Getting prosecuted from Dashcam?

Nasher said:
I bet they don't get 1.5m in France either and French drivers are all maniacs. They aren't crying about it.

Some people just like to make a fuss for attention. Realistically you aren't going to get 1.5m space outside of main roads in most of Europe. It's not dangerous to pass close as long as it's slow. If you fall off just infront of a car your getting squashed either way.
Click to expand...

This is the rule in France

To overtake a cyclist or pedestrian, it is necessary to leave a 1 m distance in urban areas and 1.50 m outside urban areas. Outside urban areas, it is possible to overtake a cyclist by riding or crossing the continuous line, provided that the opposite traffic allows for it. https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/en/node/497
 
Brun said:
1.5m might seem like an arbitrary number but I think the point is to make motorists only consider passing cyclists when the oncoming lane is clear. The worst overtakes I've had are when they think there's enough space between me and whatever's coming in the other direction. It shouldn't need pointing out that drivers will also - subconsciously or otherwise - err towards the cyclist in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Of course they will, it's survival instinct. A head on smash with a car or put the cyclist in a ditch and not even feel it. It's the risk you take.

They should plan ahead and not do it. But you can't fight that reaction.

Given the choice of being hit by an out of control truck or evading through a cyclist. The cyclist gets it, sorry :p
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
Hmmmm, I do have a few 60 zones where that is not the case, mostly parrellel roads, e.g.:

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl
Click to expand...

Look at that fantastic cycle route, we can only dream about having something like that here. I wouldn’t ever cycle on the road if we had something like that
 
Last edited:
That's not a cycle route, it's a road for all users (cars, tractors and trucks as well) outside of built up area's. (admittedly usually only for local traffic).

_______________________________________________5289951_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
You are correct that pretty much all through roads have segregated cyslists from the main road with a dedicated cycle path. I'm just trying to point out it's not everywhere, and you will have places that occasionally share a road with bigger speed differences. But people do not make a fuss, and cyclists usually keep to the right as much as possible and expect to be overtakes at short distance.
 
Last edited:
You have to remember that in European cities, particularly those bombed out in the war(s) have been built with big wide boulevards rather than tight Victorian streets like we have in the U.K.

It makes the whole cycling thing much safer as there is generally a lot more space.
 
snowdog said:
That's not a cycle route, it's a road for all users (cars, tractors and trucks as well) outside of built up area's. (admittedly usually only for local traffic).
Click to expand...
that road is two-way/bidirectional ? it obviously looks problematic if a vehicle of same width as lorry was travelling in other direction,
OK its only 35mph but if lorries are passing 50cm apart then all drivers are going to be a lot more considerate/accurate;
lower alcohol limits probably help too.

Bear said:
Far smoother riding in the gutter compared to the cobbles
Click to expand...
yes I know, nonetheless maintaining 30cm from the kerb at 50mph is impressive
 
Brun said:
1.5m might seem like an arbitrary number but I think the point is to make motorists only consider passing cyclists when the oncoming lane is clear. The worst overtakes I've had are when they think there's enough space between me and whatever's coming in the other direction. It shouldn't need pointing out that drivers will also - subconsciously or otherwise - err towards the cyclist in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
Some of the roads I drive you couldn’t legally pass cyclists traveling in both directions even if both rode on the foot paths and in some sections not at all. Not a chance in hell I’d cycle down them unless I could maintain 40mph+

It’s a tricky issue made worse by some cyclists and the camber towards the curb.
 
The highway code is always an iffy one. Everyone thinks of it as law when it actually isn't but it does reference laws inside of it.

For example the highway code rule 163 states "as a guide" leave 1.5 metres gap. That isn't law. What is law is dangerous driving and or driving without due care or attention which is what they get you on.

If you passed a cyclist and showed consideration and drove carefully but only passed at 0.5 metres you could easily argue that in a court of law because no rules have been broken and you haven't driven dangerously or without due care or attention but you couldn't do 1.5 metres due to the width of the road.
 
Last edited:
Until someone sees the footage everyone is just guessing anyway

The police have reviewed and sent a letter. However no idea what it is as questions have been ignored
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
The highway code is always an iffy one. Everyone thinks of it as law when it actually isn't but it does reference laws inside of it.

For example the highway code rule 163 states "as a guide" leave 1.5 metres gap. That isn't law. What is law is dangerous driving and or driving without due care or attention which is what they get you on.

If you passed a cyclist and showed consideration and drove carefully but only passed at 0.5 metres you could easily argue that in a court of law because no rules have been broken and you haven't driven dangerously or without due care or attention but you couldn't do 1.5 metres due to the width of the road.
Click to expand...

That's probably why actual prosecutions for it are low. A lot of the ones who to get done will have just pleaded guilty without a fight.

They shouldn't even be bringing the 1.5m thing in to it as it's not relevant legally.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
That's probably why actual prosecutions for it are low. A lot of the ones who to get done will have just pleaded guilty without a fight.

They shouldn't even be bringing the 1.5m thing in to it as it's not relevant legally.
Click to expand...
There is no pleading guilty to be done at this stage. It’s a section 172 to find out who the driver is. 90% of these will end up with a driver training course hence prosecutions are low

It’s careless driving the charge. Not ‘driving within 1.5m of a bike’
 
They use this approach on certain country roads in the U.K. just without the red tarmac. As the image says, these are not cycle lanes they are to make the road look narrow so people drive more slowly on them.
 
On a bit of a tangent but IMO they should use different colours of tarmac like that on roundabouts to direct traffic to their exit, would make figuring out which lane to use far easier on approach and massively, though not entirely eliminate, the incidents of people driving on past the last exit for their lane cutting up other traffic. But no we don't do common sense things like that in this country.

b0rn2sk8 said:
They use this approach on certain country roads in the U.K. just without the red tarmac. As the image says, these are not cycle lanes they are to make the road look narrow so people drive more slowly on them.
Click to expand...

Seen it a little bit in Northern Ireland, don't really recall it much elsewhere aside from use of cross-hatched areas in some places i.e. https://maps.app.goo.gl/2Txxmrq1KkYnU2hQ8
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom