UK and Europe · Public discussion

Highway code

Started by Coyoteboy · · Last activity · 14 posts · 894 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
20 November 2007
Last activity
23 November 2007
Original author
Coyoteboy
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
894
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. You see its about taking care of the people who are vulnerable, not just
    "I'm in a car and roads are made for cars". When you're driving a car
    you are driving a lethal object, as you always told me. Roads are made
    for everyone to use, as a driver AND a cyclists I drive around cyclists
    as I would like other people to drive near me. As a non-cyclist you have
    forgotten what its like to have 2 tons of BMW hurtling at you 2ft from
    your elbow.

    Section "Road users requiring extra care" [by motorists]

    Rule 213:

    Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
    surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches
    on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to
    any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

    Rule 163 (Note example picture)
    "...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room
    as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)"
    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

    As for overtaking cyclists with double white lines, rule 129, note the
    exemption for cases of cyclists and horses traveling <10mph:

    Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you
    MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
    adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary,
    provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a
    pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling
    at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

    Hence if they are going >10mph you MUST stay behind them.

    Like it or not, its the law by which you will be judged 😉

  2. Hmmm, that whole email thing again.

  3. Coyoteboy said:

    Hmmm, that whole email thing again.

    OK, now that you've woken us up, you can't leave us dangling. Prey
    tell us to whom you were intending to write, and what they did to
    require correction.

    David Lloyd

  4. David Lloyd said:
    Coyoteboy said:

    Hmmm, that whole email thing again.

    OK, now that you've woken us up, you can't leave us dangling. Prey
    tell us to whom you were intending to write, and what they did to
    require correction.

    David Lloyd

    Father 🙂 Was moaning about cyclist wobbling when stood up pedaling.
    Escalated into an argument about highway code quotations as he didn't
    believe me. To be fair they didn't say exactly what I thought they did
    but they point in the same general direction. It was one of those times
    where we both come out with a comment and then refuse to back down lol.

  5. Coyoteboy said:

    Father 🙂 Was moaning about cyclist wobbling when stood up pedaling.

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

  6. POHB said:
    Coyoteboy said:

    Father 🙂 Was moaning about cyclist wobbling when stood up pedaling.

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    Close, ISTR that a cyclist cannot do anything but wobble, we proceed
    by a series of swerves.

  7. LSMike said:
    POHB said:
    Coyoteboy said:

    Father 🙂 Was moaning about cyclist wobbling when stood up pedaling.


    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    Close, ISTR that a cyclist cannot do anything but wobble, we proceed
    by a series of swerves.

    If sat down I'm fairly sure that I can proceed without wobbling, but its
    hard work. I think his original point was that standing up and thrashing
    like the guy was (was on a dual slalom on the road with a 36 tooth ring
    going uphill) wobbling in about 1ft magnitude waves and that that was
    unnecessary. I argued the point but it got a tad heated and ended up
    arguing about the rights and wrongs of bikes being treated differently
    to cars on the road.

  8. Coyoteboy said:

    If sat down I'm fairly sure that I can proceed without wobbling, but its
    hard work.

    This comes up from time to time. It's impossible to ride in a dead
    straight line. With a skillful rider at speed the curves are so slight
    they are imperceptible but they are there. If you doubt this try to
    ride with your headset locked.

    --
    Dave...

  9. dkahn400 said:
    Coyoteboy said:

    If sat down I'm fairly sure that I can proceed without wobbling, but its
    hard work.

    This comes up from time to time. It's impossible to ride in a dead
    straight line. With a skillful rider at speed the curves are so slight
    they are imperceptible but they are there. If you doubt this try to
    ride with your headset locked.

    --
    Dave...

    True, considering roads aren't dead straight either I wouldnt expect it
    to be practicable 🙂

  10. POHB said:

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    I heard that years ago. There are a few unauthoritative references to
    its being a ruling but I'be never been able to find a good reference
    to it.

    --
    Dave...

  11. dkahn400 said:
    POHB said:

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    I heard that years ago. There are a few unauthoritative references to
    its being a ruling but I'be never been able to find a good reference
    to it.

    a cursory search of http://www.bailii.org for "bicycle, wobble"
    didn't help but someone with mroe perseverance might be successful

    best wishes
    james

  12. On Nov 21, 12:12 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    dkahn400 said:

    On Nov 20, 4:57 pm, POHB <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    Quoted message said:

    I heard that years ago. There are a few unauthoritative references to
    its being a ruling but I'be never been able to find a good reference
    to it.

    a cursory search ofhttp://www.bailii.orgfor "bicycle, wobble"
    didn't help but someone with mroe perseverance might be successful

    best wishes
    james

    Best I can find is:
    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/1998/104.html&query=cyclist+and+wobble&method=boolean

    The clearance left in the circumstances, to accommodate such features
    as the body of the cyclist and the natural wobble of a cycle was
    small.

    Tim.

  13. In article <47821bf3-5b33-4098-9c66-e4f930373361
    @w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    dkahn400 said:
    POHB said:

    A cyclist is entitled to wobble. I'm sure I read that a judge ruled
    that many years ago, but I can't find a reference. Anybody?

    I heard that years ago. There are a few unauthoritative references to
    its being a ruling but I'be never been able to find a good reference
    to it.

    a cursory search of http://www.bailii.org for "bicycle, wobble"
    didn't help but someone with mroe perseverance might be successful

    A cursory search for Crank v Brooks shows that it does not include one
    of the key cases in cycling law so I wonder how much is likely to be
    there on matters relevant to cycling.

    --
    Tony

    "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
    taken place"
    George Bernard Shaw

  14. Quoted message said:


    Best I can find is:
    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/1998/104.html&query=cyclist+and+wobble&method=boolean

    The clearance left in the circumstances, to accommodate such features
    as the body of the cyclist and the natural wobble of a cycle was
    small.

    In the above case said:

    He considered that a distance of 0.7 metres was not enough to enable the vehicle to pass a cyclist in safety. Asked as to what was a necessary minimum separation for safe passing, he indicated that 0.85 metres complete separation was an absolute minimum; even that was dangerously close. In excess of 1 metre would be more appropriate. The Highway Code recommended that a driver of a vehicle should give the same clearance to a cyclist as would be given to a motor vehicle. Very few motorists gave a clearance of less than 0.85 metres. In this connection he made reference to paragraph 87 of the 1987 edition of the document.

    Which means that if you can reach out and touch a car that is passing
    you, then it is far too close.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.