Cyclists are a nuisance -- from our local rag.

[Veloman]

Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?

Obviously the motorist as clearly outlined in the HC:

129
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.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26 (My Bold)

So if the cyclist is doing <10mph (or pragmatically >10mph) then motorist makes the decision.  If the cyclist feels it is unsafe they have the option of riding in the Primary Position.

Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers

Obviously not meant to be serious, but also tosh IMO as I know a few drivers who do not consider themselves above average drivers and limit their driving as a result of this self awareness.

[mcshroom]

Yep, law breaking in a motor vehicle - pragmatism

You are far safer behind me than trying to squeeze past me when your view of the road ahead is restricted. The lines are painted because it has been decided that the views are restricted and you are not fully able to make that decision.

 Does this free reign to break the law be 'pragmatic' extend to passing tractors (round here they drive at about 15-20mph)? Maybe horses? or is this just reserved to 'must pass cyclist' incidents?

[Veloman]

The lines are painted because it has been decided that the views are restricted and you are not fully able to make that decision.

Which by that reasoning means that even when the cyclist is travelling at 10mph or less you are not fully able to make a decision as to whether it is safe to overtake and therefore will be unable to overtake without risk even though it is legally acceptable.

Does this free reign to break the law be 'pragmatic' extend to passing tractors (round here they drive at about 15-20mph)? Maybe horses? or is this just reserved to 'must pass cyclist' incidents?

Read the HC to get your answer:

129
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.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Whether you overtake the tractor is your decision based on whether you want to obey the law in a littoral sense or apply a degree of pragmatism requiring judgement.

Fortuitously, there is a degree of pragmatism exercised by Police as I have outlined with regards to lighting (HC 60) and that also extends to Audax as I believe we are expected to follow the appropriate law or risk the consequences.

I freely admit to breaking the law when I have been driving by going ahead of a Stop Line on more than one occasion.  Glad the ambulance/police/fire behind me appreciated my pragmatic solution to enabling them to pass, even though I was breaking the law (in a littoral sense).

This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.  I only hope those espousing littoral interpretation of the law on this matter are not guilty of choosing when to apply a certain standard that is not maintained at all times, including cycling at night!

[David Martin]

This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.

This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?

[Veloman]

This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?

Can it not be both?

[red marley]

Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers

Obviously not meant to be serious, but also tosh IMO as I know a few drivers who do not consider themselves above average drivers and limit their driving as a result of this self awareness.

Illusory superiority is a well known effect, especially with respect to driving. An anecdote about someone who does not consider themselves above average doesn't really enlighten.

It's an important point because it demonstrates that discretionary pragmatism has to be treated very carefully when it is allied with apparent personal gain. A good example is the lowering of urban speed limits from 30 to 20 mph and the consequent reduction in KSIs. It had often been argued that imposing slow speed limits was dangerous because attending to them would distract people from making safer and more pragmatic judgements about safe speed. The reality was that 20 mph zones demonstrate that when given the choice, drivers were routinely driving too fast for the prevailing conditions.

[hellymedic]

This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.

This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?

Are you discussing this littorally?
(She who has been to Millport)

[pcolbeck]

Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?

Double white lines are placed in areas where it is considered unsafe to overtake. Should we just hand that decision making process over to the person behind the wheel, who is also considering whether they are going to be late, or what is for dinner, or far to often, what someone else has just said to them on the phone?

Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers

That's why the condition attached to overtaking on double whites is that the vehicle you are overtaking should be travelling at 10mph or less. The distance required to overtake such a slow moving vehicle is much shorter than that required for one travelling at 50 or 60 mph.  You may have plenty of visibility to see that the road is clear far enough ahead to overtake something doing 10mph but not something going faster than that.

[Veloman]

Illusory superiority is a well known effect, especially with respect to driving.

Perhaps it is also time to consider Illusory Superiority of cyclists or those who contribute to forums?

[mcshroom]

Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?

Double white lines are placed in areas where it is considered unsafe to overtake. Should we just hand that decision making process over to the person behind the wheel, who is also considering whether they are going to be late, or what is for dinner, or far to often, what someone else has just said to them on the phone?

Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers

That's why the condition attached to overtaking on double whites is that the vehicle you are overtaking should be travelling at 10mph or less. The distance required to overtake such a slow moving vehicle is much shorter than that required for one travelling at 50 or 60 mph.  You may have plenty of visibility to see that the road is clear far enough ahead to overtake something doing 10mph but not something going faster than that.

Veloman is arguing that this law is a basis for 'pragmatically' passing cyclists going faster than 10mph.

'Pragmatism' in this case seems little more than a justification of placing a driver's desire to make progress higher than the safety of the person whom they are overtaking.

[Veloman]

That's why the condition attached to overtaking on double whites is that the vehicle you are overtaking should be travelling at 10mph or less. The distance required to overtake such a slow moving vehicle is much shorter than that required for one travelling at 50 or 60 mph.  You may have plenty of visibility to see that the road is clear far enough ahead to overtake something doing 10mph but not something going faster than that.

Quite correct and that is why a pragmatic solution to overtaking a relatively slow moving vehicle such as a cycle going at 15mph is better than causing a queue behind that only serves to antagonise motorists and support the belief that cyclists are a nuisance.

[mcshroom]

So it is better to endanger the cyclist than have the car drivers behind consider them a nuisance!

[pcolbeck]

I would say that the cyclist should slow to 10mph to let the car past. Consideration works both ways. Anyway no one wants a car crawling along behind them for several miles.

[Veloman]

So it is better to endanger the cyclist than have the car drivers behind consider them a nuisance!

Might I suggest you consider the requirement that in order to overtake it has to be safe to do so and the relative slow speeds would enable a decision to be made on the basis of safety by the motorist (as not all motorists are morons).  Also, I would rather have the vehicle behind me make a pragmatic decision to overtake me in safety rather than stay behind me, irritate drivers which could result in them making bad decisions and generally do nothing for the PR between cyclist and motorist which might result in poor decisions being made.

By the way, I believe that although Bikepacker stated 23 motorists broke the law by overtaking him, he did not appear to feel threatened or endangered, otherwise I would have expected him to comment on the safety of the manoeuvre, which he didn't.  It appears that at least some of the overtaking was a pragmatic outcome of a decision by the motorist that kept traffic flowing and everyone got home safe.

[Veloman]

I would say that the cyclist should slow to 10mph to let the car past. Consideration works both ways. Anyway no one wants a car crawling along behind them for several miles.

Very sensible and we often pull-in to enable a car to pass along a lane for exactly the same reasons.

[mcshroom]

So do I, but that leaves the decision about whether the cyclist is safe to the cyclist, not to someone with an ulterior motive in the car or cars behind.

What is the difference in distance that you need to be able to see clearly between overtaking someone at 10 mph and overtaking the same person going at 15 mph?

[pcolbeck]

What is the difference in distance that you need to be able to see clearly between overtaking someone at 10 mph and overtaking the same person going at 15 mph?

That's a how long is a piece of string question. Depends entirely on how fast the car can accelerate. Its going to be a completely different answer for a Nissan Micra and a Porche 911.
Quite a lot of the highway rules have been the same for decades which is interesting given that the average family car now accelerates faster, has a higher top speed, handles better and brakes quicker than most sports cars at the time the rules were formulated. You could argue that the 10mph rules should be changed to 15mph. The counter argument is that although the cars are much better traffic is heavier so its more likely that something is coming the other way much more rapidly than it would have done in the past.

[mcshroom]

The counter argument, just as it is in the speed awareness courses, is that although the cars might be more developed, there has been no corresponding upgrade of the driver behind the wheel.

[LEE]

White lines are just Paint.
They are not some sort of force-field.

The law (actually common sense) says it's OK to cross them if you are trying to pass a slow moving vehicle.  I certainly do.

They are designed to warn you against the danger of overtaking a car on certain stretches of road.  Most sensible people don't need them, they recognise the impending danger, but obviously some people do.

It's become clear to me that some drivers see them as a force-field.  Some drivers would, on totally deserted road, rather squeeze by me, at 3am, than cross the force-field.  They are stupid people, they don't realise it's just paint.

It's just paint.

Like drivers who drive all the way around mini-roundabouts....it's just paint, they are symbolic, drive across them.

[mattc]

Well put Mr Metcalfe.

[Diver300]

It's become clear to me that some drivers see them as a force-field.  Some drivers would, on totally deserted road, rather squeeze by me, at 3am, than cross the force-field.  They are stupid people, they don't realise it's just paint.

It's just paint.

If you are cycling at more than 10 mph, drivers are legally required not to cross the white lines.

Are we complaining about drivers sticking to the law?

If you think that drivers should break the law for their convenience, when they could perfectly well stay behind until it is safe as well as legal to overtake, how can you complain when they break other laws?

[JBB]

White lines are just Paint.


Like drivers who drive all the way around mini-roundabouts....it's just paint, they are symbolic, drive across them.

Fine if there's no-one else there - otherwise one of my pet hates - especially when that action forces me to cede priority when in fact it is mine.

[bikepacker]

For many years I have fought for improved cycling safety but in debates I am always getting it thrown at me that cyclists are guilty breaking road laws. What I never thought was I would read comments on this forum from cyclists who are advocating it is okay for motorists to break road laws and put cyclists in danger.

[Veloman]

The counter argument, just as it is in the speed awareness courses, is that although the cars might be more developed, there has been no corresponding upgrade of the driver behind the wheel.

(My Bold)

No personal experience of speed awareness course having never been on one.  Have you?

Agreed the driver reaction times (thinking distance) have not changed, but ability of cars have, so things like overall stopping distance has actually decreased for a given speed as the vehicles braking system has become more efficient.  I am totally confident that my vehicle can stop in less than 96m when travelling at 70mph having had to put it to the test through no fault of mine!

Glad that someone on the Forum (Paul Metcalfe) is prepared to adopt the pragmatic approach and I think we all have to realise that if we expect motorists to obey the letter of the law then we should all do the same in every aspect of our life which, as stated upstream, many will fail on the pedal reflector or rear reflector required when cycling at night.

[Veloman]

What I never thought was I would read comments on this forum from cyclists who are advocating it is okay for motorists to break road laws and put cyclists in danger.

Did you feel endangered?  In reality were you in danger?

I have also experienced the very situation you described and was thankful the cars broke the law rather than trying to squeeze past me and not cross the lines or stay behind when it was clearly safe to overtake a relatively slow moving vehicle.  Staying behind me would only have caused tail-backs and more vehicles queuing up overtake.

I believe cyclists and motorists need to co-exist and if staying behind me because I'm cycling at 12mph instead of 10mph, when it is safe to overtake, is the measure we are using to define acceptable behaviour then I think we need to reset the gyros.

If you would wish vehicles to stay behind you if you were cycling at 12mph, even though they could safely overtake, and thereby obey the letter of the law, then I can see why some motorists would consider cyclists a nuisance on the road.  If we adopt a pragmatic approach and accept that overtaking, in a safe manner, the cyclist going at 12mph is breaking the letter of the law but is beneficial to both parties, then perhaps cyclists and motorists will co-exist more harmoniously.

Alternatively, we could all insist the letter of the law is obeyed in all aspects, including when we cycle, so: pedal reflectors?  always come to a complete stop at Stop Lines?  Hmm, I'm guilty as charged m'Lord and I freely admit it (also chuffed to bits at setting-off display to show I was doing 38mph in a 30mph zone, but is was downhill at night with no other person or car around).  Only hope all those other cyclists I have had the pleasure cycling with can also freely admit their breaking of the letter of the law.