Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Side-by-side cycling

Both wind tunnel, cfd and real world testing have shown benefits up to 10 m away, aerodynamics is a somewhat more complex thing than your little equation.

Also, much lol at the idea of 3m being an unsafe distance on a bike.
Please provide a link to this data.
At 10mph the thinking distance is 3m, that's before you start braking, so yes, it's unsafe. Or are you now going to dispute stopping distances? .
 
Heres a really standard London suburban A road - one lane each way, often at peak times with a constant stream of traffic each way

View attachment 236055

If a bike is riding near the kerb at such a time are you saying you should never "overtake" unless you can go into the lane of oncoming traffic?
Most of the time the south circular would be chocka and cyclists would be breezing past 100's of cars with irate lemming drivers

Or there would be enough space to overtake and the driver dangerously passes the cyclist and then has to stop in a 100 yds or less for traffic or a red light, endangering the cyclist for nothing. Which happens on loads of roads lots of times
 
you are living on a different planet to me
if any car were to slow down to a crawl to follow a slow bike (not everyone on a bike are lycra clad racers) on a road where there was plenty of space to overtake the world would end ...
ive had a license for over twenty years and i did a long stint as a van driver - never have I seen people not "overtake" - ie drive straightforward at a speed faster than a bicycle whilst theres plenty of room to do so.
no driver in the uk has ever done that, i would bet you, so why argue thats its some kind of norm thats being trasngressed?

The new proposed rule in the highway code will put the 1.5m minimum passing distance that has been established by various police forces into the HC, with 1.5m at <30mph, 2m at >30mph, and 2m at any speed for 7.5t and over vehicles.

A cyclist needs to put their wheels minimum 75cm from the kerb (police guidance, 50cm-1m for DfT, plus another 50cm for the right hand side of themselves means that the cyclist needs 1m-1.5m from the kerb. Then 1.5m gap, then say 2m for an average car width means you need a lane that is 4.5m-5m wide. Most urban lanes in the UK are 4m wide, some are 4.5m. Rural roads, where cycling 2 abreast is more common, are often narrower with 3.5m wide lanes.
Almost every road in the UK, to pass safely and legally, you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane, which is usually not safe unless there is no oncoming traffic, which means you can go fully into the oncoming traffic lane without issue.

I totally agree that many drivers choose to overtake dangerously when there is enough room to squeeze through thinking that any space is plenty of room when it really isn't. It's an attitude that needs to be challenged and changed, and the police actions on close passing have had a noticeable effect and I hope that putting these distances explicitly into the HC will help further. As a rule of thumb, if you can't go into the oncoming lane (or lane 2 on a multi-lane road), then there's not plenty of room and you need to wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic and it is safe to overtake.
 
The new proposed rule in the highway code will put the 1.5m minimum passing distance that has been established by various police forces into the HC, with 1.5m at <30mph, 2m at >30mph, and 2m at any speed for 7.5t and over vehicles.

A cyclist needs to put their wheels minimum 75cm from the kerb (police guidance, 50cm-1m for DfT, plus another 50cm for the right hand side of themselves means that the cyclist needs 1m-1.5m from the kerb. Then 1.5m gap, then say 2m for an average car width means you need a lane that is 4.5m-5m wide. Most urban lanes in the UK are 4m wide, some are 4.5m. Rural roads, where cycling 2 abreast is more common, are often narrower with 3.5m wide lanes.
Almost every road in the UK, to pass safely and legally, you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane, which is usually not safe unless there is no oncoming traffic, which means you can go fully into the oncoming traffic lane without issue.

I totally agree that many drivers choose to overtake dangerously when there is enough room to squeeze through thinking that any space is plenty of room when it really isn't. It's an attitude that needs to be challenged and changed, and the police actions on close passing have had a noticeable effect and I hope that putting these distances explicitly into the HC will help further. As a rule of thumb, if you can't go into the oncoming lane (or lane 2 on a multi-lane road), then there's not plenty of room and you need to wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic and it is safe to overtake.

This is why bicycles should be banned from public roads. They're an unnecessary nuisance.
 
The new proposed rule in the highway code will put the 1.5m minimum passing distance that has been established by various police forces into the HC, with 1.5m at <30mph, 2m at >30mph, and 2m at any speed for 7.5t and over vehicles.

A cyclist needs to put their wheels minimum 75cm from the kerb (police guidance, 50cm-1m for DfT, plus another 50cm for the right hand side of themselves means that the cyclist needs 1m-1.5m from the kerb. Then 1.5m gap, then say 2m for an average car width means you need a lane that is 4.5m-5m wide. Most urban lanes in the UK are 4m wide, some are 4.5m. Rural roads, where cycling 2 abreast is more common, are often narrower with 3.5m wide lanes.
Almost every road in the UK, to pass safely and legally, you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane, which is usually not safe unless there is no oncoming traffic, which means you can go fully into the oncoming traffic lane without issue.

I totally agree that many drivers choose to overtake dangerously when there is enough room to squeeze through thinking that any space is plenty of room when it really isn't. It's an attitude that needs to be challenged and changed, and the police actions on close passing have had a noticeable effect and I hope that putting these distances explicitly into the HC will help further. As a rule of thumb, if you can't go into the oncoming lane (or lane 2 on a multi-lane road), then there's not plenty of room and you need to wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic and it is safe to overtake.
I don’t think anyone seriously disputes this. Where Bees got himself in trouble last night was with his assertion that cycling 3 or more abreast was often the safest way to ride, which is in direct contravention of HC advice despite the fact that it’s not illegal. Lots of things aren’t illegal but you’d still be a knob to do them.
 
I don’t think he is, is he? Ska’s saying that most motorists will pass if there’s room to do so although his posts haven’t been the clearest on this.
Exactly, most motorists will pass if they think there's enough room without changing lane. In fact it is almost never possible to do this while following the Highway Code.
 
If a cyclist expects not to be overtaken within their lane, surely they will then pull over frequently to let vehicles past - as a tractor might do on a country lane for example. Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.
 
If a cyclist expects not to be overtaken within their lane, surely they will then pull over frequently to let vehicles past - as a tractor might do on a country lane for example. Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.
What is 'well below' the speed limit on a 30mph suburban road? 25mph? 20mph? 15mph? Most tractors have a top speed around 25mph and travel mainly on 60mph roads. To be travelling at a similar proportion to the speed of the road a cyclist would have to be not going over 12.5mph which would be rather slow. Also the type of road you find tractors tends to be different with less junctions and specific bays for pulling over to let people pass. Why would I let a motorist pass when we're going to be waiting at the same traffic light in 30 seconds?
 
Exactly, most motorists will pass if they think there's enough room without changing lane. In fact it is almost never possible to do this while following the Highway Code.
No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.
 
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but bicycles aren’t motor vehicles.

There's an equiavelent offence of "careless and inconsiderate cycling". I am wondering what this might cover.

"If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence."
 
If a cyclist expects not to be overtaken within their lane, surely they will then pull over frequently to let vehicles past - as a tractor might do on a country lane for example. Failing to do this with a motor vehicle when traveling well below the speed limit is an offence of driving without due consideration.

wtf are you talking about? If a slow moving vehicle is building up a queue of traffic then they should pull over when it is safe to do so to let that traffic past.
It has nothing to do with expecting to be overtaking in a safe way that is consistent with the rules set out in the highway code.
You can fuck off if you think I'm pulling over and stopping to let drivers past because somehow I expect to them to overtake me safely and this apparently is wrong and my fault/problem when I get buzzed by shitty drivers who can't be arsed to wait 20 seconds for oncoming traffic to clear.
 
No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.

Both posters were clearly talking about in-lane overtaking. You can't (safely) straddle the line with oncoming traffic. If you can straddle the line you can give the proper amount of space.
 
I don’t think he is, is he? Ska’s saying that most motorists will pass if there’s room to do so although his posts haven’t been the clearest on this.

My reading of his posts was that it's not necessary for drivers to use the oncoming lane to pass cyclists safely and can do so in lane, that there's (usually) plenty of space to do so (on an normal urban street as in the picture they posted at the start of that particular convo in this thread).
 
No, that’s not true. There are plenty of situations where a car can pass a single cyclist safely and straddle the centre line. What they’re saying is that if you can straddle the line you must have enough space to use the full oncoming lane so you can do that to pass cyclists riding two abreast. That’s not the same as saying you must use the full oncoming lane to pass a single cyclist.
If you can straddle the line then you can go fully across it. Therefore it doesn’t matter if cyclists are in the middle of the lane, or are 2 (or more) abreast. Thank god for that, we got there in the end.
 
Both posters were clearly talking about in-lane overtaking. You can't (safely) straddle the line with oncoming traffic. If you can straddle the line you can give the proper amount of space.
My reading of his posts was that it's not necessary for drivers to use the oncoming lane to pass cyclists safely and can do so in lane, that there's (usually) plenty of space to do so (on an normal urban street as in the picture they posted at the start of that particular convo in this thread).

I didn't read him that way but if that's what he's saying he's wrong. Clearly there are very few roads wide enough to pass another vehicle safely without at least two wheels crossing the centre line.
 
If you can straddle the line then you can go fully across it. Therefore it doesn’t matter if cyclists are in the middle of the lane, or are 2 (or more) abreast. Thank god for that, we got there in the end.
Oh, I've never taken issue with you on two abreast (although there are exceptions like on B roads with no centre line). My issue with you last night was on 3 or more, which is absolutely not on, according to the HC, despite it not being illegal.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I've never taken issue with you on two abreast (although there are exceptions like on B roads with no centre line). My issue with you last night was on 3 or more, which is absolutely not on according to the HC (despite it not being illegal).
Why are you fretting over this minor point like it was something important? It really doesn't matter. If you don't like driving on roads with bikes, stick to motorways and dual carriageways.
 
Back
Top Bottom