- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist and policeman (CC licensed image by stumayhew:Flickr)Derbyshire Police launch website explaining how to drive around cyclists
Derbyshire Police Force have created a website outlining principles for driving around cyclists, with some sound advice for motorists.
The page notes that “it's worth proffering some safety advice to both drivers and cyclists who so often share the county's roads.”
While most of the advice is sensible in principle, drivers are curiously warned that although they are protected by a ‘metal cage’, cyclists “rely on basic bike safety precautions like helmets and knee and elbow pads”.
It goes on to warn drivers to be patient, saying: “90% of cyclist casualties in recent years were caused by careless inattention, firstly by drivers, secondly by cyclists.
“It’s your responsibility as a driver to avoid hitting the cyclist, not the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid getting hit by you.”
In a nod to the close pass initiatives being rolled out across the country, the website warns: “When overtaking a cyclist a driver is required to give them as much room as you would a car, where possible.
“Cyclists may need to swerve to avoid hazards. Drivers should always anticipate that there may be a pothole, oily, wet or icy patch or some other obstruction.”
It adds: “It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much right as drivers to take up the entire lane. You will often see cyclists riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think they’re being selfish by doing so.
“But the fact is the cyclist is actually reducing the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest way for them to cycle, particularly if there’s a blind bend, a narrowing of the road, a high risk junction, pinch point or traffic lights ahead.”
In a final note, sure to irritate a certain breed of driver, the force says: “Groups of teenagers on bikes are becoming an increasing sight. Many may flaunt the basic road safety measures simply as a way of looking cool, nonchalant or carefree in front of their peers.
“They seldom wear helmets, and more often than not their bikes will not be equipped with lights in the dark. They may also ride erratically, either on or off the pavement. This makes them a serious worry for drivers, as their behaviour is often unpredictable.
“Be extra vigilant when driving near groups of cyclists of this nature.”
Latest Comments
- brooksby 1 sec ago
No jaywalking laws in the UK.
- theJewishcyclist 5 min 37 sec ago
Amnesty international is considered by Jews to be one of the most antisemitic organisations that is accepted in the western world....
- brooksby 6 min ago
Forget culcture wars, that's more like a call for an arms war - "They're driving cars so I'll trade my bike in for a car so I'm safer." "They've...
- Rapha Nadal 32 min 50 sec ago
I once had an Explosif in Reynolds 853 with their Project 2 fork and it was one of the best mountain bikes I've ever owned. I still think about it...
- MattieKempy 46 min 52 sec ago
It sounds very much as if this is an argument about land rights and access, not about bikes or cars. It feels a bit like the Daily Fail whipping up...
- David9694 2 hours 5 min ago
I cling on to the notions drivers/ people verbalise like "wasn't Center Parcs lovely" and "I've got no choice" in the hope that they may one day...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 31 min ago
Am I right in thinking that this has been the case in NL for over half a century (or 30 years nationally)? With a brief interruption from 2003 -...
- Bezzard74 2 hours 36 min ago
100% agree on all points! ...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 41 min ago
Welcome - probably didn't show as they tagged it "not near miss of the day"?
Add new comment
31 comments
Is the Policeman saying " I know it's not compulsory but he would be better off wearing a helmet not an apple!"?
He's saying 'do you think I could put an arrow thrrough that apple from here?'
That's not a Policeman, it's a novelty cycle rack.
Why does this article's photo appear to show a policeman telling off a cyclist?
Actually, I think he's asking the guy if he's seen the apple he lost earier.
No he's asking the cyclist to get his bike off his foot and whether he has a licence for the man in his basket.
"I'd rather not say what's in the saddle bag. It's personal."
(Perhaps you had to be there.)
Cyclist%20and%20policeman%20(CC%20licensed%20image%20by%20stumayhew_Flickr).jpg
In a nod to the close pass initiatives being rolled out across the country, the website warns: “When overtaking a cyclist a driver is required to give them as much room as you would a car, where possible.
The Highway Code does not say "where possible" it states that you should give the space to be safe if not safe then don't overtake.
It says "should" so I think that "where possible" is an acceptable paraphrase is it not?
I was going to pick up on the "where posssible" bit as well, because it seems obvious to me that if you should leave that amount of space to be safe, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't overtake if that space isn't available. "where possible" suggests suggests you can ignore the need to leave space for some unspecified need to overtake.
Having said that, I then clicked through to the actual site and overall, I think the page is a good effort and to be welcomed. It's probably the highway code and underlying law that cyclists would want to be made more explicit about overtaking.
Of course, the number of people/drivers who'll visit that page can probably be counted in single digits...
^^^ these are why I hate the oft used phrase that goes something like "most cyclists also drive"
sometimes that is far too true
"Groups of teenagers on bikes are becoming an increasing sight. Many may flaunt the basic road safety measures simply as a way of looking cool..."
No, but they may be flouting those measures.
I, on the other hand, will most certainly be flaunting my latest aero knee and elbow pads at the earliest opportunity.
Try cycling in East London, Car / van drivers must think that there is a prize for passing as close as they possibly can.
When overtaking a cyclist a driver is required to give them as much room as you would a car, where possible
I do wish this phrase would be no longer use as it depends on your interpretation. As a car driver I would not give another car a six foot gap. That would mean driving in lane 3 to pass someone in lane 1. Also seeing the huge number of "just enough space to squeeze in" passes on the roads, I would guess most drivers do give as much room as they would a car. About 2 inch!
On the other side, as a cyclist I'm getting sick to death of being crowded into the gutter or pavement by chain gangs around Leeds. If cyclists can not give fellow cyclists room why the hell should others?
Got to agree Mr Whippet, its especially annoying when you almost get taken out by other cyclists, if they want to ride 1mm from their mates wheel, fair enough, but they need to watch the space. Luckily most of them are wearing club colours so you can give them a going over on Facebook when you get home
I'm sick of being drafted for the entire length of Commercial Road or The Highway (both long, straight roads about two miles long in London). One of these planks ran into the back of me when I stopped for a traffic light a few weeks ago, despite his disc brakes!
I'm sick of being drafted for the entire length of Commercial Road or The Highway (both long, straight roads about two miles long in London). One of these planks ran into the back of me when I stopped for a traffic light a few weeks ago, despite his disc brakes!
[/quote]
Post a picture of the resulting horrific wound, or it never happened.
I didn't get chance to take a photo before I passed out from blood loss.
I don't mind being drafted and take it as a compliment.
I'm talking about riding along a road on my own at a steady pace for me, to then be over taken by the chain gang who incrementally move in a bit earlier. To the point you either have your front wheel removed, shoulder barged out of the way or end up in the gutter.
If that's the level of club riding, may the gods have pity.
I don't understand the comment about discs. If the idiot is not concentrating on what's in front, rim brakes, disc brakes or a big 2x4 piece of wood to go into the spokes wouldn't help.
Rule 5, harden up. Drop the wheel sucker.
you have misinterpreted that guidance. It is not saying to leave a car width between the cyclist and yourself, its telling you to overtake them as if they were the same size as a car (i.e. at least a couple of feet beyond their handlebars).
As for your experience with other cyclists crowding you; why on earth would that justify endangering any other cyclist on the road, whether its the individuals that you've encountered or any other cyclist out there? taking vengeance on other innocent cyclists is a poor attitude.
That kind of proves the point they made about it being open to interpretation though
It may come as a surprise to most drivers that:
They have no greater right to using the road than other road users including cyclists.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and maintained from local council budgets, not from some mythical 'road tax'.
Most cyclists will have 3rd party insurance cover via their home insurance. The inclusive or free cover cover represents the negligable risk that a cyclist represents.
The poor behaviour of some moron with bicycle that they may have read about in the Daily Mail is not an excuse to drive badly around other cyclists.
Is this in the Highway Code? I would like to educate some work colleagues who resent all cyclists.
A comment that took an anti-cyclist colleague aback some while ago "While you may or may not agree that the cyclist should be there, does this merit the death sentence and are you really going to carry it out?"
Really? First I've heard of it, and I can't see any mention of it in my Aviva policy.
Great question. I had always made an assumption that third party cover was standard in home insurance policies, but as ever it is more complicated than that. It took me some effort to find an unambiguous policy wording online:
From the AA home insurance policy document.
Third Party Liability - provides cover in a personal capacity should you cause injury or damage to another person through your negligence. This also extends to outside the home. E.g. Golf course, collision while cycling a bicycle...
I have not checked my own home contents policy, but will call them up today to find out for sure.
Updated: My bog standard More Than home contents insurance policy includes £2million liability cover for me and my family members in circumstances where we would be legally liable for third party losses. Although cycling is not specifically mentioned as an example, it is not in the extensive exclusions list and the lady I have just spoken to in customer services assured me that accidents caused whilst cycling would be covered.
Cage?!
I like that they're explicitly saying that it's the responsibility of the driver to try not to hit anyone, not that of the cyclist to not get hit.
But I'll admit that I've never ever worn knee or elbow pads, while riding my bike...
I thought everyone who has a driving licence was supposed to know all this stuff. It all feels a bit like educating burglars that burglary is wrong.
Pages