rule 163 is meaninglessYes, rule 163 of the highway code.
So you don't consider cyclist vulnerable? Fortunately the law doesrule 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 ?
yes I do, but I am merely pointing out the uselessness of rule 163.So you don't consider cyclist vulnerable? Fortunately the law does
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre
- 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).
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?)
Many motorists seem to think it is the mimimum to miss them...to the nearest thouHow 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.
It seems to be the police's own defination of how much space should be gven.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.
No John...It appears perfectly lawful to miss a cyclist by the skin of your teeth..Happy?lmaoSo you haven't got a law.
Correction: We just need far more cycle lanes that remove bikes from the cars altogether.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.