Near Miss of the Day 453: Punishment pass on two-abreast cyclists

On 11:46 11 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 11:42:06 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:37 11 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 11:35:00 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

If everyone rode a bicycle, who would pay for the roads the bicycles
ride on?

Council tax payers, as they do now?

Local council receive most of their funding from central government.
It is calculated that 7% of all national tax income is paid by
motorists.

Whereas drivers DAMAGE 100% of road infrastucture and people and houses
and bridges and the air. They should pay MUCH more than the pittance
they already do.

It's not entirely clear on what basis cyclists rest their claim to be allowed
to use roads. Perhaps it relies on indulgence or prioritisation of
minorities.

Would it settle future arguments if cyclists were simply prohibited from
using the roads? I can see a lot of people being upset by that but do
cyclists have an absolute right in law to use the roads?

On 11/08/2020 11:44, Pamela wrote:
On 17:21 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

What an ignorant tosser this driver is.
QUOTE:
One of the most common complaints against cyclists that you will read on
social media or in the comments section of local newspapers is that they
are riding two abreast, even though that is perfectly legal - but it
does seem to have become embedded among a certain section of the
motoring public that it's not allowed, and that riders doing so are
breaking the rules.

Which leads us up to this punishment pass by a van driver on a pair of
cyclists riding side by side on the A4 between Chippenham and Bath -
what's more, one made just as the riders were moving into single file to
allow for a safe overtake.

The video was shot by road.cc reader Jody, who said: "We were chatting
while keeping a keen eye out for cars behind, ready to drop into single
line at the first thought of hindrance to anyone really.

"That wasn’t enough for one Traffic van diver however, who chose to
hold their high speed pass with a horn blast throughout, as they skimmed
their 2-tonne-at-least vehicle past my shoulder, in - I guess -
punishment, for the perceived infraction.

"On the plus side, the view over the hill was beautiful. Angry driver
was probably chewing their steering wheel at that point, so may have
missed it."

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...st-punishment-
pass-276327

I was watching the video and waiting to see this "punishment pass" when it
ended.

All I saw was a van driver overtake some cyclists and make a courtesy toot
to warn them of his presence. Cyclist are prone to wobbling and also not
knowing what is behind them.

In continental countries such toots to announce a vehicles's presence is
very common.

An Italian friend of mine used to sound his car's horn - long and hard -
on crossing a very sharp hump-backed bridge (over a stream) near his
home in Tuscany. Since there were several houses adjacent to the spot,
this mortified me.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:57:11 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 10/08/2020 19:50, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:44:49 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Highway Code will say "[cyclists
should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is
safe to let them do so". Which essentially confirms that old rule.

If you read the story, the cyclists moved into single file to let the
van driver past. Why they then decided to pass by at high speed very
close while leaning on their horn, only they will know. Totally
unnecessary behaviour.

You are deliberately avoiding the point about not obstructing (which
happened when the cyclists were riding in parallel rather than in
series, totally unnecessarily).

Are you suggesting that cyclists should pull over or be squeezed into the
kerb so that the driver can pass without hitting on-coming traffic?
Unbelievable.
I doubt very much a 1.5 passing distance could be observed. in such
circumstances. Highly hazardous.

If it is unsafe for a driver to overtake a car correctly he/she shouldn't
attempt to intimidate cyclists for the sake of a few seconds journey
time. It's wrong. Let's hear you agree.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:37:41 GMT, Pamela wrote:

On 19:44 10 Aug 2020, Pamela said:

On 18:45 10 Aug 2020, JNugent said:

On 10/08/2020 17:21, Simon Mason wrote:
What an ignorant tosser this driver is. QUOTE: One of the most
common
complaints against cyclists that you will read on social media or in
the comments section of local newspapers is that they are riding two
abreast, even though that is perfectly legal - but it does seem to
have become embedded among a certain section of the motoring public
that it's not allowed, and that riders doing so are breaking the
rules.

What about this rule?

Highway Code Rule 168

Being overtaken ... Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass.

The proposed amendment to the Highway Code will say "[cyclists should]
ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to
let
them do so". Which essentially confirms that old rule.

http://bit.ly/3ktyGJ1 -or- http://b.link/3cm4w

The wording is different but provides essentially the same instruction.



Note Carefully the words "safe to do so".


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 12:00:52 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Whereas drivers DAMAGE 100% of road infrastucture and people and houses
and bridges and the air. They should pay MUCH more than the pittance
they already do.

It's not entirely clear on what basis cyclists rest their claim to be allowed
to use roads.

The Highway Code has a full section that relates to cyclists' use of the roads.
Have you ever read a copy?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82

On 11/08/2020 13:37, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:37:41 GMT, Pamela wrote:

On 19:44 10 Aug 2020, Pamela said:

On 18:45 10 Aug 2020, JNugent said:

On 10/08/2020 17:21, Simon Mason wrote:
What an ignorant tosser this driver is. QUOTE: One of the most
common
complaints against cyclists that you will read on social media or in
the comments section of local newspapers is that they are riding two
abreast, even though that is perfectly legal - but it does seem to
have become embedded among a certain section of the motoring public
that it's not allowed, and that riders doing so are breaking the
rules.

What about this rule?

Highway Code Rule 168

Being overtaken ... Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass.

The proposed amendment to the Highway Code will say "[cyclists should]
ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to
let
them do so". Which essentially confirms that old rule.

http://bit.ly/3ktyGJ1 -or- http://b.link/3cm4w

The wording is different but provides essentially the same instruction.



Note Carefully the words "safe to do so".

When is it not safe to ride in single file?

On 11/08/2020 14:01, Simon Mason wrote:

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 12:00:52 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Whereas drivers DAMAGE 100% of road infrastucture and people and houses
and bridges and the air. They should pay MUCH more than the pittance
they already do.

It's not entirely clear on what basis cyclists rest their claim to be allowed
to use roads.

The Highway Code has a full section that relates to cyclists' use of the roads.
Have you ever read a copy?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82

You obviously haven't, otherwise you would be aware of the rule which
says (inter alia): "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to pass".

On 11/08/2020 13:36, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:57:11 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 10/08/2020 19:50, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:44:49 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Highway Code will say "[cyclists
should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is
safe to let them do so". Which essentially confirms that old rule.

If you read the story, the cyclists moved into single file to let the
van driver past. Why they then decided to pass by at high speed very
close while leaning on their horn, only they will know. Totally
unnecessary behaviour.

You are deliberately avoiding the point about not obstructing (which
happened when the cyclists were riding in parallel rather than in
series, totally unnecessarily).

Are you suggesting that cyclists should pull over or be squeezed into the
kerb so that the driver can pass without hitting on-coming traffic?
Unbelievable.

The Highway Code "suggests" this.

I doubt very much a 1.5 passing distance could be observed. in such
circumstances. Highly hazardous.

Tell us: where is this alleged "1.5m" clearance provided for in law?

Which Act?

Which Statutory Instrument?

[here's the space for the eerie silence in response...............]

If it is unsafe for a driver to overtake a car correctly he/she shouldn't
attempt to intimidate cyclists for the sake of a few seconds journey
time. It's wrong. Let's hear you agree.

Who gets to decide what is "safe" or "unsafe"?

And on what basis?

Please be clear in your answer, citing the relevant legislation.

On 14:01 11 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 12:00:52 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Whereas drivers DAMAGE 100% of road infrastucture and people and
houses and bridges and the air. They should pay MUCH more than the
pittance they already do.

It's not entirely clear on what basis cyclists rest their claim to be
allowed to use roads.

The Highway Code has a full section that relates to cyclists' use of the
roads. Have you ever read a copy?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82

How does the Highway Code confer the right to use the road? It offers
guidance for those who do use the roads but it does not guarantee they can
always do so.

On 13:36 11 Aug 2020, Kerr-Mudd,John said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:57:11 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 10/08/2020 19:50, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:44:49 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Highway Code will say "[cyclists
should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is
safe to let them do so". Which essentially confirms that old rule.

If you read the story, the cyclists moved into single file to let the
van driver past. Why they then decided to pass by at high speed very
close while leaning on their horn, only they will know. Totally
unnecessary behaviour.

You are deliberately avoiding the point about not obstructing (which
happened when the cyclists were riding in parallel rather than in
series, totally unnecessarily).

Are you suggesting that cyclists should pull over or be squeezed into the
kerb so that the driver can pass without hitting on-coming traffic?

That would be an excellent idea. Hitting oncoming traffic head on is to be
avoided wherever possible. It is a small price to pay if cyclists get
squeezed closer to the kerb.

Unbelievable.
I doubt very much a 1.5 passing distance could be observed. in such
circumstances. Highly hazardous.

If it is unsafe for a driver to overtake a car correctly he/she shouldn't
attempt to intimidate cyclists for the sake of a few seconds journey
time. It's wrong. Let's hear you agree.