I need to educate a driving instructor

steve6690

The Highway Code, while not law in itself, can be the basis for a prosecution for Careless/Inconsiderate driving. For example - a tractor driving along a national speed limit road for miles on end, without pulling into an existing layby to let built-up traffic pass, would commit the offence.
A cyclist can legally be passed on solid white lines, as can a tractor, as long as they're doing no more than 10 mph.
Strangely then, if a cyclist is doing more than 10 mph, traffic can't legally overtake on solids, so if the cyclist were to ride for an unnecessarily long (eg past a layby) period with a traffic build-up behind they could probably be committing the offence of Careless/Inconsiderate cycling.
"Claiming your lane" is a great idea for approaching hazards eg get out early to overtake parked cars so that the cars behind don't force you into them.
No-one has precedence on the roads. Everyone has equal rights to be there, whether they be car drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. But everybody is expected to be considerate in their conduct.

fossyant

No point having an arguement with an idiot, especialy one who really thinks he knows best (aka a driving instructor). A few single finger jestures and a d-lock to the nose might have helped !

walkingbootweather

Edmund Burke wrote:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

CiB

steve6690 wrote:

The Highway Code, while not law in itself, can be the basis for a prosecution for Careless/Inconsiderate driving. For example - a tractor driving along a national speed limit road for miles on end, without pulling into an existing layby to let built-up traffic pass, would commit the offence.
A cyclist can legally be passed on solid white lines, as can a tractor, as long as they're doing no more than 10 mph.
Strangely then, if a cyclist is doing more than 10 mph, traffic can't legally overtake on solids, so if the cyclist were to ride for an unnecessarily long (eg past a layby) period with a traffic build-up behind they could probably be committing the offence of Careless/Inconsiderate cycling.

There's seemingly a reliance on this 10mph cut-off. In reality, it's shorthand for 'v slow'. Not many car speedos are accurate to that level at low speeds and even so it's irrelevant whether someone is doing 10 or 15 mph, the underlying point is that where a road user is substantially slower than the prevailing speed limit and ambient traffic, it's ok to execute a quick overtake when safe, even if that means crossing a solid white. You'd need an extremely officious plod to nick you for passing a cyclist that's doing 14mph. I'd agree that the same cyclist doing 20mph is a different kettle of fish - overtaking quickly involves correspondingly higher speeds. But '10mph' really is 'v slow' and should be treated as an arbitrary reference as such not a verbatim limit.

flimflam_machine

The use of the horn is annoying but the main point, to me, seems to be that he believes that he has a right to overtake you, even though he had no gap to move into (rule 162), i.e., that you were holding him up (obviously bollocks). This is incredibly common but I think it's worth making an exception to our usually Zen attitude for a driving instructor, since it's an incredibly bad attitude to pass on to future drivers. I'd be tempted to email him and indicate that if he doesn't respond constructively you'll be going to his professional body.

CiB

Why not email him a link to this thread? It's not full of raging foaming at the mouth anti-car hatred by cyclists, just well-reasoned arguments that prove that the instructor is a complete moron who shouldn't be allowed to teach kids to use Dinky toys let alone be on the road unsupervised.

bails87

I would have thought he'd have a copy of the Highway Code in the car with him. I'd have asked him to show you the section that says where in the road cyclists must/not ride. And then I'd have shown him the sections mentioned above.

Big_Paul

In NI, people wanting to become a "professional" driving instructor, as in taking money, have to pass an extremely long test, is it not the same on the mainland? :shock:

bails87

Probably, but how much of that involves cyclists?

Initialised

Was overtaken today by a learner in a driving school car after they'd been trailing me after a light, it felt too close for comfort, especially considering the driver's apparent lack of confidence, when they passed so I did the head down rear view mirror glare I usually give to cars that overtake then get in the way.

steve6690

CiB wrote:

steve6690 wrote:

The Highway Code, while not law in itself, can be the basis for a prosecution for Careless/Inconsiderate driving. For example - a tractor driving along a national speed limit road for miles on end, without pulling into an existing layby to let built-up traffic pass, would commit the offence.
A cyclist can legally be passed on solid white lines, as can a tractor, as long as they're doing no more than 10 mph.
Strangely then, if a cyclist is doing more than 10 mph, traffic can't legally overtake on solids, so if the cyclist were to ride for an unnecessarily long (eg past a layby) period with a traffic build-up behind they could probably be committing the offence of Careless/Inconsiderate cycling.

There's seemingly a reliance on this 10mph cut-off. In reality, it's shorthand for 'v slow'. Not many car speedos are accurate to that level at low speeds and even so it's irrelevant whether someone is doing 10 or 15 mph, the underlying point is that where a road user is substantially slower than the prevailing speed limit and ambient traffic, it's ok to execute a quick overtake when safe, even if that means crossing a solid white. You'd need an extremely officious plod to nick you for passing a cyclist that's doing 14mph. I'd agree that the same cyclist doing 20mph is a different kettle of fish - overtaking quickly involves correspondingly higher speeds. But '10mph' really is 'v slow' and should be treated as an arbitrary reference as such not a verbatim limit.

And in practice the 10 mph would be ignored as it's not able to be reliably evidenced. I still find it interesting that the legislation refers to 10 mph rather than just stating that it is ok to overtake a cyclist regardless of speed. This would be more sensible..

walkingbootweather

Took the scenic route home last night and found myself travelling down some winding country lanes with solid double lines. I thought of this thread as several cars came up behind me. I was travelling at decent speed (17-26 mph) but cars waited then passed me safely giving plenty of room but were well over the solid white lines. It all felt safe and appropriate at the time, but I guess if we had met fast moving traffic coming the other way then things may have got interesting. If I had slowed to 10 mph would things have been better or worse?