A road safety campaign urging motorists to “share the road” with cyclists, give people on bikes 1.5m space when overtaking, and acquaint themselves with the Highway Code has been met with a decidedly mixed reaction from locals.
Some drivers in Hull have even used the council’s campaign to criticise cyclists for “wobbling all over the place”, failing to ride single file, cycling on the pavement, jumping red lights, wearing dark clothing, not paying tax or having insurance, and failing to wear helmets – prompting one local bike shop owner to claim all cyclists are being “tarred with the same brush”.
Earlier this week, Hull City Council launched its ‘Share the Road’ campaign, as part of the local authority’s efforts to make the city more cycle-friendly.
The campaign, which aims to publicise cycling-related elements of the Highway Code and encourage motorists to drive safely around people on bikes, will include regular messages displayed on ‘variable message signs’ installed across the city, as well as a social media campaign and partnerships with local businesses.
One of the messages displayed on the road signs advises motorists to “give cycles 1.5m space in passing”, as instructed by the Highway Code when overtaking at 30mph.
Other messages, the council says, will focus on educating drivers about “why people cycling take certain positions when riding on the road, such as when cycling in the centre of the lane when approaching junctions and roundabouts for safety or when passing parked vehicles.”
The local authority will also stress the “need for motorists to check before opening their doors when parked up”, in order to avoid hitting passing cyclists or pedestrians, while reminding drivers about changes to the Highway Code, introduced in 2022, that give “priority to people cycling straight on and pedestrians crossing at junctions”.
Announcing the campaign, Mark Ieronimo, Hull City Council’s cabinet portfolio holder for transport and infrastructure, emphasised that the local authority’s bid to improve road safety “isn’t about lecturing people or catching people out”.
“At Hull City Council, it is our ambition to create a cycle friendly city that supports those who choose to cycle, wheel or walk, whether it is for their daily commute or for leisure purposes and exercise, to do so with confidence,” councillor Ieronimo said this week.
“Share the Road isn’t about lecturing people or catching people out. We are all just trying to get somewhere at the end of the day, and we all have a part to play when it comes to safety on the city’s highway network.
“The Highway Code states that those who can cause the greatest harm, have the greatest responsibility to reduce the risk they pose to others. What we are asking is for people to take a moment to reflect and to think of the safety of others.
“However you get around Hull and whoever you meet on your journey, we encourage you to travel like you know them.”
Meanwhile, Alan Gribben, the sustainable travel lead for local climate action group Hull and East Riding Friends of the Earth, added: “Cycling, walking and wheeling are low impact modes of travel that benefit our physical and mental health, the environment, and the local economy.
“People often tell us they would like to cycle or walk more but don’t always feel safe. We hope that these messages will encourage people to think about other road users and help everyone feel safer when moving around the city.”

Judging by the response to the campaign this week, it has certainly encouraged drivers in Hull to think about cyclists – but perhaps not in the way the council intended.
Responding to an image posted by the BBC of the council’s new ‘Give cycles 1.5m space in passing’ road sign, Facebook user Lee Holderness replied: “Why? They mainly share the pavement with pedestrians. If we have to share the road, let them know we’re willing to share red lights too.”
Holderness wasn’t alone in his critique of the sign, with Joanne Wilkinson writing: “Not always sure that’s enough because cyclists wobble all over the place and pull out in front of you without any warning or hand signals, expecting car drivers to give them what they consider their right of way despite the fact that they don’t pass a test [and] aren’t taxed or insured.”
“What about cyclists actually having to pass a road competency test first and I don’t mean cycling proficiency?” suggested Alison Taylor.
“If they ride single file that’s not a problem, but when they’re side by side two, three at a time taking the whole lane up, what do they expect?” asked Rob Featherstone.
“When a cyclist moves past my car, they give me 1.5 inches of space not metres. If that’s enough for them,” added Stiv Baldwin, missing the point of the campaign entirely, it seems.
“1.5 metres is easy as most cycles are on the footpath anyway,” noted Creed Soundman, a theme shared by Owen Grantham, who asked: “Can cars share the pavement?”
BBC’s Look North also shared emails sent in by viewers, including Sue, who told the programme: “Cyclists will earn respect from me when they wear helmets, don’t cycle on pavements, jump red traffics lights, and only ride two abreast.”
Meanwhile, Cheryl argued that many cyclists do not use cycle lanes or other dedicated cycling infrastructure, “resulting in increased conflict and a lack of tolerance for cyclists”, and Paula questioned why cyclists, many of whom also drive cars, behave differently “as soon as they slip on their Lycra”.
Of course, not everyone used the council’s road safety campaign to criticise cyclists. One Facebook user pointed out that there are “good and bad drivers and riders using all types of transport”, reminding the drivers in the comments that vulnerable road users are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in collisions with motorists.
Another cyclist argued that people on bikes who also drive have better awareness than someone “who travels exclusively in a two-tonne steel killing machine”.
“It’s drivers who kill other road users, not cyclists,” they said.
Meanwhile, local bike shop owner Ed Neilson told the BBC that the debate that’s sprung up in the wake of Hull City Council’s campaign is indicative of all cyclists being “tarred with the same brush”.
Neilson told Look North that there is a “huge difference” between cyclists who ride during the weekend for sport and leisure and people “dressed in black riding through the middle of Hull”.
“I see these people ride through red lights and it’s terrifying and I totally agree with every motorist who is upset by that,” he said.
> Changes to the Highway Code mean very little if they are not known or followed by motorists
However, he refrained from laying all the blame on urban cyclists, adding that one of his colleagues was almost struck by a motorist cutting across him recently.
“When he stopped to remonstrate, the driver said, ‘I bet you are one of these cyclists who go through red lights’,” Neilson said.
When the campaign was announced this week, a local cycling campaigner emphasised the need for motorists to share the road “safely and responsibly” with cyclists.
“The summer holidays are always a peak time for active travel in Hull, including cycling,” Steve Walsh, a member of active travel group CycHull, said.
“This safety campaign provides a timely reminder to drivers and riders of motor vehicles of some simple measures they can adopt to share the road safely and responsibly with more vulnerable road users.”





















55 thoughts on “‘Give cycles 1.5m space’ road sign prompts meltdown from local drivers – as bike shop owner claims cyclists are all being “tarred with the same brush””
I saw a sign saying tiredness
I saw a sign saying tiredness kills the other day. I was fucking livid. When I got home I told anyone who would listen about how awful drivers are at keeping to speed limits, staying on their side of the road, parking across pavements, blowing through red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossing. Furious I was.
mctrials23 wrote:
Oh, missed that. Must have been resting my eyes for a second or two…
It’s impressive the lack of
It’s impressive the lack of self-awareness of people who froth and rant about cyclists “not following Highway Code/traffic laws” as a rationale for justifying themselves to not follow the Highway Code and traffic laws when it comes to passing cyclists.
There’s two whole pages on
There’s two whole pages on speed limits…
I bet neither of them mention
I bet neither of them mention 10% + 2.
As regards all the morons
As regards all the morons making the usual dimwit ‘red light’ comments, see the other topic. Why the other morons are making a fuss about these signs is hard to fathom, because they just ignore all signs anyway, especially ones about safety for cyclists, whether stationary or Lancashire Constabulary’s ‘Mobile Messaging Trailer’ which had less than no effect- as shown here (the massages would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so important for us)
https://upride.cc/incident/a19lcw_mercedesmmt_closepassuwl/
https://upride.cc/incident/m121bul_jaguarmmt_uwlcrossclosepass/
The b*****d police response to the widespread disregard for their signs was ‘what can we do?’
I’m sure more drivers (not
I’m sure more drivers (not all by any means) would be more receptive to such campaigns if it wasn’t always the motorist who is being told what to do.
Yes give cyclist 1.5m when overtaking, but similarly cyclist give the same when weaving in and out of traffic, except they won’t because that would mean waiting in a queue like the motorists do.
And it is somewhat unfair to state it’s always the vehicle that injured or even kills the cyclist, which whilst no doubt technically is correct but if it is the stupidity of the rider which caused the accident, then don’t blame the vehicle. Short of removing all vehicles from the roads (which this and previous governments are obviously working towards) then accidents will happen, as a result cyclists and pedestrians for that matter must take more responsibility for their own safety, by assuming the driver is always going to do something stupid.
I’m genuinely not sure
I’m genuinely not sure whether this post is meant to be satire.
Topgearsgone wrote:
Bingo!
HEY! BINGO!
Look – I’ve gone through the card twice now…
We’re off – turn the light off when you go, remember?
Topgearsgone wrote:
Do you expect the same licencing controls for butter knives as assault rifles?
Also, perhaps you’re different, but most people don’t consider property damage as much of a problem as violence and death. Cyclists aren’t likely to kill drivers by crashing in to their vehicles.
Going by that then, you
Going by that then, you should also say the same for motor bikes weaving in and and out and waiting in the queue….
if it wasn’t always the
if it wasn’t always the motorist who is being told what to do
I must be psychic! I mention morons and one shows up!!
Topgearsgone wrote:
Indeed. Drivers could well be more receptive to being reminded about giving 1.5m (2m at >30 mph) space if cyclists were reminded to obey red lights, etc. We all have responsibilities.
Cyclists and motorcyclists in slow moving traffic are permitted to filter through traffic. The Highway Code (rule 160) explicitly gives drivers a responsibility to be aware for cyclists and motorcyclists who may be filtering.
Don’t get the hate for
Don’t get the hate for cyclists when the same can be said about more drivers who break the law with speed, traffic lights, zebra crossings just to name a few…
I have a legal E bike. I
I have a legal E bike. I always wear high viz, a helmet and stick to the highway code. The reason being not just because I’m a responsible road user but because I’m insured. Break the rules and you don’t get paid out!! Insurance should be compulsory for adults and then maybe there would be more respect for others. NO WE’RE NOT ALL TARRED WITH THE SAME BRUSH.
What insurance is that, do
What insurance is that, do you mind me asking? And is that because the “e-bike” is not an EAPC (e.g. is legally a moped/motorbike)?
I get insurance (£10m third-party liability insurance) simply by having a Cycling UK membership. That covers anyone else – the rest is on me…
I get another 3rd party
I get another 3rd party policy with my really quite expensive insurance, had to move as what was Butterworths stopped doing bikes. I miss my yearly chat with Jan, might have been Jean, but definitely a Scraggs.
ktache wrote:
It was Jan, and I miss our yearly chats, too.
Because there are no motor
Because there are no motor vehicle collisions or KSIs due to insurance since people have more respect.
You want pedestrians to have compulsory insurance. Are you going to arrest them if they don’t ?
Insurance leads to
Insurance leads to responsible use?
What planet are you on?
Drivers have to have compulsory insurance… and look how responsible *many* of them are …
How many of the 1750 people
How many of the 1750 people killed each year in this country in incidents involving motor vehicles and the 25,000+ seriously injured were hit by drivers who were carrying insurance? The MIB estimates that 4% of drivers are uninsured, so the vast majority of fatalities and serious injuries will be caused by people who are insured and you’ve just said something very stupid.
Rendel Harris wrote:
TBF since it seems (I’m not entirely sure) the poster’s main concern is to distinguish themselves from those “bad cyclists” (or just bad road users) / get “respect” / avoid payout being declined (?) decrying others as irresponsible is maybe understandable?
I think they’re plain wrong of course. I doubt “cyclists not obeying rules” is strongly linked to lack of regard for them. I think “in the way” and “they’re on the roads but not driving/ ‘on the pavement’ but not walking” do most of the explanatory work. Basic human psychological/social things eg “they’re cheating” or “member of an out-group – and taking the mick and trying to get above their station”.
Why do drivers have to give
Why do drivers have to give bikers 1/5 MTRS space when passing when bikers pass cars with inches to spare , if someone opened a car door to get out a biker would hit it then claim it’s the cars fault . There are bad drivers but no where near the 90%+of bad bikers that we see on a daily basis carrying coffee walking dogs riding on pavements at speeds of 20+mph even through shopping malls , pulling out Infront of vehicle from side roads with inches to spare and missing me by a hairsbreadth whilst using a zebra crossing in my wheelchair this week . We need number plates on bikes and compulsory insurance to compensate the people they hit particularly these souped up electric bikes that can do about 30mph in town pedestrianised zones . Penalties must be harsh to match the ingrained contemp bikers treat other road users and the laws of the road . I can’t imagine the police ignoring a car driving down the pavement with the driver drinking coffee and walking a dog through the window but bikers do this with impunity
Gosh, you’re late to the
Gosh, you’re late to the party today. The parodies of parodies already left the station…
chrisonabike wrote:
I’m sure that’s because they were held up by a group of entitled cyclists for about 10 miles or something. 🤪
Oh that’s very poor. Very
Oh that’s very poor. Very poor indeed. Not one word about helmets.
perce wrote:
Where’s the hi-viz? Where are the lights? Where, for the love of God, are the pedal reflectors? The man’s clearly an irresponsible anarchist.
I agree
I agree
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
In the UK, the Highway Code tells drivers to give cyclists 2m space when overtaking at >30 mph.
I obey red lights when I’m cycling and feel others should, too. But red light discipline has got nothing to do with overtaking.
2m over 30 is in the highway
2m over 30 is in the highway code but it is not the law. A driver only giving 1/5m (200cm) is not obeying the highway code but is not breaking the law. As I understand it the police can charge the driver with due care, and some forces do, but many don’t. In Gloucestershire it would get an advisory unless someone was inconvenienced.
If I have understood correctly, the HC would come into play if a collision occurred as a result of the “close pass” and it became a civil matter.
Until the law is brought into line with the highway code and a competent driver is defined in terms of the highway code we will continue to see drivers, sometimes literally, getting away with murder.
Indeed. As I understand it,
Indeed. As I understand it, the Highway Code includes legal requirements (where it states “you must”) and general guidance.
How much room drivers should leave when overtaking cyclists is guidance, not a legal requirement. However, it would undoubtedly be an essential element in determining the driver’s competence and due care and attention.
However, I’m happy to be corrected if I’m mistaken. Are there any lawyers here?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences
The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver – section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.
Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:
driving too close to another vehicle
(plus others)
You would adduce the highway code to show the pass was too close to the cyclist.
Hirsute wrote:
This hinges on how close is too close. The highway code is NOT used to determine this, rather the standard of a competent and careful driver. The standard seems to be “I missed the cyclist didn’t I, how much more careful could I possibly be?”
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-779-293395
“I have watched the video and the van driver is not close enough to you for me to consider prosecuting the driver.”
Firstly you need to read the
Firstly you need to read the Highway Code, if you open your car door it is your responsibility to check nothing is coming. Secondly what speed measuring device did you use to tell someone was doing 20+ mph? Thirdly I call bullsh8t on your comments and you don’t see this on a regular dailey basis. I drive every day and can honestly say I don’t see this very often at all, in fact I see more people driving whilst using their mobile phone than I do bad cycling.
Larold wrote:
I can assure you this is made up and possibly out of whole cloth. They’re a regular here – remarkably, given the damage that being run over by cyclists every week must do…
You are wasting your breath
You are wasting your breath replying to a well known troll and famtasist.
For reasons unknown the site owners allow them to persist in their ridiculous and sometimes offensive comments.
Well while the campaign might
Well while the campaign might not have made cycling safer here its certainly shown just how toxic far to many drivers attitudes are towards cyclists. I myself commute regularly via cycle and since this campaign started ive had bad drivers putting my life in danger way more than just the usual odd numpty being a selfish prat on the road.
I am from Hull. It is quite a
I am from Hull. It is quite a compact city centre and flat so ideal for cycling. Unfortunately it is blighted by motor vehicles. They also allow motorbikes to use cycle lanes. I returned a couple of weeks ago and tbh the cycle infra I saw isn’t going to make it safe to cycle. A road called Spring Bank is traffic hell, and even though it is pretty wide, car parking narrows it considerably. The council have obviously understood that means anyone cycling needs to ride primary because they had painted a cycle symbol in the primary position. I have friends who are losing their shit over this. The police actively ignore violence towards people cycling, most being commuters, even with clear evidence. My body put a dent in a car when they ran into me. I had witnesses too. The investigation officer accepted the patched vehicle as being done prior to the incident and the driver saying he didn’t drive that way to work. I have many more examples.
Paint does nothing. Putting signs up does nothing. Enforcement, broken window policy, is required. Speed reduction needs to be put in place.
Bloody ridiculous. I got a
Bloody ridiculous. I got a letter from operation snap. They said they had evidence of me close overtaking a cyclist. Luckily I had dashcam footage showing him undertaking me. The cyclist had reversed the footage and is now facing charges of perverting the course of justice.
I’m guessing my request for the footage to be forensically tested as I believe it has been manipulated paid off.
Thank you for prefacing your
Sorry, duplicate post.
FragileBoris wrote:
Thank you for prefacing your remarks “bloody ridiculous”, a useful warning as they most certainly are. If a cyclist had reversed their footage to make it look as if a car was overtaking him rather than vice versa then on the footage he would appear to be going backwards. You really should give things a little more thought before bullshitting if you wish to appear convincing. Doesn’t happen, wouldn’t happen, didn’t happen.
Parody?
Parody?
Not too far off reality either as we’ve read of some bizarre explanations by police for dismissing cases on this forum.
I was giving them the benefit
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and that they were very poorly expressing how the footage was altered. However, I am unable to believe the police forensically tested it !
Doesn’t happen, wouldn’t
Doesn’t happen, wouldn’t happen, didn’t happen
Well, he wishes to be known as Boris, so at first sight it’s in keeping with the name. It seems SO dim- is it not a spoof?
Great story
Great story
Ah, I see I have been pre
Ah, I see I have been pre-empted!
If cyclists wobble all over
If cyclists wobble all over the road that’s all the more reason to give them plenty of space!
But cyclists are the same people that drive cars. All the criticisms of cyclists also apply to car drivers. Except for paying road taxes. If fair taxation is your concern then tax the rich!
I’m a wobblely cyclist. The
I’m a wobblely cyclist. The reason I wobble is to avoid all the imperfections in the road that car drivers don’t see. The trajectory of a cyclist is not predictable like a motorbike, so, as you say, drivers need to leave plenty of space.
Yup, especially those sunken
Yup, especially those sunken drain covers. One of the things that could be done would be to ensure that the inside 1.5m of the road doesn’t look like a ww1 battlefield aerial photograph. Not holding my breath though…
I used to commute into Hull
I used to commute into Hull prior to retiring recently, and the standard of driving is appaling, traffic lights turning red are regarded as an indication to speed up.
Look North and Hull Daily Mail are anti-cyclist by default, Look North even did an article on cycling in Grimsby which effectively supported the PSCPO thaty is now in effect. Amongst the dangerous activity mentioned was a man on a bike not wearing a helmet. They run articles like this as clickbait and refuse to moderate the comments despite the vitriol, lies and misinformation made on them.
Yes “traffic lights turning
Yes “traffic lights turning red are regarded as an indication to speed up” is just one of the reasons that most traffic lights are an utterly useless waste of energy most of the time, and should be removed. People would generally drive better. Simple proof is that whenever the lights fail for some reason, everyone slows down and drives more carefully.
In fact … that is the
In fact … that is the “shared space” notion, and essentially discovered generally not to hold well. Uncertainty does not lead to better driving. Clarity and “knowing exactly what is expected” does.
This kind of “mix everyone” (between very different modes) can work but only under constrained circumstances. (Basically – few drivers, where they’re motivated to take care – eg. it’s their own neighbourhood – think LTN. And where they’ve been slowed down a lot already via other means. And no mixing with pedestrians and cyclists without further reducing driver numbers).
It’s been shown to be a poor idea in most places and a terrible one for those with visual impairments.
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/12/the-devastating-effect-of-shared-space.html
I do quite like the Dutch idea of simple, standard (but not massively obtrusive) markings at all junctions though, in case signals *do* fail.
I ride on roads where they
I ride on roads where they are narrow enough that leaving 1.5m would put either me or the car in the hedgerow. Generally people go slow and careful and leave as much room as they can. Some even stop and wait for me to pass, sometimes I return the favour.
The biggest hazard at this time of year are nettles and brambles growing out of the hedgerow. Cycling into those, in shorts, at 30kph is unpleasant, being whipped in the face is worse…
StevenCrook wrote:
Then cars don’t get to pass until there’s a passing place.
If the option to not risk killing someone isn’t available that doesn’t make it OK to go with the risk killing someone alternative.
Well, yes. Pragmatism. By
Well, yes. Pragmatism. By far the best way – and where there aren’t many people and everyone knows each other this is more likely to work.
Of course, the thing with motoring is that people often motor to places where they aren’t local… And the problem comes when people do come to disagree. What to do? If they want recourse to the law, well, the law generally likes to be specific and explicit. No / unclear rules? Likely no action.
*Pedant hat on* On the “biggest hazard” … I think care with language is needed when discussing risk / probability, which humans are generally bad at. So perhaps that should be “most frequent unpleasant occurrence” perhaps? Clearly neither of us are dead through motor traffic – but that’s certainly possible and I think it would be seen as vastly more significant than all our stings and grazes… Unless you’ve got stats on “KSI by nettles and brambles” vs. “by motor traffic” (I mean, there are probably one or two in history)?
Additionally there’s a lot we can do to avoid or mitigate “slapped in face by foliage”. Tractor driven carelessly “just that one time”? Well, I can wear helmet and hi-vis and run lights in daylight like Diogenes and take primary as appropriate and have radars; but ultimately that is out of my control. But not as in “act of God” because it is in fact pretty simple for others to much reduce the risk to me here.
Finally I’m not aware that “brambles and nettles” appears in surveys of “why people say they don’t cycle”.