making it easier for the driver to overtake by making the time spent in the other lane shorter. Presumably all these drivers who are so annoyed by people on bikes holding them up also try to kill other motorists who actually cause the vast majority of delays to drivers

cyclisto wrote:

Well I drive too and my car indeed has two front seats. But the roads were designed primarily for the 2.5m wide trucks that transport food, tools and our bicycles and bicycle components on their last leg of their journey from Asia.

Sorta... recent roads were designed for motor vehicles, but older roads have had to be redesigned for them and the space they now occupy frequently wasn't designed for motor vehicles at all (obligatory link to excellent book).

cyclisto wrote:

I have to say that use bicycle almost exclusively for commuting, so an angry driver making close passes on me because he was previously pissed off with two guys chatting and cycling instead of having a run together, slowing down traffic doesn't make me very happy, because the possibility of being dead is not very nice. Not healthy altitute of these drivers but it actually happens.

I'm not sure you've really linked the former (driver behaviour) to the (supposed) preceeding incident (bloody cyclists) - it sounds like reaching for a theoretical justification.  While it's not at all provable I've had grief from drivers I'm pretty sure  were unlikely to have been previously pissed off by cyclists, because they were too young!

Possibly a confusion of "being aware of current mores" with "not challenging them"?  We are where we are - but we got here from somewhere else and we don't have to stay here.

Victim blaming is particularly silly when you are one of the victims!

Maybe they can't run.

If they ran then they might be taking up road space and causing more driver anger.

And of course all car journeys are essential and with a clear purpose.

In many countries the law is different from the UK. What issues do you think are here and how would this being illegal solve them? Before posting I'd suggest a look at the highway code and explanation around it as to why this *is* legal in the UK.

If there was a cycleway 2.5m wide, they could happily ride 2 abreast with no need for people in cars to work themselves into a lather about it ! 

macbaby wrote:

This incident highlights one of my concerns about cyclists riding two abreast. An overtaking driver could put at risk a cyclist coincidentally passing on the other side of the road. 

Exactly right. Driving just the other day I git behind a group of cyclists riding two abreast & couldn't get past them because of cyclists coming the other way. I obviously know why they weren't using it but there was a cycle path they could ride on as well. There should be pressure placed on local authorities to keep them clean.

Given oncoming vehicles it's irrelevant whether there was one or 10 cyclists in front of you.

Cyclelane, murder strip or Shared Path? And what speeds where the cyclists doing in each direction? Afterall with two of those, speeds would probably need to be reduced down to 15mph or below. 

Did you want ALL the cyclists to use it or just the ones on "your" side of the road?

I agree. Dirty cyclists are horrible. Councils should be providing showers

It is up to the driver to ensure that it is safe to overtake another road user before committing to the pass. And as said before. It is safer to pass cyclists doubled up on a standard A road. 

The best infrastructure doesn't make the more vulnerable road user rely on the more dangerous one for their safety. Example: separate cycle paths, not shared with pedestrians. In general - see how the Dutch do it!

However in the UK we frequently have to rely on the motorist. The rules (and guidance eg. much of the highway code) are written to codify this. I highly recommend a read.

The whole "but cyclists are putting others at risk" idea here is silly in this sense: the duty of care (eg. safe overtake) is on the motorist. Might you spot an impatient driver approaching you from behind, cyclists up ahead and work out that if you dive off the road that might - might - make life safer for them? Possibly - but that's nowhere in the rules or guidance.

What are your *other* concerns about cyclists riding two abreast? Might as well air them all.