Surrey Police make video showing drivers how to overtake cyclists safely

Bmblbzzz wrote:

One thing we should remember with all these ads/vids is that they are not aimed at us, they are aimed at drivers who don't know how (but often think they do). The most effective presentation of the message has to bear this in mind. 

Some of us also drive so it helps if the ads are correct as it makes it easier to shame other motorists if you can give them a point of reference of why their overtaking of cyclists is so bad.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'm talking about the See Horse think cyclist cycling scotland ad which was pulled because the red headed lady wasn't wearing a plastic hat and that she 'forced' the motorist to 'dangerously' overtake her in the opposite lane.

Think you mean "See Cyclist, Think Horse". 

A "See Horse, Think Cyclist" would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.

CygnusX1 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'm talking about the See Horse think cyclist cycling scotland ad which was pulled because the red headed lady wasn't wearing a plastic hat and that she 'forced' the motorist to 'dangerously' overtake her in the opposite lane.

Think you mean "See Cyclist, Think Horse". 

A "See Horse, Think Cyclist" would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.

yeah that way around, my point still stands with respect to attitudes regarding overtaking however.

CygnusX1 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'm talking about the See Horse think cyclist cycling scotland ad which was pulled because the red headed lady wasn't wearing a plastic hat and that she 'forced' the motorist to 'dangerously' overtake her in the opposite lane.

Think you mean "See Cyclist, Think Horse". 

A "See Horse, Think Cyclist" would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'm talking about the See Horse think cyclist cycling scotland ad which was pulled because the red headed lady wasn't wearing a plastic hat and that she 'forced' the motorist to 'dangerously' overtake her in the opposite lane. It's that absurd thinking and influence that needs to be broken, 5 people complained and the ASA said the advert was socially irresponsible. Clearly the people working at the ASA at the time were clueless as to the law and what is in the HC despite referring to the HC to back up their point. They also ignored best practise for cycling as advised by DfT, Rospa, Cycling organisations et al and the law on operating a motor vehicle. Hey couldn't have been more bias, discriminatory, inaccurate and anti cycling if they tried!

OK, thanks - I think I missed that one... 

Edit: just googled it.

From the Grauniad's story on it at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/29/cycling-scotland-advert-banned

"The ASA said that the Highway Code recommended that it is good practice for cyclists to wear helmets.

"The scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the[se] recommendations," said the ASA.

The watchdog was also concerned that in the TV ad the cyclist appeared to be so far toward the centre of the lane that when a car overtook them it "almost had to enter the right lane of traffic".
"We concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety," the ASA said. "The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.""
 

No Sweat wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers, bicycles are vehicles too.

The Highway Code rule 191 states;

"You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the
zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest
the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped
to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs
10, 27 & 28"

I believe it was also posted recently that the law only requires you to do this if you are controlling a motorised vehicle.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers, bicycles are vehicles too.

The Highway Code rule 191 states;

"You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the
zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest
the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped
to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs
10, 27 & 28"

I believe it was also posted recently that the law only requires you to do this if you are controlling a motorised vehicle.

So if I, on my velocipede, slow in anticipation of stopping at said crossing to allow a pedestrian to proceed across same, anyone piloting a motorised vehicle can expect to blast through without a care in the world. Doesn’t seem right, guv. “But them’s the law lad.“ (and I agree  it is the law as it stands).

alansmurphy wrote:

They're owning the twats!

What are you trying to say?  Have another go at posting something.

cbrndc wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

They're owning the twats!

What are you trying to say?  Have another go at posting something.

verb - transitive

to defeat someone severely, as in a verbal argument or in a competition, often to the point of humiliation. To "put someone in their place."

Would you like me to look up the other word?

bendertherobot wrote:

cbrndc wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

They're owning the twats!

What are you trying to say?  Have another go at posting something.

verb - transitive

to defeat someone severely, as in a verbal argument or in a competition, often to the point of humiliation. To "put someone in their place."

Would you like me to look up the other word?

Kind regards Bender, one was attempting to be down with one's kids...

alansmurphy wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

cbrndc wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

They're owning the twats!

What are you trying to say?  Have another go at posting something.

verb - transitive

to defeat someone severely, as in a verbal argument or in a competition, often to the point of humiliation. To "put someone in their place."

Would you like me to look up the other word?

Kind regards Bender, one was attempting to be down with one's kids...

I'm just not hip or American enough for this site 

DrG82 wrote:

This should be on TV rather than on twitter.

I often bemone the demise of the public information film. A nice little film like this stuck between the adds, possibly including the facts that cyclists have every right to be on the road and that there's no such thing as road tax,  and you never know people may get the idea.

https://youtu.be/BDtVJiK8Lws

DrG82 wrote:

This should be on TV rather than on twitter.

I often bemone the demise of the public information film. A nice little film like this stuck between the adds, possibly including the facts that cyclists have every right to be on the road and that there's no such thing as road tax,  and you never know people may get the idea.

Remember the advert for cycling in Scotland, it was pulled because a handful of nobbers complained and the wank splats at the ASA went beynd their remit and applied rules they wouldn't elsewhere.
THINK are supposedly the lot that run road safety campaigns but they are a bunch of victim blaming cretins and not just toward people on bikes. I wouldn't trust them to put anything together but I think the government should fund the video here to be aired.
Im also not that keen on the Carlton Reid/Chris Boardman video, it contains far too many errors both from a legal point of view (Boardan states 3 abreast is out which is untrue for one) and also appropriate overtaking (not before a rise/hill and/or bend as per the video) and poor positioning by the group of riders when 2 abreast.
He was also kind regarding the HC, he should have said the HC is patently out of date and wrong with respect to the singling out on a busy, narrow or on a bend advice and should be removed.
Singling out at those points creates MORE danger for the cyclists and leads to the point about longer overtaking time for faster vehicles.
On a bend, narrow road or if it's busy there's no way am I tucking in to the kerb, strong primary at least and on a left bend that is likely to be more unsighted ahead I'll be pretty much 3/4 out if not on the dividing line if the bend is really sharp This means not only can I see ahead as far as possible for hazards (as per advice re motorcycling and how police are taught to drive/ride) but it dissaudes nobbers from squeezing past at speed often into unseen oncoming traffic thus raising the danger stakes massively. If I slowed down motorists at that juncture for a few seconds that's well worth a beep or choice words if it avoids me being offed at high speed because they misjudged the distance or pulled in too soon because of oncoming vehicle or indeed not being caught up in a head on smash.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Remember the advert for cycling in Scotland, it was pulled because a handful of nobbers complained and the wank splats at the ASA went beynd their remit and applied rules they wouldn't elsewhere.

Whilst I agree with the rest of your post, I thought the Scottish ad was pulled because it was appalling cr@p?  (we are talking about 'the Niceway Code', aren't we?)

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I'm reasonably sure it's legal to overtake a cyclist in the zig zag area of a pedestrian crossing, just not a motorist.

As answered by No Sweat.

You may have been thinking of double white lines. It's legal to cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10 mph. Some drivers, even professional drivers, appear not to know this. Or they know but they can't tell the difference between me doing 10 mph and 20 mph.

FrankH wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I'm reasonably sure it's legal to overtake a cyclist in the zig zag area of a pedestrian crossing, just not a motorist.

As answered by No Sweat.

You may have been thinking of double white lines. It's legal to cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10 mph. Some drivers, even professional drivers, appear not to know this. Or they know but they can't tell the difference between me doing 10 mph and 20 mph.

The argument I have seen about this time and again on a particular motoring forum is that 10mph is not literal, but means slow moving, and many believe this, apparently included Themes Valley Police based on the overtakes I have had from police on the Chipping Norton to Enston road (where I average over 30mph in a 50mph limit due to the hill).