Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 472: Illegal overtakes at pedestrian crossings

Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today it's Hertfordshire...

Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows two separate incidents in which motorists not only made a close pass on bike riders, but also did so at pedestrian crossings marked with zig-zag lines – which, as road.cc reader John, who submitted the footage, points out in a very detailed analysis is also illegal.

He said: “The Highway Code is quite explicit: ‘You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing’. Though technically in the underlying legislation cycles do not count as vehicles (Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28) it is hard to interpret the HC as written, in any other meaning than ‘Don’t overtake at pedestrian crossings’. Let alone overtake in a manner that potentially puts people in danger.

“In the first clip, the blue BMW, despite good forward visibility of the me (the cyclist) for some distance appears to make no moderation of speed and no attempt to give sufficient passing margin. Overtaking on the crossing itself whilst a vehicle passes in the opposite direction. Had the driver slightly eased off the accelerator and shown any ability at linking observation to forward planning they could have easily overtaken into a clear space in the stream of oncoming traffic. Whilst the pass didn’t feel incredibly dangerously close it definitely felt like there was little room for error.

“Comments often state that passes sometimes do not look as close on camera as they felt at the time so I subsequently went back to take some measurements. The car tyre goes over the line 76 inches from the kerb. Allow another 7 inches for the mirror = 69 inches. My line of travel is 2 to 3 inches off the points of the zig zag lines which puts the centre line of my bike at around 33 inches from the kerb. I feel this is an entirely appropriate secondary riding position as per RoSPA etc and an old motorcyclist habit of avoiding white lines as they can be significantly different in terms of grip than unpainted tarmac. My handlebars are a whopping 29 inches end to end so with elbows I’m going to claim that the far right hand edge of my roadspace, i.e taken up by parts of me comes to approx. 48 inches from the kerb.

“This places the passing distance mirror tip to elbow at just over 20 inches or around 1/3 of the proposed guidelines of 1.5m.”

John continued: “In the second clip I’m out riding with a friend. We are travelling side by side approaching a pedestrian crossing immediately before a busy roundabout. We are freewheeling the downhill section here as there is a pedestrian waiting at the crossing and we are anticipating that the lights will change. I don’t know what speed we were travelling at but it was quite appropriate given the crossing and the busy roundabout ahead. The white car comes up quite fast from behind in a 30mph limit and the driver sounds the horn. Courtesy beep or “get outta my way” beep? The car then overtakes on the pedestrian crossing as the lights are changing and at the same time as a car approaches in the opposite direction, close passing me before slithering onto the roundabout and taking the first exit to join the queue of traffic in the High Street.

“In both these clips I am wearing a dayglo multicoloured cycling top and bright yellow helmet. The Cycliq rear camera is in medium flash mode. I have a full driving licence, own several motor vehicles on which I pay “road tax” and I carry third party insurance. As far as I am aware I have committed no moving traffic violation in the run up to either incident – well maybe my pedal reflectors are missing. Please also note, no swearing, verbal interaction, gesticulation or ninja style over the handlebar drop kick attempts to the passing vehicles.

“What have I done wrong to cause these drivers to consider that they have the right to put me and others at risk for very little benefit to themselves?

“Both incidents submitted to Hertfordshire Constabulary via their online reporting portal for antisocial driving with request for video footage. No follow up from the Police to date,” he added.

> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?

Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.

If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.

If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).

Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.

> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

23 comments

Avatar
LetsBePartOfThe... | 3 years ago
0 likes

Making no direct assessment of the current clips, but.....

Take the decision out of the following drivers' hands

On crossings; where there are islands; at junctions including roundabouts; through roadworks; or anywhere else that an overtake would be dangerous/inappropriate ..... I would always take the primary position. To my understanding this gives a clear signal of intent to the drivers that I require them not to overtake in this section. Most drivers do of course already form that same conclusion, without the need for my guidance. But I put it out there just the same. If they still attempt to squeeze through, I am not beyond taking a position practically up to the centre line. The door remains closed.

It would take a particularly brain dead driver then to overtake fully in the opposing carriageway on a crossing. But that is just the more-extreme end of any overtake on a crossing, so it's better their stupidity is shown up in all its glory, rather than as a borderline case.

This approach I take results in a 99% success rate of drivers calmly or irately waiting for a more-suitable place to overtake. And a1% rate of drivers being apoplectic with rage, and driving at me in a real or feigned attempt to kill me. Had to dive into a petrol station for safety recently after the overtaking driver stopped ahead of me and ran into the road to try to pull me off the bike. I was doing 30 downhill but/so managed to just avoid being grabbed. Like I say it's just 1% of the time, but one does have always to know it's a possibility, whenever being politely assertive in one's positioning.

 

 

 

Avatar
NZ Vegan Rider | 3 years ago
0 likes

Both passes are dangerously close - ped. crossing or not.

 

Man in black - get some bright colours. You're giving drivers an excuse to not see / hit you ;-(

Avatar
mdavidford replied to NZ Vegan Rider | 3 years ago
10 likes

Couldn't read this comment - something to do with the colour of the text.

Avatar
IanMK | 3 years ago
4 likes

Not madatory of course but the second one manages to break 2 points under rule 162:

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example: approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left.

Pretty sure most drivers know neither of these rules. 

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

Having had similar, but worse, I can confirm that no law has been broken.  I was surprised that it was so, but when I contacted the police, they pointed out that the legislation doesn't cover overtaking a bicycle at a crossing.  I was sceptical, so checked, and they are right.

Avatar
Philh68 replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

Glad we are smarter in Australia. No overtaking a vehicle on pedestrian crossings, Australian Road rule 82. A bicycle is classed as a vehicle. In general there's much less ambiguity in our road rules.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Philh68 | 3 years ago
1 like

On the other hand, I think that 'driving into cyclists from behind' is almost compulsory in Australia... 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
1 like

As we have seen in the news today, it's the riders fault for being to far out....

Avatar
Philh68 replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
1 like

Yeah, smarter at making rules. Not following them.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Philh68 | 3 years ago
0 likes

I thing that's where the divergence is - bikes are classed as carriages (I think)

It's still a bloody stupid thing to do

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 years ago
3 likes

Close passes and would likely count as careless/without due consideration but an overtake on a crossing is not illegal.

Doesn't help to put something in a headline that is not correct. If you think the law should be updated, then campaign for that.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
5 likes

The editor adds the headline. The correspondent does not mention the word "illegal" and makes clear that cycles do not technically count as vehicles in the underlying legislation of the HC regulation.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
1 like

Yes and then it goes on to say 'it is hard not to interpret...'. No interpretation is required since the terms are defined.

Avatar
alexls replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
0 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

The correspondent ... makes clear that cycles do not technically count as vehicles in the underlying legislation of the HC regulation.

"Though technically in the underlying legislation cycles do not count as vehicles"

This is just as unclear as the phrase he's complaining about.  The underlying legislation is perfectly clear.  He means that the underlying legislation clarifies that the rule does not apply to cycles, but only to motor vehicles.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to alexls | 3 years ago
1 like
alexls wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

The correspondent ... makes clear that cycles do not technically count as vehicles in the underlying legislation of the HC regulation.

"Though technically in the underlying legislation cycles do not count as vehicles"

This is just as unclear as the phrase he's complaining about.  The underlying legislation is perfectly clear.  He means that the underlying legislation clarifies that the rule does not apply to cycles, but only to motor vehicles.

There is no complaint about the law or the phraseology and we all agree that overtaking cycles on a pedestrian crossing is not illegal. I was pointing out to Hirsute that the correspondent never claimed any illegality by the drivers and that it is the road.cc Editor who has added those words to the article title and intro thus creating a pedants feast of misunderstanding.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to alexls | 3 years ago
0 likes

alexls wrote:

He means that the underlying legislation clarifies that the rule does not apply to cycles, but only to motor vehicles.

To engage pedant mode, the legislation can't clarify the rule, since it would pre-date it. Rather, the rule muddies the legislation.

Avatar
alexls replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
1 like

hirsute wrote:

Close passes and would likely count as careless/without due consideration but an overtake on a crossing is not illegal.

If you (the overtaker) are a cyclist, that's true (unless you're overtaking past the stop line through a red light, or flashing amber with a pedestrian on the crossing, of course).

The HC rule "You MUST NOT overtake the moving [motor] vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians." is missing one important word (inserted) present in the ZPPPCRGD which renders the OP and the headline incorrect.  Not sure why the OP thinks cycles don't count as vehicles though.

Avatar
quiff replied to alexls | 3 years ago
4 likes

alexls wrote:

Not sure why the OP thinks cycles don't count as vehicles though.

I think the OP was just trying to make the same point as you that, although the Highway Code says you must not overtake the vehicle nearest the crossing, the underlying law actually only prohibits overtaking the motor vehicle nearest the crossing, ergo overtaking a pedal cycle at a crossing isn't illegal and the headline is incorrect.  

EDIT: they're still both crap bits of driving

Avatar
Awavey replied to quiff | 3 years ago
3 likes

Yes though my view has always been that I doubt the motorist overtaking had taken any of that legal technicality into account,they just ignored the road markings completely like they do no overtaking lines even when you are doing more than 10mph or cycle lanes, because who is going to stop them.

And I still think it counts as driving without due care & attention, as the road markings indicate to an observant road user to be aware it's a pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian maybe obscured by the attempt to overtake the cyclist.

Avatar
quiff replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
2 likes

Oh, totally. If these drivers knew how long we spend analysing the legality and morality of driving they didn't give a second (or indeed first) thought to...

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to quiff | 3 years ago
0 likes

The mischevious part of me wonders if its possible to get an e-bike categorised as as motor vehicle.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
0 likes

Not really due to the limit on assistance and requirement to pedal. The corollary would be the need for insurance, mot etc.

Avatar
Philh68 replied to Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
1 like

Of course it is possible, a derestricted e-bike is classified as a moped or motorcycle and must comply with regulations and be registered and requires MOT. It's the restricted assist speed (cutout at 15.5mph)and pedal activation that removes the requirement from pedelecs.

Latest Comments