Highway code rule 168

[Spikey]

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

This could be interpreted as cylists should get out of the way of drivers wishing to overtake.

Does this preclude using the primary position to deliberately obstruct/prevent drivers who wish to pass (dangerously, e.g. approaching a pinch point)?

If I dropped back to maintain a two-second gap every time someone tried an overtake and cut-in in, my commute could take much longer.

I usually opt for the "maintain a steady course and speed" and "slowing down if necessary" bits (after an audible warning expressing my dissatisfaction). There is still the issue of being overtaken while accelerating e.g. downhill in constant traffic. If I maintained a constant speed, then I would be constantly overtaken. Thus its better to accelerate and slot in behind (primary) the 1st vehicle and then allow a safe gap to develop.

[nuttycyclist]

I always read that as not being bloody minded and riding all over the road to obstruct somebody trying to get past.

Holding a steady course is the default, drivers should be able to pass when safe. 

[Regulator]

Rule 168 applies to motor vehicles.

[clarion]

I seem to remember the phrase '...when it is safe and appropriate to do so' being quoted at me by an Instructor on the subject of overtaking, but I can't remember whether that's from the HC.

Incidentally, I was overtaken by a driving school car on the approach to a junction saturday morning.  It was a bit close, so I thought I'd have a polite word to the instructor.  Her response?

'Well, you shouldn't be riding in the middle of the road, should you?'

[pdm]

Rule 167 precedes rule 168:

"DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
...
* when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
..."

[Julian]

I think both rules are there to prevent driving like this.

[drossall]

Rule 168 applies to motor vehicles.

Why only to motor vehicles?

[Regulator]

Rule 168 applies to motor vehicles.

Why only to motor vehicles?

The manner in which it is worded.  You don't 'drive' a bicycle.

[hellymedic]

I think both rules are there to prevent driving like this.

Linky keeps timing out. Is it the 'Meditation on the A30', which is one of my favourites?

[drossall]

Regulator - I'm not sure. There are some rules that don't apply to bikes (e.g. ones about turning off engines). However, if a bike is a vehicle, and you "drive" a vehicle, I think we have to accept that sometimes "drive" is a generic term for operating a vehicle.

Or are we exempt from the requirement not to drive dangerously (rule 144)? I haven't checked the RTAs, but it doesn't seem to be somewhere that we should claim an exemption. Rule 146 is another example of advice about "driving" that cyclists should follow.

Generally, I assume that anything applies to me on a bike unless it can't (use of engines, motorway driving), or it's in one of the special sections for drivers or horse-riders, or I know it doesn't legally (speed limits, where there's an error in the Code, which wrongly says that they apply to all traffic).

[Diver300]

Generally, I assume that anything applies to me on a bike unless it can't (use of engines, motorway driving), or it's in one of the special sections for drivers or horse-riders, or I know it doesn't legally (speed limits, where there's an error in the Code, which wrongly says that they apply to all traffic).

I thought that speed limits do apply to bikes, but that it is almost impossible to prosecute because a speedometer is not required. I'm not sure about this and I wonder if any of the lawyers here would know.

[Manotea]

Out on the bike, my mindset for motorists is  "Don't think of me as a cyclist, think of me as a horse drawn cart or a tractor'.

If I need the whole road I'll take it. On the other hand, I'm quite happy to pull over to let others pass when convenient.

Works for me.

[Wendy]

Works for cyclecraft and bikeability too.

[Regulator]

Generally, I assume that anything applies to me on a bike unless it can't (use of engines, motorway driving), or it's in one of the special sections for drivers or horse-riders, or I know it doesn't legally (speed limits, where there's an error in the Code, which wrongly says that they apply to all traffic).

I thought that speed limits do apply to bikes, but that it is almost impossible to prosecute because a speedometer is not required. I'm not sure about this and I wonder if any of the lawyers here would know.

With the exception of the Royal Parks and certain other areas covered by byelaws, speed limits do not apply to bicycles.  The road traffic law on speed limits is quite clear in that it referes to 'motor vehicles' - not 'vehicles'.

[Wendy]

And nothing to do with needing/not needing a speedometer.

[oncemore]

"....I thought that speed limits do apply to bikes, but that it is almost impossible to prosecute because a speedometer is not required."

Don't know about the first part, but those motorised vehicles that are not required to have speedometers are still subject to speed limits and the driver can still be prosecuted.

[drossall]

Bother, I knew I was in danger of starting that old chestnut off again, and it wasn't the aim of my post.

Categorically, bikes are not subject to road speed limits. It's nothing to do with speedometers. It's because Parliament, for whatever reason, chose to frame a law that says you may not exceed the designated speed limit in (or on) a motor vehicle. A bike is not a motor vehicle, so the law does not apply. You can see this throughout the relevant section of the RTRA.

Parks, sea fronts and other public areas are governed by bye-laws, as opposed to road laws. If the Council makes a bye-law that bikes may not exceed a certain speed, that is the law in that park (whether the bike has a speedometer or not).

Of course, there are laws about reckless/dangerous cycling, and exceeding the limit for motor vehicles might be seen as evidence of recklessness, so you could still get prosecuted, especially if an accident ensued - but not specifically for exceeding the limit on the road.

Now, back to Rule 168...

[rower40]

Rule 168 doesn't have any text in red, no use of the word "MUST", and no reference to bits of legislation.  Unlike Rule 144, which states, in its first and third bullet-points:

You MUST NOT drive dangerously
You MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

So a motorist doing a dangerous overtake just because the cyclist in front is in a primary position is breaking 144, and therefore one or more Road Traffic Acts.

All of this is hypothetical; in the highly unlikely situation that the UK's one remaining traffic policeman is watching,  the cyclist will get pulled over for "Obstruction", "Walking on the cracks in the pavement" etc, and the motorist will be busy on his phone.

(I'm referring to the Revised 2007 edition of HC)