Near Miss of the Day 105: Close pass in the snow after Beast From The East

DrJDog wrote:

I didn't think this was too bad. 

Me neither, especially given the relative speeds. I do sometimes find it difficult to assess the actual distances between, say, the riders shoulders, bar ends, whatever and the passing vehicle with some of these videos. Not always clear.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Have you not been reading Roadcc http://road.cc/content/news/237976-west-midlands-police-releases-footage... http://road.cc/content/news/225996-lorry-driver-convicted-close-pass-baf... http://road.cc/content/news/209069-close-pass-footage-has-now-been-used-...

Yes, I have been reading road.cc, and I think I've understood it, but I'm not sure you have.

The first two are actual cases and both are for driving without due care and attention, not for passing too close to a cyclist.  There is no law about how much space a cyclist should be given, despite the advice in the HC, so drivers are prosecuted for driving without due care and attention as they cannot be prosecuted for passing too close to a cyclist.

The third is just a report of what the police were doing.

The HC is not law, and breaking it is not an offence unless the word "must" appears in the rule.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

May I suggest Highway codes 159-203.  I doesn't mention motorised vehicle, a cycle is a vehicle.  

The police officer was in-correct in their understanding of the law

Gneral common sense would also lead you not to overtake, with pedestrians added in to the scenario, possibly crossing around a zig zag area

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

The HC isn't law.

burtthebike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

May I suggest Highway codes 159-203.  I doesn't mention motorised vehicle, a cycle is a vehicle.  

The police officer was in-correct in their understanding of the law

Gneral common sense would also lead you not to overtake, with pedestrians added in to the scenario, possibly crossing around a zig zag area

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

The HC isn't law.

So we just dismiss the whole of the Highway code which lays out good standards of using, traversing along the carriageway and footpaths. You can't cherry pick which bits aren't applicable. We either abide by them or not. There is no minimum safe distance to overtake a cyclist, but we harp on about a cars width or 1.5m, and police on occasion charge drivers with inconsiderate driving charges on the basis of the highway code recommended safe passing widths

CXR94Di2 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The HC isn't law.

So we just dismiss the whole of the Highway code which lays out good standards of using, traversing along the carriageway and footpaths. You can't cherry pick which bits aren't applicable. We either abide by them or not. There is no minimum safe distance to overtake a cyclist, but we harp on about a cars width or 1.5m, and police on occasion charge drivers with inconsiderate driving charges on the basis of the highway code recommended safe passing widths

I'm afraid you're missing my point, which is that although the HC may be good advice, it isn't law.  You can't be prosecuted for not following it.  You can be prosecuted for not following the law.

Are you sure about people being prosecuted for not following HC recommended safe passing widths?  I can't recall a case.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

May I suggest Highway codes 159-203.  I doesn't mention motorised vehicle, a cycle is a vehicle.  

The police officer was in-correct in their understanding of the law

Gneral common sense would also lead you not to overtake, with pedestrians added in to the scenario, possibly crossing around a zig zag area

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

Rule 191 does not refer to motor vehicles, but of the links provided, Regualtion 24 does:

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997    1997 No. 2400 PART I SECTION IV Regulation 24

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

(2) In paragraph (1)—

(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and

(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Hmmm, WVM this afternoon on way back from train journey up North was much, much closer and much faster. It doesn't look all that close IMO but I'm sure it still makes the rider feel uncomfortable.

As the provider of the clip I can assure you he was pretty damn close.  Definately within an arms length  (and with my being a short arse my arms are approx 60cm).  If you look you see he didn't move over the central line and performed his overtake while the approaching Duster was level with me.  I was also  negotiating slush on the road which didnt help matters much.  Normally I wouldn't let this bother me but with the conditions of the road it really did rankle me especially when he gained all of two seconds.

giff77 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Hmmm, WVM this afternoon on way back from train journey up North was much, much closer and much faster. It doesn't look all that close IMO but I'm sure it still makes the rider feel uncomfortable.

As the provider of the clip I can assure you he was pretty damn close.  Definately within an arms length  (and with my being a short arse my arms are approx 60cm).  If you look you see he didn't move over the central line and performed his overtake while the approaching Duster was level with me.  I was also  negotiating slush on the road which didnt help matters much.  Normally I wouldn't let this bother me but with the conditions of the road it really did rankle me especially when he gained all of two seconds.

 

Fair enough - as I said, difficult to know entirely without being there with those lenses. From the footage the relative speed looked slow to me, and when I tried to sight along the lines in the road it made it look like his nearside wheels are further to the centre of the road than the off-side wheels of the car in front.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

No overtaking on zigzags, ever. Only pass cyclists on solid white line if moving less than 10mph and it's safe to do so( clear opposite carriageway)

Not true.  I reported a driver for overtaking on a pedestrian crossing and on the zigzags, and was told that it wasn't an offence to overtake a cyclist at such a crossing, only a motor vehicle.  I was somewhat sceptical so I checked, and the wording of the relevant RTA applies only to overtaking motor vehicles.

Never mind, I'm sure that this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into safe cycling.  Probably by banning cyclists from riding over pedestrian crossings.

burtthebike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

No overtaking on zigzags, ever. Only pass cyclists on solid white line if moving less than 10mph and it's safe to do so( clear opposite carriageway)

Not true.  I reported a driver for overtaking on a pedestrian crossing and on the zigzags, and was told that it wasn't an offence to overtake a cyclist at such a crossing, only a motor vehicle.  I was somewhat sceptical so I checked, and the wording of the relevant RTA applies only to overtaking motor vehicles.

Never mind, I'm sure that this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into safe cycling.  Probably by banning cyclists from riding over pedestrian crossings.

I thought wording was vehicle, a bike is a vehicle so you must not overtake it on zigzags?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Not true.  I reported a driver for overtaking on a pedestrian crossing and on the zigzags, and was told that it wasn't an offence to overtake a cyclist at such a crossing, only a motor vehicle.  I was somewhat sceptical so I checked, and the wording of the relevant RTA applies only to overtaking motor vehicles.

Never mind, I'm sure that this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into safe cycling.  Probably by banning cyclists from riding over pedestrian crossings.

I thought wording was vehicle, a bike is a vehicle so you must not overtake it on zigzags?

[/quote]

That's what I thought, but the RTA said motor vehicle.  Now of course, I can't find the reference.

Found it:

"http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24

Two subsections with different prohibitions:

24 (2) (1) (a) No overtaking a moving motor vehicle on the approach

24 (2) (1) (b) No passing the waiting vehicle nearest the crossing - no mention of motor"

ChrisB200SX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

No overtaking on zigzags, ever. Only pass cyclists on solid white line if moving less than 10mph and it's safe to do so( clear opposite carriageway)

Not true.  I reported a driver for overtaking on a pedestrian crossing and on the zigzags, and was told that it wasn't an offence to overtake a cyclist at such a crossing, only a motor vehicle.  I was somewhat sceptical so I checked, and the wording of the relevant RTA applies only to overtaking motor vehicles.

Never mind, I'm sure that this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into safe cycling.  Probably by banning cyclists from riding over pedestrian crossings.

I thought wording was vehicle, a bike is a vehicle so you must not overtake it on zigzags?

A quick Google (other search engines are available) and the roadlawbarristers website states the rule only applies to motor vehicles. So it "applies to motorcycles but not bicycles."

http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/02/pedestrian-crossings-what-are...

Bluebug wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

No overtaking on zigzags, ever. Only pass cyclists on solid white line if moving less than 10mph and it's safe to do so( clear opposite carriageway)

Not true.  I reported a driver for overtaking on a pedestrian crossing and on the zigzags, and was told that it wasn't an offence to overtake a cyclist at such a crossing, only a motor vehicle.  I was somewhat sceptical so I checked, and the wording of the relevant RTA applies only to overtaking motor vehicles.

Never mind, I'm sure that this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into safe cycling.  Probably by banning cyclists from riding over pedestrian crossings.

I thought wording was vehicle, a bike is a vehicle so you must not overtake it on zigzags?

A quick Google (other search engines are available) and the roadlawbarristers website states the rule only applies to motor vehicles. So it "applies to motorcycles but not bicycles." http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/02/pedestrian-crossings-what-are...

That link seems to suggest any vehicle, rather than a motor vehicle in particular, doesn't it ?

Quote:

4. Overtaking vehicles at crossings.

Where a vehicle is within a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of that vehicle must not overtake any vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or overtake any vehicle which has stopped in order to let pedestrians use the crossing.

Gus T wrote:

It also looks like the 1st two vehicles overtook on the zigzag lines at a Pelican crossing, not great driving from anyone.

Not "great driving" no, but also not illegal, as passing a cyclist on the zig-zags  is actually allowed (As long asmy memory seerves me correctly)

Meanwhile white van man was probably grumbling something along the lines of  "Well get in the slush lane we provided for you with all the road tax we pay"