If this is the advice from driving instructors ...

velocestrapture

No wonder there are so many sh1t drivers on our roads.

On my commute in this morning I passed along a section of traffic calmed road - with a traffic island in the middle of the road and those square speed bumps.

A car overtook me just as I was approaching the bump, so we were both in the pinch point together. Fortunately, the road is not too narrow, and the car was a small one, but even so the car tyres passed over the middle of the hump as I was in the gap on the left.

To my disbelief, the car was a driving instructor's car with a learner driver under instruction!

I caught up with them at the next lights, and although I normally avoid getting into a debate with a driver, I thought that as the driver was under instruction, she could have a lesson in road safety from me.

I very politely suggested that overtaking at a pinch point of a traffic calming scheme was not sensible, or the safest way to drive, and that it would have been far better for the driver to wait until I had passed the traffic island before attempting to pass.

The instructor said that he did appreciate that bikes are vulnerable on the road, and that he would not have let the driver pass me if it had not been safe to do so! Unfortunately, the lights changed, so all I could say was that it was neve the safest option to pass at such a point, it didn't feel safe to me, and please could they both make sure not to do it again!

Surely the instructor could not be right, and the driver would have failed their test had they done it under examination. Or am I just being overly precious about my space and safety?

rick_chasey

velocestrapture wrote:

Or am I just being overly precious about my space and safety?

Bingo.

Sounds like there was enough room.

greg66_tri_v2.0

velocestrapture wrote:

The instructor said that he did appreciate that bikes are vulnerable on the road, and that he would not have let the driver pass me if it had not been safe to do so! Unfortunately, the lights changed, so all I could say was that it was neve the safest option to pass at such a point, it didn't feel safe to me, and please could they both make sure not to do it again!

Surely the instructor could not be right, and the driver would have failed their test had they done it under examination. Or am I just being overly precious about my space and safety?

"Safe" and "safest" are not the same thing.

If the driver had straddled the bump whilst alongside you, I'd have more sympathy.

BTW, how slowly were you going if you couldn't outrun a learner driver who was negotiating speed bumps? Had you stopped?

fossyant

Over the middle of the hump -that's not bad. Had both wheels straddled the hump, then way too close.

These humps drive me crazy, and the drivers don't half slow me down :twisted:

worthydolt

Rule 163.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

So sounds to me like you have cause for complaint.

But TBH, I'm happy enough when people give me as much space as you seem to be describing; there's plenty worse than that

bails87

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

Tempted to print that out laminate it and keep a copy in my back pocket for those special times....

bails87

The thing is, the text of the 'rule' actually means nothing.

"As much space as a car". So if you'd happily pass a car with an inch of space, then you're allowed to do it to a bike.

Still, the picture is useful as a guide....

plowmar

my thoughts bails87

velocestrapture

I realise in this situation that the driver did in fact have room to pass without squashing me, but I think that teaching someone who is probably unused to judging distance and gaps that it is ok to pass at such a point is lunacy. It is just teaching drivers to squeeze past whenever possible, rather than wait a couple of seconds to do so in a safer manner. The speed issue is pretty irrelevant, but considering that I was doing about 17 mph and the limit was 20 only emphasises what a pointless manoeuvre it was.

rick_chasey

The real question the post begs, is why you thought you were in a position to start lecturing someone?

I thought that as the driver was under instruction, she could have a lesson in road safety from me.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

The real question the post begs, is why you thought you were in a position to start lecturing someone?

I thought that as the driver was under instruction, she could have a lesson in road safety from me.

Because a learner driver thad just done something wrong, after being encouraged to do it by the instructor.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The real question the post begs, is why you thought you were in a position to start lecturing someone?

I thought that as the driver was under instruction, she could have a lesson in road safety from me.

Because a learner driver thad just done something wrong, after being encouraged to do it by the instructor.

Hang on.

Our chap doesn't know this.

I did a moc-test with my instructor once. Ended up doing 40 all the way through a 30 for a good 3 miles. Only afterwards did he 'fail' me, since I did that > it's part of the process.

Just because you are on the road does not give anyone authority to take it upon themselves to 'instruct' learner drivers.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

Just because you are on the road does not give anyone authority to take it upon themselves to 'instruct' learner drivers.

FFS, he qquickly spoke to someone, he wasn't pretending to be an examiner.

If someone was driving around without their lights on, would telling them be 'instructing'?
:roll:

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

The trouble with that photo is that the driver is giving the cyclist a great deal more space than he would give a car.

bails87

Greg66 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

The trouble with that photo is that the driver is giving the cyclist a great deal more space than he would give a car.

It does say "at least as much".

But that's true, it's also more space than he could give a car, unless he mounted the pavement.

Origamist

Rule 163 is supposed to make it clear that you should imagine a cyclist takes up approx the same space as the average car (around 5 and half to six feet - unless you drive a Range Rover etc) and pass as if the cyclist was that wide - hence the photograph.

However, that photo would be better if the driver was giving the cyclist at least another foot of passing room.

greg66_tri_v2.0

velocestrapture wrote:

The speed issue is pretty irrelevant, but considering that I was doing about 17 mph and the limit was 20 only emphasises what a pointless manoeuvre it was.

velocestrapture wrote:

A car overtook me just as I was approaching the bump, so we were both in the pinch point together.

Look, sorry in advance for being a PITA over this, but this just doesn't hang together at the moment.

You're doing about 17. The limit is 20. The car comes past you as you both encounter the speed hump.

That tends to suggest to me that the learner continued to do 20 over the speed bump, even though he/she took it two wheels on and two wheels off. Either he/she did not slow for it at all, or was speeding between bumps. I find that incredible.

tailwindhome

Origamist wrote:

Rule 163 is supposed to make it clear that you should imagine a cylist takes up approx the same space as the average car (around 5 and half to six feet - unless you drive a Rang Rover etc) and pass as if the cyclist was that wide - hence the photograph. .

This

I think the rule is badly wrote

El Gordo

velocestrapture wrote:

I realise in this situation that the driver did in fact have room to pass without squashing me

So what is the problem exactly? Do you think the instructor should be teaching the learner to react to imaginary situations? As far as I can tell, the learner judged the available space correctly, the instructor agreed it was OK, the manoeuvre was carried out without incident and yet you still get yourself wound up.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Origamist wrote:

Rule 163 is supposed to make it clear that you should imagine a cylist takes up approx the same space as the average car (around 5 and half to six feet - unless you drive a Rang Rover etc) and pass as if the cyclist was that wide - hence the photograph.

However, that photo would be better if the driver was giving the cyclist at least another foot of passing room.

Really? On its face the intent of Rule 163 seems to be "When passing, don't get closer to a cyclist than you would to car". Not "When passing, pretend a cyclist has an imaginary bubble around him/her, and don't burst it".

FWIW, (a) when I learned to drive (between the Kaiser bothering us with his pesky dirigibles), I was told to leave enough space so that if the cyclist fell suddenly sideways into the road you wouldn't run over his/her head. However, since then I have found that this is a sufficiently improbably eventuality to be wholly disregarded as a useful anything; (b) I suspect I have become inured to close passes from cars through having ridden in London for c 20 years. Frankly, I'd rather someone passes me close driving in a straight line than passes me with a gap but meandering because they're looking a side turn and won't be looking before they swing into it.

kelsen

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

I think when they wrote that rule, they didn't foresee the exponential increase in cyclists on the roads. Can't envisage this scene during the morning commute. There'd be miles of tailback as cars wait to overtake safely the hundreds of cyclists along a stretch of road.

kingstongraham

I don't leave that much space when passing cars on my bike.

greg66_tri_v2.0

kelsen wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, from what you say, if all cars left that much space I wouldn't be too miffed as there are plenty who are worse, but at the same time it's not what he/she should be doing:

I think when they wrote that rule, they didn't foresee the exponential increase in cyclists on the roads. Can't envisage this scene during the morning commute. There'd be miles of tailback as cars wait to overtake safely the hundreds of cyclists along a stretch of road.

Nah. We'd switch to the continental system for the cars. They'd just swap sides while the cyclists stayed on the normal side. Like in the photo, but just imagine an additional car driving away from the camera, between the car and the cyclist, and an additional cyclist also riding away, on the left.

Simples.

bails87

Greg66


Like this: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 909082041/

velocestrapture

I have just done the reverse route (joys of being freelance and working from home on Friday afternoons).

The speed bump is actually a little in advance of the traffic island, so I am going along at a steady 16/17 ish mph, the car overtakes me as I am passing the bump and has her tyres more or less in the centre of the bump, but then has to pull in by a foot to 18 inches as the road is narrowed by the island. But because the car has probably slowed a bit for the bump and I have maintained my speed, I am still on the car's quarter when she pulls in on me.

No wonder I felt squashed.

As i said, I normally let bad driving incidents wash over me and forget them in an instant, but as she was under instruction, and the instructor obviously didn't see anything wrong with it, I thought it might be worth pointing out to the driver that her standards could be better.

dhope

TailWindHome wrote:

I think the rule is badly wrote

I think the comment is badly written.

jonnyboy77

I like the idea of a flyer ...



- Jon

Origamist

Greg66 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Rule 163 is supposed to make it clear that you should imagine a cylist takes up approx the same space as the average car (around 5 and half to six feet - unless you drive a Rang Rover etc) and pass as if the cyclist was that wide - hence the photograph.

However, that photo would be better if the driver was giving the cyclist at least another foot of passing room.

Really? On its face the intent of Rule 163 seems to be "When passing, don't get closer to a cyclist than you would to car". Not "When passing, pretend a cyclist has an imaginary bubble around him/her, and don't burst it".

FWIW, (a) when I learned to drive (between the Kaiser bothering us with his pesky dirigibles), I was told to leave enough space so that if the cyclist fell suddenly sideways into the road you wouldn't run over his/her head. However, since then I have found that this is a sufficiently improbably eventuality to be wholly disregarded as a useful anything; (b) I suspect I have become inured to close passes from cars through having ridden in London for c 20 years. Frankly, I'd rather someone passes me close driving in a straight line than passes me with a gap but meandering because they're looking a side turn and won't be looking before they swing into it.

Yep, I know it's not pellucid from the wording and the pic could be better, but if it did mean what you infer, this would give road users a large amount of latitude (from just a few inches) in determining overtaking clearance where vulnerable road users are concerned.

IIRC, the DfT have been asked to make this rule clearer, but they were happy with the wording. If I am very bored next week, I'll fire off an email to the DfT for corroboration. If I am mistaken, I still post up the reply!

kieranb

well, the incident is not too surprising, whilst doing my driving lessons (only just over a year ago) my instructor (a very good one) told me that she has had to report other instructors for bad driving, and during one lesson, she took down the details of one we watched doing a very stupid move.

gilesjuk

I've seen plenty of driving instructor berks on the road. It's in their interest to get people off bikes and their feet and get them into cars. It's how they make their living.

What really needs to happen is the driving test examiners fail people when they aren't considerate to cyclists.