A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Morgrim]

I'm not sure if this is an Australian thing or just a local thing, but when I was in primary school we had a 'bike week' where the police came and taught us all the road rules as they related to bikes and we had to do courses and a test on it. We didn't get a formal licence at the end but it was rather similar to what you do when you're getting your car licence. Riding on the road is less common in my area though because a lot of the paths are deliberately designed and dual use and split into lanes so as to reduce cyclist/pedestrian friction. (Most of the roads into or out of the city are freeways and bikes are forbidden from them because they can't make the minimum speed limit, so ensuring there are cycle paths is the only option.)

[Wolfshade]

In the UK there used to be a "Cycling Proficiency" test run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and most schools had a trained assessor to schools to train those to use the road and then those who passed got a certificate. This has been superceeded by Bikeability which is ran from central government (Department of Transport) via local government. Though you can get them to train any group.

There are three levels and correspond to different age groups ([url]http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/the-three-levels/[/url])

Cycling is prohibited on motorways, but there are only two I think roads in England with a minimum speed limit. There is little joined up infrastructure, but some of what exists are just painted on road lanes which run out abruptly or have parked vehicles in them

[Denzark]

I'm not asking for concessions, I am asking for the same rights and privelliges. I am allowed to cycle down the middle of the road if I want, I should be granted the same space that a car is given while being overtaken. But that isn't the case.

You see Wolfy this illustrates a major fact of what is wrong with British society - people talk about rights and not duty. You do currently have the same rights as anybody. You can come on the road unmolested - if anyone deliberately does anything unsafe/unlawful there are sanctions - this is equally apparent whether you use the road ensconsed in your car or on your bike. You can't be given any more rights as those currently in existence are sufficient for your safe passage from a to b. Admittedly this assumes people will comply with the RTA - but there is no new allocation of 'rights' that will make them more susceptible to do so.

As to cycling down the middle of the road, I did my ROSPA certificate many decades ago - but I still remember they taught to cycle as far over (around 90cm) from the edge of the pavement as possible - not down the middle. And also to go single file - something the lycra bandits in their amateur pelotons seem to forget. I don't however recall a mandatory distance that a car should overtake by - it is the minimum safe distance to get around.

So why does your 'right' to do these things outweigh the rights of the car user to drive at the speed limit, unimpeded by cyclists?

[Psychosplodge]

I do remember when I was learning to drive my instructor telling me the minimum safe distance to pass a cyclist is the space for them to topple over sideways without going under your wheels, which is probably impossible if they're 2+ abreast...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I do remember when I was learning to drive my instructor telling me the minimum safe distance to pass a cyclist is the space for them to topple over sideways without going under your wheels, which is probably impossible if they're 2+ abreast...

[url]https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169[/url]
Bam.
In short, a driver is not overtaking a cyclist "safely" as defined by the existing rules and regs if they A) do so in the same lane and B) do so in a no overtaking area.
How many motorists have you seen do that!?!

[Wolfshade]

I know on paper that I do currently have those rights, but the number of times that I have had to take evasive action to avoid being hit by vehicles who fail to give way to me when I legally have right of way, or have vehicles try and turn through me and passess so close that I could touch the vehicle with my elbow, I don't have any of these experiances when in my car. You only have to look to how the CPS and Police deal with these to suggest that there needs to be a see-change in society.

There is nothing in law that mandates where anyone using a road is positioned as long as they are in one lane. If I want to cycle just to the left of the central white line I am legally allowed to do that, and should be able to do that without being hounded (of course common sense tells me not to do it). The centre of lane offers the best visibility for a cyclist to see and be seen, many collisions where cars turn ut of side roads into cyclists is because they are too far in and car drivers expect to see other road users in certain sections of the road.

Single file - again, this is not required under law. You are again restricting what I can and can't do even though there is no law to support this.

You should:
...
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
...

Note that what consitutes as narrow and busy is not defined. So I will ride two abreast if it is not busy or on narrow roads, though to be honest I prefer single file as I get a better slip stream.

There is no quoted figure for the minimum distance, the code states:

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215).

The image suggests you should clear your lane but nothing is mandated. In Europe there are various defined figures between 1 - 1.5m . There was a campaign to clarrify this to a minimum of 3' though that never got anywhere.

Your last line is pure gold, not withstanding that for large chunks of my personal journey are at the speed of free flow traffic.
There is nothing in law that requires you to drive at the maximum speed limit. It isn't a right but a duty not to exceed it.

This is what happens when motorists think they have a right to make the speed limit. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047[/url]

As a motorist my right to the same application of the laws of the road, or the manner in which I am treated on the road are not dependent on the speed along which I drive. If I were to drive at 20mph through a 40mph zone I would have the same rights as if I were driving at 40mph. Your rights are not speed dependant.

Also, there are parts of my journey where I can exceed the speed limit (non-motorised transport are excempt from speed limits except under particular circumstances) so at these points because I can and do go faster than cars should I have a greater right to use the road?

[Denzark]

We are starting to drill down into this now. There is clearly a difference between rights and courtesy. In accordance withrule 163, I must not 'get too close to the vehicle i intend to overtake'. And I must give 'at least as much room as I would a car'.

As you said, there is no minimum safe distance stipulated in law - you stated an attempt to make it 3' went nowhere. So, it is my right as the car driver, to judge what is too close and what isn't - and to give you as much room as I would a car.

So, if I would normally give a car 1cm clearance, I can do that to a cyclist - nothing prohibits that. And there is no obligation to consider what a cyclist considers safe beyond what I consider safe. If I pull off a manouevre without causing the cyclist injury, he is by definition safe - even if he is soiling his lycra in abject terror.

I wouldn't do that of course - not becuase I see anything in law that stops me but because it would be discourteous. However it would seem I would not be rewarded by a similar courtesy of not hogging the middle of the road, going in single file (all best practise according to ROSPA) or not pootling along at 20 in a 40.

And thats why the cyclists have no sympathy - becuase they think it should all be slated their way. And with a sense of entitlement and moral rectitude because they probably do not contribute to either the pollution or obesity rates.

[Wolfshade]

I think your 1cm pass would be invalidated by rule 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
...when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down...

If you passed me with a 1cm gap from your wing mirror (I hope) then I would swerve out of your way. So it is not just what you feel comfortable with it is what the vehicle you are overtaking feels comfortable with.


I am not sure what point you are trying to make here:

I wouldn't do that of course - not becuase I see anything in law that stops me but because it would be discourteous. However it would seem I would not be rewarded by a similar courtesy of not hogging the middle of the road, going in single file (all best practise according to ROSPA) or not pootling along at 20 in a 40.

And thats why the cyclists have no sympathy - becuase they think it should all be slated their way. And with a sense of entitlement and moral rectitude because they probably do not contribute to either the pollution or obesity rates.

[This may not be related to what you are saying above] While it is not incumbant to have courtsey I would like to think most people do, and rights are universal, irrespecitve if you are being the least courteous white van driver. For instance if I am filtering to lights cars will often nugde away to make more space for me. My road position changes with what I am doing, if I am keeping up with traffic I will "take the lane" (or primary position) if the traffic starts to get away from me I will move to a secondary position, as close to the curb as I feel is safe, similiarly when I know I need to slow down. Studies have shown that the cyclists attitude/disposition affects the over taking drivers behaviour. If I wear a helmet and lycra/hi-viz cars will pass me closer than if I am just in normal clothes as they percieve that I am more experianced and therefore more predictable. Also, the distance between curb and bike reflects (almost exactly) to the gap over taking vehicles give the bike. So if I ride within 1' of the curb chances are cars will overtake me witha 1' gap, it is not till you are in the centre of the lane that cars will give you an entire lane to yourself. So for me to mitigate the risk to myself I have to take that primary position. Now I manage the risk based on my speed, road layout, road surface etc. so I will vary where I am on the road, if we are approaching blind corners I will take more road, similiarly at pinch points and where bollards exist, just to discourage the vehicle squeezing past me.

I don't think it should be all slated my way, I think I should be given the same space and consideration as any other road user. You wouldn't half overtake another car then turn left, but that happens, you wouldn't fail to give way to a HGV already on a round-a-bout but this happens. Do I think red light jumping cyclists should be fined? Yes, but then so should cars/lorries/busses universality.

[Psychosplodge]

Well I did get a minor for going straight through a gap between a a parked car and oncoming car with no change of speed, but I think I'd probably leave a cyclist a bit more space...
I really need to understand why women in small cars like micras and clios think a head on collision is preferable to them clipping the kerb on their side?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

My Mrs tends to drift left (pffh) and therefore I'm always surprised by how far right some cars seem to end up!