1.5m passing cyclist law. Single track roads prevent passing. Roads are 60mph and two way
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- 1.5m passing cyclist law. Single track roads prevent passing. Roads are 60mph and two way. What do you think, should these roads be widened to make them safe for all road users ? Horses, Cyclists, Pedestrians all have to use with vehicles
- Авто та транспорт
Are you sure it’s in the UK? I can’t see any roadside fly tipping, mattresses thrown into the hedges or huge potholes…..
No, they are safe if you drive safely
And they aren't 60mph roads. The speed limit does not indicate the safe speed, but thelegal maximum
The problem with single track roads is now and has always been the volume of traffic that uses them. Without some sort of scientific algorithm to determine a speed restriction, it's down to the cognitive ability of the user and his sense of engagement with other road users to sort things out in an amicable manner. Giving way to the most vunerable user is an ideal, but vunerable users should also consider the need to be considerate towards other traffic and give way when convenient, without feeling an absolute compunction or being in terror of what might happen if they don't.
Note that the '1.5 m at 30mph' rule is a HWC RULE, not a law. The speed refers to the speed the overtaking vehicle is travelling at, not the speed limit on that road. It actually states in the HWC that the rule is a guide. There may be occasions on a narrow road where a safe overtake might be done at less than 1.5m if carried out at a low enough speed, although mostly it is safer to just be patient and wait for a more suitable place.
If anybody were injured and the driver was not observing the Highway Code then the magistrates would find the driver guilty of driving without due care and attention. The HC, whilst guidance, is used by the courts to determine whether the driver was acting in the manner of a reasonably competent practioner of vehicular control.
You will get prosecuted by not complying - and rightly. Just drive by the HWC ffs
Read the updated Highway Code.
Many hundreds of motorists have been prosecuted by the Police for close passes - quite rightly.
@@PeterMarlow-u2i They will have been prosecuted for driving without due care - as you say, quite correctly.
They won't have been prosecuted for breaking the HWC rule that defined the minimum safe distance to pass as that is not law. It's guidance provided to make motorists aware of the sort of precautions they should be taking. For example, a cyclist riding slowly uphill on a windy day may well need a much greater distance than that suggested.That's the distinction that some are having trouble understanding.
If you passed a cyclist at a closer distance than 1.5m on a narrow road at a very low speed, and the pass was otherwise deemed safe, a prosecution may well not succeed.
No, they're country lanes. Well done on being patient, cyclists don't expect you to overtake them with 1.5m when it's physically impossible, just to give as much space as you can.
Is there a sequel video following a tractor?
A gentle reminder that the National Speed limit for the road is 60mph, an overall LIMIT not a target or even the normal safe speed. A driver has the overriding responsibility to drive at a safe speed at all times, in this case it was a cyclist that was holding you up, it could of course have been a couple of skittish horses, a herd of cows or a slow moving tractor and trailer. I have had two cyclist friends killed in the past by impatient drivers going too fast on winding country lanes.
As for widening all country lanes I guess that was a joke! My thoughts are for a Nation wide 30 or 40 limit on such roads, most of the New Forest already has a 40 limit to try and cut the unnecessary casualties amongst the animals, it works.
Unfortunately, saying "it's a limit not a target" is what gives people the mindset that doing 40 in a 60, or doing 30 on a motorway slip road is perfectly okay. Obviously in the case of a country road, you use your brain. But in any other road, if the limit is 60, do 60.
The title is false, the law has NOT changed, the guidance, which is used to convict people of careless driving has been modified to a smaller allowance than previously. Unless you are going to point out all those cars whose width is less than 1.5m?
Read the updated Highway Code.
Many hundreds of motorists have been prosecuted by the Police for close passes - quite rightly.
I didn't really see an issue. Of course it would have been nice for cyclist to let traffic pass sooner but it didn't really cause an issue except to impatient drivers
Imagine you commute to work and find 3 of these a day.
If you are causing a hindrance, pull over let people by.
I drive and cycle, and I do this.
Heck when I drive my motorhome I do this too!
You need a 5m wide road to pass a horse, to give the 2m space advised
Key word- "advised".
It's not law, check the highway code
Read the updated Highway Code.
Many hundreds of motorists have been prosecuted by the Police for close passes - quite rightly.
You can be prosecuted for close passes. This is common practice now - see local police force videos on UA-cam. The Police routinely fine drivers for this now.
They are not 60 mph roads. They are national speed *limit* roads, the exceeding of which is summary, as is squashing a cyclist or pedestrian at any speed.
1.5 M isn't "Law" it's advisory
That's incorrect. Please read the updated Highway Code. Many hundreds of motorists have now been prosecuted for close passing.
You can be prosecuted by the Police for close passing. This is happening quite commonly now.
@@legrandmaitre7112 I tell you what else is happening, head on collisions where passing cars are so concerned with being 2 meters to the right of a bicycle they drive into opposing vehicles
The 1.5 metre thing is dumb af, but this is just poor driving, you had plenty of opportunities to overtake perfectly safely.
This video has almost zero content. A voice-over would have been useful
"1.5m passing a cyclist" is not a law. It's a "should" in the HC which means it's guidance. Sure, it's a good idea, but saying it's impossible on single track roads due to a law is stupid (and wrong).
If there had been an accident, bet your life it would have been the motorist's fault, NOT the cyclist!!
Accident? close passing that results in a cyclist coming off is not an accident, it is a deliberate act by the driver which is a criminal act.
Of course it would be the motorist's fault.
@@PeterMarlow-u2i so a cyclist decides to have a collision with a car just so he gets hurt!
There is the possibility the cyclist did not realise you were there as you were holding back quite far, well done though for being patient, and for those impatient drivers, try walking, after a while you would be happy to go a the same pace as the cyclist.
The cyclist looked back a couple of times and carried on.