Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[matt_world2004]

I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to suggest here.

Banning use of bells on bikes?

At what point did I say ban bells on bikes. Only they should be used in accordance with how they are described bas being used in the highway code and that is to signal a presence nothing else.

 

[py_megapixel]

At what point did I say ban bells on bikes.

You didn't. But you're incessantly complaining about them, so I'm trying to ask what you propose as a solution to all these problems you are raising.

Only they should be used in accordance with how they are described bas being used in the highway code and that is to signal a presence nothing else.

And the vast majority of cyclists are using them like that. A simple 'ding' once or twice when approaching pedestrians to let them know that they are there, in conjunction with braking sufficiently that they could stop if needed.
Most pedestrians I have come across will choose to step to one side of the path to let me past, which is an entirely sensible thing to do. But I appreciate that not all can do so.
If you take that as aggression, it's hardly the fault of the cyclist.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Fact is, many visually handicapped and otherwise disabled people do not go out much, steps are ubiquitous, crossing roads can be very difficult. When cycling one cannot see from behind whether someone is visually handicapped
..
The arguments about bells are familiar, but whatabout mirrors? I put a mirror on each cycle recently, would not want to do without now

 

[py_megapixel]

The arguments about bells are familiar, but whatabout mirrors? I put a mirror on each cycle recently, would not want to do without now

I've never cycled with mirrors before.
One thing I've noticed from seeing others with mirrors though is that it makes the bicycle appear wider than otherwise which I assume leads to drivers passing wider.

 

[matt_world2004]

And the vast majority of cyclists are using them like that. A simple 'ding' once or twice when approaching pedestrians to let them know that they are there, in conjunction with braking sufficiently that they could stop if needed.
Most pedestrians I have come across will choose to step to one side of the path to let me past, which is an entirely sensible thing to do. But I appreciate that not all can do so.
If you take that as aggression, it's hardly the fault of the cyclist.

You didn't. But you're incessantly complaining about them, so I'm trying to ask what you propose as a solution to all these problems you are raising.




And the vast majority of cyclists are using them like that. A simple 'ding' once or twice when approaching pedestrians to let them know that they are there, in conjunction with braking sufficiently that they could stop if needed.
Most pedestrians I have come across will choose to step to one side of the path to let me past, which is an entirely sensible thing to do. But I appreciate that not all can do so.
If you take that as aggression, it's hardly the fault of the cyclist.

A simple ding once is acceptable, twice is signalling annoyance or telling them to get out of your way

And most cyclists would accept a pedestrian may not be able to move out of the way but some posts on here indicate some cyclists take that as an aggression. People have anologised ringing the bell as the equivilant to saying "excuse me"

Even if accepting that analogy saying excuse me repeatedly is still a form of aggression

Ring Bell once	Excuse me
Ring Bell twice	Excuse me, Excuse me!
Ring bell three times	Excuse me, Excuse me! , EXCUSE ME!

 

[SynthD]

If someone is affected by a bell and/or can’t move out of the way, what is supposed to happen when a cyclist tries to walk their bike past? At some point they will become aware, possibly startled, and try to share the width of the path. Should the cyclist pave a wider path before passing?

 

[matt_world2004]

If someone is affected by a bell and/or can’t move out of the way, what is supposed to happen when a cyclist tries to walk their bike past? At some point they will become aware, possibly startled, and try to share the width of the path. Should the cyclist pave a wider path before passing?

Do you get startled by someone walking past you?

 

[SynthD]

A simple ding once is acceptable, twice is signalling annoyance or telling them to get out of your way

And most cyclists would accept a pedestrian may not be able to move out of the way but some posts on here indicate some cyclists take that as an aggression. People have anologised ringing the bell as the equivilant to saying "excuse me"

Even if accepting that analogy saying excuse me repeatedly is still a form of aggression

Ring Bell once	Excuse me
Ring Bell twice	Excuse me, Excuse me!
Ring bell three times	Excuse me, Excuse me! , EXCUSE ME!

I make attempts to make my presence known early, often so early that they can’t hear me. I ring again when I’m nearer. There is no reliable distance for hearing through wind and other local noises.

Do you get startled by someone walking past you?

I’ve walked past people with headphones and they’ve been just as surprised as when I bike past. But I was answering about the people who choose to go on shared paths but can’t cope with the bell sound.

 

[matt_world2004]

I make attempts to make my presence known early, often so early that they can’t hear me. I ring again when I’m nearer. There is no reliable distance for hearing through wind and other local noises.


I’ve walked past people with headphones and they’ve been just as surprised as when I bike past. But I was answering about the people who choose to go on shared paths but can’t cope with the bell sound.

How fast have you been walking past them to startle them.

But if the bike was a car and there was insufficent room to pass , what is the safe thing to do, wait until a point where it is safe to pass or just pass anyway.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The cyclist hops off to overtake, then has to walk faster than the walker, get far enough in front, then hop on again, seems a bit of a performance

My bells make a friendly 'drrrringg!', not too loud, I think it is a beautiful sound, children love it

 

[Techniquest]

I have not really read these posts, by cripes that is a LOT of debating and arguing!

There is a lot I need to do off-forum, so I will only quickly reply as work in the morning is fast approaching and my to-do list is not decreasing very fast.

My use of my bell, which for the record makes much more of a ringing sound than the pathetic ding on the cheap bells supplied with bikes these days. As a pedestrian who power-walks (yesterday my average was 4.8mph) I often have earphones with noise isolation and pumping music playing. At the same time, I keep my wits about me and if I sense a cyclist behind me I will happily move. If they are coming towards me on a non-shared use pavement, I am less willing to move as they are not allowed on pavements. I won't ride my bike on pavements, unless advertised as shared-use, so I don't expect others to do so. However I would love to see more cyclists make their presence known with a bell, that is what it is there for.

If I'm riding, and there are 3 or 4 people all walking side by side on a shared-use path, then I will sound the bell once with plenty of space. Failure to move even at all gets a repeated ring, after all it is more than reasonable they haven't heard me. Refusal to move on a third sounding of the bell, and it's normally groups of youth not anyone who has issues moving, really winds me up.

As for drivers allowing 1.5 metres of room when passing, I am sure that is what it is meant to be. Or at least a car door's width, it's been a while since I checked. If I can stick my little finger outwards when holding the handlebars and still touch the vehicle passing, which does happen, then I'm sorry but there's a special place in hell for people like that.

For now, that will have to do. Anyone suggesting that sounding a bell means ordering people to move is just crazy. I was brought up to walk on the left, overtake on the right. Never have I seen a suggestion of anything else, and quite frankly walking on the right of a wide pavement makes no sense.

 

[SynthD]

How fast have you been walking past them to startle them.

They become aware of you one way or another. It doesn’t matter if they have good hearing and notice your bell from 50m back or it’s a teenager with headphones registering me as I walk at my adult brisk pace past them. This is why I don’t see the fuss being made over alerting people the right way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The arguments about bells are familiar, but whatabout mirrors? I put a mirror on each cycle recently, would not want to do without now

I'd be wary. I had a serious accident (which could very easily have killed me and has actually been the cause of later health issues) when I turned right having checked a mirror and done a quick sideways blind spot glance. The vibration from the road on the mirror and its small size masked a car, which hit me at (he said) 65mph. It was only because he hit the bike behind the frame and so the wheel took most of the whack that I didn't die - one of those situations where under 1 second was the boundary between injury (as happened), death or no accident at all and just some angry use of the horn.

On a bike always turn your head to check. I'd only go for mirrors - and I'd want them to be large - if I had a neck problem preventing me doing that.

 

[matt_world2004]

They become aware of you one way or another. It doesn’t matter if they have good hearing and notice your bell from 50m back or it’s a teenager with headphones registering me as I walk at my adult brisk pace past them. This is why I don’t see the fuss being made over alerting people the right way.

A cyclist passing me at 2 meters width would not startle me as they are a fair old distance. .

Someone walking past at a meters width would not startle me because that is significantly slower and you hear them go around.or feel the vibrations as they approach.

A cyclist on a bike passing me at closer than 2 metres feels unsafe and intimidating . Like a car passing s cyclist at less than 2 metres .

 

[Bletchleyite]

A cyclist on a bike passing me at closer than 2 metres feels unsafe and intimidating . Like a car passing s cyclist at less than 2 metres .

Even if they are going only slightly faster than you, e.g. the speed of a slowish jogger or someone who simply walks fast as I do?

If so, I think it is your perception that is off. Maybe spend some time in MK and see how it works where it's done properly?

(An odd side effect of the Redways is that dogs in MK don't chase cyclists because they are so used to them - they do elsewhere).

 

[AM9]

As a pedestrian it's advised to walk facing the direction of road traffic, and in my opinion helpful to walk to one side of a shared path, not only to allow bikes through, but also joggers and runners.

A shared space path (as in shared between cyclists and pedestrians) doesn't have road traffic on it because it isn't a highway. The highway code treats pedestrians and cyclists on a shared space as one group, albeit with some capable of travelling faster than others. That's why the recommendation to walk on the side facing traffic only applies on roads that don't have pavements/pedestrian reserved areas where pedestrians are far more vulnerable than vehicle occupants.
As an aside, my rule is to walk on the left of the pavement as well, - that way those nearest the kerb are facing the oncoming road traffic. The only exception to that is when walking on the right-hand side of a one-way road.
Probably the biggest issue I have is pedestrians that assume that if they are in conversation, it's OK for them to keep walking 2 or 3 abreast whether there's room for oncoming person to pass them or not!

 

[duncombec]

A simple ding once is acceptable, twice is signalling annoyance or telling them to get out of your way

And most cyclists would accept a pedestrian may not be able to move out of the way but some posts on here indicate some cyclists take that as an aggression. People have anologised ringing the bell as the equivilant to saying "excuse me"

Even if accepting that analogy saying excuse me repeatedly is still a form of aggression

Ring Bell once	Excuse me
Ring Bell twice	Excuse me, Excuse me!
Ring bell three times	Excuse me, Excuse me! , EXCUSE ME!

Are you talking about twice or three times immediately, or with a pause between each 'ding' to allow for reaction time, wind in the wrong direction etc.? I don't know about you, but I have regularly had to say "excuse me" more than once when walking because people don't hear. To reverse your analogy, are you saying that if you, as a pedestrian, say excuse me and the other person doesn't hear, that you just stick behind them... or do you try again? I rather expect that you try again. That isn't intimidating in the slightest.

Do you get startled by someone walking past you?

No, but then again, I don't get startled by cyclists either, as you seem to do.

A cyclist on a bike passing me at closer than 2 metres feels unsafe and intimidating . Like a car passing s cyclist at less than 2 metres .

You realise 2.0 metres is considered the standard width for a footpath? (see https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/5144/Widths-and-heights-design-standards.pdf)? So according to your (conveniently chosen) width, a cyclist would never be able to pass you in a way you feel safe whilst remaining on the path*. (Not that I want to get into Covid, but Esri UK did a survbey on pavement width in some large cities, and in 34% of cases they weren't even 2 metres wide to begin with (https://www.theguardian.com/world/g...ent-widths-and-social-distancing-esri-uk-maps).

* Segregated cycle paths are obviously wider, but beyond this discussion, which started on shared unsegregated paths, which are often only as wide as a regular footpath. Even so, the implication is that anything less than the pedestrian and the cyclist being on their respective far sides of the available path would be "too close".

 

[Bletchleyite]

A shared space path (as in shared between cyclists and pedestrians) doesn't have road traffic on it because it isn't a highway. The highway code treats pedestrians and cyclists on a shared space as one group, albeit with some capable of travelling faster than others. That's why the recommendation to walk on the side facing traffic only applies on roads that don't have pavements/pedestrian reserved areas where pedestrians are far more vulnerable than vehicle occupants.

Interestingly the MK Redway Code doesn't see it like that, but as "traffic free country lanes", so cycling should be on the left and walking on the right.

MK has had them since its inception in the 1970s, which is longer than most of the UK has (though some main roads in West Lancashire have had them a bit longer). So we know how to do them well.

I'd say the Redway Code exactly sums up how such paths should be used:

Redways - Milton Keynes

Creating a smarter, healthier, greener city - track your bus, join a bike ride, find a walking buddy; travel smarter, healthier, cheaper and greener every day.

www.getsmartertravelmk.org

(In case anyone hadn't twigged, they're called Redways due to the colour of the tarmac, which allows you to easily differentiate between a Redway where cycling is permitted and a pavement where it's not. In new estates typically one side of the road will have a Redway and the other a pavement on the busier roads; to cycle onto smaller roads you go onto the road. They are also visibly distinguished by having a pair of yellow bollards where they meet a road so people know not to park across it and users know to give way)

There's an error in that link that changes the meaning "Horse-riding is permitted on redways, which are part of the bridleway network." should be "Horse-riding is permitted on those redways which are part of the bridleway network." - i.e. some are (signed) Public Bridleways and some are not, and some have Public Bridleways running alongside them, typically unsurfaced which I guess is nicer for the horse.

 

[AM9]

Interestingly the MK Redway Code doesn't see it like that, but as "traffic free country lanes", so cycling should be on the left and walking on the right.

MK has had them since its inception in the 1970s, which is longer than most of the UK has (though some main roads in West Lancashire have had them a bit longer). So we know how to do them well.

I'd say the Redway Code exactly sums up how such paths should be used:

Redways - Milton Keynes

Creating a smarter, healthier, greener city - track your bus, join a bike ride, find a walking buddy; travel smarter, healthier, cheaper and greener every day.

www.getsmartertravelmk.org

(In case anyone hadn't twigged, they're called Redways due to the colour of the tarmac, which allows you to easily differentiate between a Redway where cycling is permitted and a pavement where it's not. In new estates typically one side of the road will have a Redway and the other a pavement on the busier roads; to cycle onto smaller roads you go onto the road. They are also visibly distinguished by having a pair of yellow bollards where they meet a road so people know not to park across it and users know to give way)

There's an error in that link that changes the meaning "Horse-riding is permitted on redways, which are part of the bridleway network." should be "Horse-riding is permitted on those redways which are part of the bridleway network." - i.e. some are (signed) Public Bridleways and some are not, and some have Public Bridleways running alongside them, typically unsurfaced which I guess is nicer for the horse.

Well a few years ago, I was in NYC, taking a walk through Central Park. There was a mix of cyclists/pedestrians and (more through habit), I was walking on the left, (as in facing oncoming cyclists, and there was an obvious tutting that I (we) were on the wrong side and should be on the right at all times, (including 'sidewalks'). In Europe, there's not so much consistency (in some countries cars don't even keep to the right), but in the northern states of western Europe, (Benelux, Germany and Austria) it seems that the custom is to mimic the side of road vehicles, i.e. almost universal walking to the right on pavements/footpaths.

... You realise 2.0 metres is considered the standard width for a footpath? (see https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/5144/Widths-and-heights-design-standards.pdf)? So according to your (conveniently chosen) width, a cyclist would never be able to pass you in a way you feel safe whilst remaining on the path*. (Not that I want to get into Covid, but Esri UK did a survbey on pavement width in some large cities, and in 34% of cases they weren't even 2 metres wide to begin with (https://www.theguardian.com/world/g...ent-widths-and-social-distancing-esri-uk-maps).

* Segregated cycle paths are obviously wider, but beyond this discussion, which started on shared unsegregated paths, which are often only as wide as a regular footpath. Even so, the implication is that anything less than the pedestrian and the cyclist being on their respective far sides of the available path would be "too close".

Actually, there have been some complaints about some footpaths recently converted into shared space paths in St Albans being too narrow with some maintaining that such paths should be 3m wide according to some standard. I can't remember which standard was claimed.

 

[Techniquest]

@Bletchleyite I agree, the Redways sound awesome. I am sorry to hear your accident caused by mirrors has caused health issues, I do hope they're not major. Certainly I won't be making the investment in them, I'm also still on the fence about mounting a camera to my handlebars or helmet. That's partly because I do get bad road rage more than occasionally, and I'd rather not have it recorded!

I certainly never expected such a lot of arguing to occur from my post! As for the poster who suggests riding past pedestrians on a shared-use, non-segregated, path might scare the pedestrians, I cast a look of derision and disbelief. They certainly wouldn't like me and my speed-walks, today for example I smashed 5.17 miles in an hour. I can't imagine what being overtaken by a walker at that speed must look like to anyone else! Certainly a new record over a sustained period of time, smashing yesterday's speed record of 4.8mph!

Yes it is perfectly possible to walk that fast, it takes a lot of effort of course. For anyone wanting to burn fat and quickly, in combination with a low fat, low sugar diet, I present you with your answer. Now the weather is warmer again (beautiful day here in The Ford) there is less reason to sit on the sofa and binge-watching nonsense...

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@Techniquest
Are you getting near to race running, going fast without ever taking both feet off the ground?
I ride a low fixed gear, that could be good for interval training, up to top speed, then use the pedals to slow down hard, then accelerate again..
Traditional interval training involved freewheeling I think

 

[matt_world2004]

.


You realise 2.0 metres is considered the standard width for a footpath? (see https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/5144/Widths-and-heights-design-standards.pdf)? So according to your (conveniently chosen) width, a cyclist would never be able to pass you in a way you feel safe whilst remaining on the path*. (Not that I want to get into Covid, but Esri UK did a survbey on pavement width in some large cities, and in 34% of cases they weren't even 2 metres wide to begin with (https://www.theguardian.com/world/g...ent-widths-and-social-distancing-esri-uk-maps).

* Segregated cycle paths are obviously wider, but beyond this discussion, which started on shared unsegregated paths, which are often only as wide as a regular footpath. Even so, the implication is that anything less than the pedestrian and the cyclist being on their respective far sides of the available path would be "too close".

Then you shouldnt pass them until its wider.. You (as a cyclist) wouldnt want a car passing you on a road that was less than 2 meters wide,

 

[AM9]

Then you shouldnt pass them until its wider.. You (as a cyclist) wouldnt want a car passing you on a road that was less than 2 meters wide,

So the cyclists (and pedestrians) that terrify you are about 1.8m wide then!

 

[duncombec]

Then you shouldnt pass them until its wider.. You (as a cyclist) wouldnt want a car passing you on a road that was less than 2 meters wide,

This is fast moving from the sublime to the ridiculous.

You have made up some arbitrary distance for cyclists to pass pedestrians based on your personal preference, and are now telling others what we should and shouldn't do like it is some sort of rule? I suggest you bring this up with an official body and see what they think... Unfortunately you are a little late for the DfT/Cycling UK review of the Highway Code, as that consultation closed in October 2020.

You are also suggesting that a cyclist should overtake a pedestrian at greater width than the guidance for a car overtaking a cyclist (@Techniquest , I've seen what you refer to now - I hadn't seen it specified before), or indeed a car overtaking another car? Or also, that even on a segregated cycle/footpath, that a cyclist shouldn't overtake a pedestrian even if they remain on their respective sides of the path, given the total path width is unlikely to allow 2m distance?

Indeed, Cycling UK doesn't quote specifically where, but does say some countries only advise 1m distance for a car overtaking a cyclist at speeds of lower than 31mph (https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/what-should-highway-code-say-about-overtaking-distances). Given the average non-competitive cyclist is unlikely to reach 30mph - and those that are are unlikely to be using the cycle path anyway, but be on the road!), surely you cannot be claiming that a pedestrian is in need of more protection from a cyclist than a cyclist or pedestrian from a car?

I'm quite comfortable with cars passing me (as both a pedestrian and a cyclist) less than 2m away - I'd estimate it happens about 50% of the time before I even reach the end of the road!

I appreciate you may have had some bad experiences in the past, or indeed that you may yourself have a particular sensory difficulty with cyclists or others getting too close to you, but I'm afraid unless you produce anything to the contrary, there simply isn't anything to back up your claims of what "shouldn't" occur.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well a few years ago, I was in NYC, taking a walk through Central Park. There was a mix of cyclists/pedestrians and (more through habit), I was walking on the left, (as in facing oncoming cyclists, and there was an obvious tutting that I (we) were on the wrong side and should be on the right at all times, (including 'sidewalks'). In Europe, there's not so much consistency (in some countries cars don't even keep to the right), but in the northern states of western Europe, (Benelux, Germany and Austria) it seems that the custom is to mimic the side of road vehicles, i.e. almost universal walking to the right on pavements/footpaths.

To be fair the "opposite side so you see the threat" thing is very much a UK thing, I remember doing a Scout activity with some Dutch kids and Leaders years ago and was quite surprised they didn't do that and didn't quite understand why I wanted to.

Then you shouldnt pass them until its wider.. You (as a cyclist) wouldnt want a car passing you on a road that was less than 2 meters wide,

As cars are typically not far off 2m wide, that would be physically impossible. But as on the footpath, if I was unnecessarily delaying a car behind me for a considerable distance when cycling I would be aware of it and would pull over at the first sensible opportunity to allow them to pass. Because that's simply what a considerable, unselfish person will do, regardless of the law.

Clearly some drivers pass too close to cyclists, but I'd have no problem with being passed with a 1m gap if the car slowed to only be going slightly faster than I was cycling. Sometimes that is necessary, best if both parties work together to make it work.

@Bletchleyite I agree, the Redways sound awesome. I am sorry to hear your accident caused by mirrors has caused health issues, I do hope they're not major.

It's not secret as such, but the issue is that the damage to my knee (which I landed hard on from a considerable way up in the air) has caused me to get repeated blood clots (DVTs) and thus end up on Warfarin permanently to stop them. Those who planned to attend the MK meal back in June/July might recall I ducked out, and said clots migrating to my lungs causing severe shortness of breath were the reason I didn't. To be fair taking that does have one entertaining thing going for it - I can joke about eating rat poison and wave the box at my sister's pet rats

I also have different-sized calves as a result, one of them fairly normal, the other looking a bit like I have done lots of one legged squats. Though nobody tends to notice unless I point it out.

In some ways as it was my own stupid fault (the driver wasn't speeding, and knowing the road concerned wouldn't have been, he said he was doing 65 and that's what I would have been doing at that same location) I can't get angry about it or feel aggrieved - I made an error and paid for it myself - nobody else to get upset with. So that's I guess an upside.

 

[Non Multi]

In the Netherlands there's a lot more traffic calming, so they're probably more used to vehicular traffic slowly pottering about.

 

[AM9]

... As cars are typically not far off 2m wide, that would be physically impossible. But as on the footpath, if I was unnecessarily delaying a car behind me for a considerable distance when cycling I would be aware of it and would pull over at the first sensible opportunity to allow them to pass. Because that's simply what a considerable, unselfish person will do, regardless of the law.

Clearly some drivers pass too close to cyclists, but I'd have no problem with being passed with a 1m gap if the car slowed to only be going slightly faster than I was cycling. Sometimes that is necessary, best if both parties work together to make it work. ...

I checked for a typical car width. The current Ford Focus can be up to 1844mm wide.
The worst dangerous pass I've had was last year (when the roads were almost deserted). On the A4147 Leverstock Green road between King Harry Roundabout and the M1 bridge, there was a car approaching going eastwards and somebody came from behimng with about 0.5 metres clearance at about 60mph.
It was about here:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7437556,-0.379546,3a,75y,263.59h,86.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sja7kAqyDjZEns5kGkQXCvw!2e0!6s//geo2.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=ja7kAqyDjZEns5kGkQXCvw&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=339.003&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192
Mindless!

 

[matt_world2004]

This is fast moving from the sublime to the ridiculous.

You have made up some arbitrary distance for cyclists to pass pedestrians based on your personal preference, and are now telling others what we should and shouldn't do like it is some sort of rule? I suggest you bring this up with an official body and see what they think... Unfortunately you are a little late for the DfT/Cycling UK review of the Highway Code, as that consultation closed in October 2020.

You are also suggesting that a cyclist should overtake a pedestrian at greater width than the guidance for a car overtaking a cyclist (@Techniquest , I've seen what you refer to now - I hadn't seen it specified before), or indeed a car overtaking another car? Or also, that even on a segregated cycle/footpath, that a cyclist shouldn't overtake a pedestrian even if they remain on their respective sides of the path, given the total path width is unlikely to allow 2m distance?

Indeed, Cycling UK doesn't quote specifically where, but does say some countries only advise 1m distance for a car overtaking a cyclist at speeds of lower than 31mph (https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/what-should-highway-code-say-about-overtaking-distances). Given the average non-competitive cyclist is unlikely to reach 30mph - and those that are are unlikely to be using the cycle path anyway, but be on the road!), surely you cannot be claiming that a pedestrian is in need of more protection from a cyclist than a cyclist or pedestrian from a car?

I'm quite comfortable with cars passing me (as both a pedestrian and a cyclist) less than 2m away - I'd estimate it happens about 50% of the time before I even reach the end of the road!

I appreciate you may have had some bad experiences in the past, or indeed that you may yourself have a particular sensory di

It is not an arbitrary distance it is the distance recommended in the highway code for vehicles to overtake other vehicles (particularly cyclists)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not an arbitrary distance it is the distance recommended in the highway code for vehicles to overtake other vehicles (particularly cyclists)

Where in the Highway Code does it specify a need to be 2m from the vehicle you are overtaking, exactly? I can't find it.

 

[matt_world2004]

Where in the Highway Code does it specify a need to be 2m from the vehicle you are overtaking, exactly? I can't find it.

Well I was taught during driving lessons that you leave a cars width when passing cyclists to minimise risk of injury for if they fall over while your overtaking and to not intimidate them. Is that incorrect?