It's one of the most commonly heard criticisms of painted cycling
infrastructure we hear...overtaking road users don't give cyclists using
a painted lane 1.5m gap because, well, there's a line on the road. If
you're in a whole different lane to me then it must be fine for me to
overtake...

It's why some would rather have no cycle infrastructure at all than just
a painted 'lane'. It's also presumably why this police officer didn't
think much about waiting beyond the pedestrian crossing to overtake.

Had they then they might have seen the upcoming roundabout and decided
just to wait. Note the use of 'might' in that sentence...

The Cycling Nerd has reported the footage to the Independent Office for
Police Conduct, we'll keenly await that response...

As if to prove the point about how road users view painted cycle lanes...

So what do we reckon? Would the road be safer without the painted lane?
(I think I already know your answer)...

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-16-march-2022-291105#live-blog-item-32519

--
Spike

On 16/03/2022 12:11 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> It's one of the most commonly heard criticisms of painted cycling
> infrastructure we hear...overtaking road users don't give cyclists using
> a painted lane 1.5m gap because, well, there's a line on the road. If
> you're in a whole different lane to me then it must be fine for me to
> overtake...
>
> It's why some would rather have no cycle infrastructure at all than just
> a painted 'lane'. It's also presumably why this police officer didn't
> think much about waiting beyond the pedestrian crossing to overtake.

Does the "no overtaking on the approach side of a crossing" *apply* to
the overtaking of a moving fairy-cycle?

I say that it does not.

The relevant legislation is:

QUOTE:
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and
General Directions 1997

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

[Regulation] 24:

(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching
vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area
and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall
not cause it or any part of it—

(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other *motor* vehicle
proceeding in the same direction; or

(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a *vehicle* which is
*stationary* for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
ENDQUOTE

Obviously, a fairy-cycle cannot possibly qualify as the motor vehicle in
Reg. 24 (1) (a).

It equally cannot qualify as the "vehicle" in Reg. 24 (1) (b) UNLESS the
fairy-cycle has already been *stopped* by the fairy-cyclist for the
purpose of [allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely without being
run down by the - or a - fairy-cyclist].

And that later case simply did not apply in the cited video.

And truthfully, how often do fairy-cyclists stop for pedestrians on
pedestrian crossings anyway?

They usually just scream a few choice obscenities at the people crossing
and hurtle straight through.

> Had they then they might have seen the upcoming roundabout and decided
> just to wait. Note the use of 'might' in that sentence...
>
> The Cycling Nerd has reported the footage to the Independent Office for
> Police Conduct, we'll keenly await that response...
>
> As if to prove the point about how road users view painted cycle lanes...
>
> So what do we reckon? Would the road be safer without the painted lane?
> (I think I already know your answer)...

It's funny how the idiot on the fairy-bike took umbrage at being
overtaken in an adjacent lane with less than a hundred yards' clearance,
but also thought (if that's the correct word) that it was OK to
undertake the police car with a few inches to spare.

Yes, that's how fairy-cyclists "think".

> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-16-march-2022-291105#live-blog-item-32519