- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Driving School advises students they can close pass cyclists!
I was forced to have a chat with a van driver who had stopped to ask me why I wasn't riding in the door zone when passing parked cars the other day. I asked him to google what the highway code says about overtaking cyclists.
That got me thinking, what would you discover if you did that? The top hit (for me at least), is an outdated article on the RED driving school website. Which is mostly ok, but had this corker at the end...
Whilst you won’t get points on your licence for failing to pass a cyclist while observing a minimum distance, you may be served with points (or worse) for dangerous driving if you are found to be at fault for knocking a cyclist off their bike.
So there you have it, close pass cyclists with wild abandon and you'll be fine unless you knock them off (and it was your fault, and they can prove it). Sadly, this is the reality for most close passes (apart from the dangerous driving bit, nobody gets done for that), but it's a bit odd to see this advice being given on a driving school website!
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 sec ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- anagallis_arvensis 6 min 20 sec ago
I disagree, it's not up to the cyclist to police the road, had no car been coming the other way there's room to overtake safely if they cross the...
- chrisonabike 37 min 13 sec ago
People who are subsidised* to make big holes in road (amongst other negative effects) complain about the holes in the road. Same people also...
- Flâneur 1 hour 17 min ago
Yes, obviously complain, a (registered) letter to the CEO perhaps? This should not have happened by Avanti's stated procedure....
- mike the bike 1 hour 30 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
- The Larger Cyclist 1 hour 54 min ago
loads of parking
- brooksby 2 hours 39 min ago
I hate it when I can't find the obvious source of a puncture.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 43 min ago
Now, if we're talking gravel bikes, that's a whole different story. Gimme, gimme, gimme! Apologies for the Facebook link....
- wtjs 4 hours 45 min ago
The police are operationally independent, in fact the regional Police and Crime Commissioners have to swear in their oath of office that they will...
- brooksby 4 hours 50 min ago
"'Right", said Fred, "we'll 'ave to get a move on…"
Add new comment
27 comments
So Red Driving School have now removed the paragraph in question after I asked them to clarify their position on the wording. It's been replaced with this:
While I understand Martin73's point that it could be argued the former wording was technically true because there's no specific minimum passing distance or offence for close passing, I do personally think it read as if the driver can only be prosecuted if they make contact with the cyclist, which isn't true. It appears Red Driving School agreed.
Nice one! That's a lot better.
I feel credit should be given to one of the photos on that webpage too, which shows a car giving appropriate room when passing a bike in a "murder strip" cycle lane.
I had a close pass into oncoming traffic and a left hook from Elite driving school of Stretford, Manchester.
My camera footage isn't helpful because I forgot to change the date stamp after replacing the battery so it reads 1-1-2017.
.
That won't be an issue if you cover if off in your statement. I have to state the time difference as the Go-Pro software only seems to stamp it in GMT when I add it on.
Whilst you won’t get points on your licence for failing to pass a cyclist while observing a minimum distance, you may be served with points (or worse) for dangerous driving if you are found to be at fault for knocking a cyclist off their bike
Looks like Lancashire Constabulary is still obtaining its interpretation from the Cyclist-Hostile Red Driver Training
Well it seems this post has got some attention - we've just been informed that Red Driving School has now updated the part of its website in question...
Sorry Jack, is this just me or has the line about 'not getting points on your license for not observing a minimum distance' not been changed at all?
Good point, I shall ask why this is.
Thanks, especially as this was the point of concern in the first place...
Regardless of the specific piece of advice, it's rather depressing anyway that a driving school focuses on whether you'll get points, rather than whether it is good, safe and considerate driving.
I agree! As an educator, this seems to me as an extension of the 'do tests to get marks' mentality. So - you are a successful driver if the data (i.e. points) on your license says so, not based on the objective impact and quality of your driving.
They've added the minimum advised distances, but not changed that troublesome last paragraph. Maybe they could cut-and-paste this:
You could receive points and a fine for failing to observe minimum passing distances when overtaking cyclists. Many cyclists ride with cameras to capture evidence of inconsiderate and careless driving. If you were found at fault for knocking a cyclist off their bike, injuring them or worse, you could get a lengthy driving ban or a custodial sentence.
As much as I like that revision, as Steve K said above, it's still placing the emphasis of driving instructors and trainess on 'avoiding points on their license' as opposed to 'being actually decent and considerate road users.'
yep, maybe we could re-write the whole page for them! I especially cringe at the opening line "cycling on the road can be dangerous", how about "driving on the road can be dangerous, especially in urban areas and around vulnerable road users".
All this is 'how many angels can fit on the point of a pin’ stuff, when the Bad Cops are sticking firmly to their imaginary interpretation of the Highway Code, which is that No Pass Is Too Close
Whilst the interweb is replete with wrong or outdated content the Highway Code is specific that 1.5 metres is the minimum below 30mph and 2 metres above 30mph. Why would anyone look at a legacy commercial site when gov.uk is the system of authority...
Surely van drivers are fully aware since the vehicle requires MOT, VED, and they DVLA, too, which is all online at gov.uk..
Then there is 'ignorance of the law is no defense', but I hope you would not come to that. .
Ride safe.
So I'm tempted to ask what is the passing distance at 30mph? If you're going to take the interwebs to task over accuracy ...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
As a guide:
leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night
you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Which (as regards cyclists) boils down to:
Up to 30mph, not less than 1.5m,
Over 30mph, over 1.5m
Conversely, why would anyone consult the system of authority, when they've had confirmation bias approval from the "professional" who they are paying to train them (badly)?
The link to the website with a big banner proclaiming National Driving School of the Year 2022. Not sure if it is a win proclamation or just a boast that is one of probably two national driving schools left.
It is in line with the old advice about "give cyclists as much room as you would a car" which I have often pointed out is skimming past, potentially clipping wing mirrors.
I would write to Red and suggest they amend that. I look forward to what their reply is (I suspect "crickets").
Yes, I think it's more about the defined distances, which weren't a thing back then. But even so, I did manage to get someone points and a fine for close passing without knocking me off! (was not easy though).
The 'as a car' bit has always been a bit vague, but I had a new one in that chat the other day, when the van driver had recalled it said 'as I can'.
There's me saying 'you need to give me as much room as a car', to which he replies 'as much room as I can, that's what it says in the highway code, not as a car, as I can, you're not as wide as a car, you're a bike!'.
A good variation! Looking forward to "no, as much room as I care..."
DOOR mirrors.
Nah, it was a Morris 1100, KNL 166E.
How do you suggest rewriting it? I have often wondered about road responsibility, and I have always struggled to formalize my thoughts.
What specifically do I want from cars? To be safely passed. But what does that mean in terms of practical advice, and distances and best practices?
I just have a hard time articulating that.
Move fully into the other half of the road.
This, but with if it's not a blind bend, not a blind crest, nothing is coming the other way, no peds are crossing and no islands are in the middle, because you know, 'drivers'.