Cycling campaigners welcome 'close pass' ruling

[JohnD]

The Highway Code is not a law.

 

[Lazzy]

Many of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey them you are committing a criminal offence.

 

[JohnD]

If you know of a law, feel free to name it.

But if you do know of a law, why did you reference the Highway Code?

Do you know the significance of the words "should" and "must?"

 

[Lazzy]

"If the Highway Code says “You MUST” or “MUST NOT” do something, you’re breaking a law if you disobey, and the law in question will be quoted at the end of that paragraph.

 

[Lazzy]

Guidelines in the Code using the words "should" or "should not" act as advice, and don't have legal weighting behind them.

But these sections can still be used as supporting evidence in court.

Where there has been an incident on the road which goes against the "should/should not" advice of the document, these can be used to establish who is liable for the incident.

copy/pasta

 

[JohnD]

So you haven't got a law.

 

[Munroast]

Yes, rule 163 of the highway code.

rule 163 is meaningless

Rule 163: Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car

when overtaking another car I leave about 6 inches between mirrors - so therefor miss a cyclist by 6 inches must be OK ?

The guidelines say a metre and a half and the police will likely give you 3 points if within this, but it is not a hard and fast rule.

 

[Lazzy]

Yes. Careless driving/ Driving without due care and attention. Also known as inconsiderate driving or driving without due care and attention.

Under present law, a minor breach of the Highway Code could be perceived by a court to amount to the offence of careless driving or driving without due care.

 

[Lazzy]

rule 163 is meaningless

Rule 163: Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car

when overtaking another car I leave about 6 inches between mirrors - so therefor miss a cyclist by 6 inches must be OK ?

So you don't consider cyclist vulnerable? Fortunately the law does

 

[Munroast]

So you don't consider cyclist vulnerable? Fortunately the law does

yes I do, but I am merely pointing out the uselessness of rule 163.
We need a better more precise rule than 163.

I do welcome the proposed changes to the highway code.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/why-we-need-hierarchy-responsibility-highway-code

 

[mattylad]

Where are you getting this lot from?
Looking at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...ists, cyclists and horse,see Rules 211 to 215).
it says under rule 163:
"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" not the 1.5m that is being suggested.

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

• not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
• use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
• not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
• move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
• take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
• give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so (spelling mistake on this line)
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
• give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).

Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre
Rule 163: Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car (this is stuck at the bottom, different font - afterthought perhaps?)

I think maybe bleep bloop should be referring to rule 212, which still does not give a defined distance.

btw BB, no one is suggesting we should NOT give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking.

 

[durhamplumber]

How many motorist are aware of the distance they should allow a cyclist when passing?! Obviously not
enough. We need much more public awareness, some adverts on tv now and again would help.

Many motorists seem to think it is the mimimum to miss them...to the nearest thou

 

[Munroast]

Where are you getting this lot from?
Looking at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#:~:text=Rule 163&text=give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse,see Rules 211 to 215).
it says under rule 163:
"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" not the 1.5m that is being suggested.



I think maybe bleep bloop should be referring to rule 212, which still does not give a defined distance.

btw BB, no one is suggesting we should NOT give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking.

It seems to be the police's own defination of how much space should be gven.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48181424

No precise minimum distance could ever be given without a relationship with speed, and to do that would make it too complex. A car driving at 10mph passing a cyclist with 1 foot of space would be fine. But even 2 metres at 80mph would not be acceptable.

We just need a lot more roads policed, too many drivers taking no notice of the law now.

 

[durhamplumber]

So you haven't got a law.

No John...It appears perfectly lawful to miss a cyclist by the skin of your teeth..Happy?lmao

 

[wobs]

No precise minimum distance could ever be given without a relationship with speed, and to do that would make it too complex. A car driving at 10mph passing a cyclist with 1 foot of space would be fine. But even 2 metres at 80mph would not be acceptable.

We just need a lot more roads policed, too many drivers taking no notice of the law now.

Correction: We just need far more cycle lanes that remove bikes from the cars altogether.