Is it my road position?

[Bmblbzzz]

...
As for discrepancy in stated road widths, apart from various inaccuracies, where were you measuring to? If you measured, logically, to the first white line and the police gave a distance to the theoretical centre, could that account for the difference?

I can't say for certain, but I don't think the police actually measured the width of the lane

I doubt they did. Easier to reply than measure.

- I'd say that you could probably add another 6inches or so if you included the central white line etc. I will say that the video [2] that I gave them makes the lane look wider than it is when the following cars get close - a slight fish-eye effect that you get with some lenses.

I measured the distance from the kerb (or the outside of the kerb-side white line if no kerb) to the inside of the central white line - ie. the shortest distance that could be considered the "lane". I can't think of any reason why that would be inaccurate as that's where the traffic travels?

The inacuracies I was wondering about were not on your part. Or shall I say, "inaccuracies"?

The police also said that cars would be able to overtake without crossing the white lines if the "road" was 4m wide...implying that there's 4m between the kerb and the central white line.

I drive on that road much more than I cycle on it - and the lane is obviously between the kerb and the central lines - and it gets very hairy if there's a large oncoming truck coming around the bend as they often drift onto or over the central white lines.

Thanks,
--Jatinder

[bluemootwo]

You seem a long way out, as far as it is possible to tell from that angle.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

Well, I responded to the letter from the police telling them that I was riding primary in a narrow road as I was passing a side-road and heading towards a roundabout when the VW in the video attempted his overtake in a lane that was only 3.2m wide with another car coming towards him in the oncoming lane. I also attached the Highway Code "how to overtake a cycle" picture.

His response was that the Highway Code picture of a traffic free road bears no resemblance to the A322 at 6pm on a wintery Friday evening. And then he stated that in his opinion the road width was much greater than the 3.2m that I measured...and if I'd been closer to the kerb the VW could have overtaken me safely. (Strangely enough the video actually shows 4 cars giving me plenty of time/space and then overtaking just as in the Highway Code picture. The 5th car didn't completely go over the central white lines - no big deal. The VW IMO had no intention/capability to cross the central white lines as there was an oncoming car.)

He finishes with "at certain times with difficult road conditions consideration with regard to road use must be adhered to by all persons using the road." I think that's why the police should have contacted the VW driver and had a word with him!

--Jatinder

[Pete Owens]

I hate those roads with central cross hatching. They obviously reduce the effective width of the carriage and is that where the difference of 4m (police) and 3.2m (your) arises? I'm not even sure why just two close space white lines can't be used.

Actually, hatched center markings ought to make the situation better. Drivers can use the hatched area to overtake thus increasing the effective lane width. With a conventional double white line you would be left with 3.6m lanes and many drivers will attempt to squeeze past without crossing. With a 4m lane there should be enough space for a car to overtake so long as they use the whole of the hatched area, so riding in secondary would be fine in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that a few drivers will attempt to share the 3.2m lane without using the hatched area - so you need to ride in primary to deter that small minority and as a result obstruct the majority drivers who could have overtaking you safely.

What is needed is to increace the width of the hatching in order to reduce the lane width to under 3m. With 2.9m lanes and 1.4m hatching nobody would attempt to overtake within the lane whatever position you ride in and an effective lane width of 4.3m allows comfortable overtaking.

[Vorpal]

He finishes with "at certain times with difficult road conditions consideration with regard to road use must be adhered to by all persons using the road."

That sentence hardly makes any sense! If road conditions were difficult, all the more reason that drivers should give consideration to vulnerable road users.

If you want to push on this, write to his manager. Or your Police and Crime Commissioner.

[mjr]

The problem with wider hatching is that some motorists refuse to enter it until the last minute and will harass cyclists. If no better solution is possible, such as alternating which side is wider, it's better than dodgy "in between" lane widths.

[Flinders]

As I understand it, solid white lines can only be crossed for overtaking if the overtaken 'object' is doing less than 10mph.

Today I was driving behind a cyclist on a stretch of road with 2x white solid lines. The cyclist was doing between 14-18mph, and I knew the next stretch was a steep downhill. The cyclist was well over to the left, but there was no way I'd overtake him within the white line- it would have been possible, but far too close (in other words, I think your policeman is an idiot- I know the I'm a cyclist' brigade-usually means they drive 20 miles to do mountain biking off-road every blue moon).

The car behind me then tooted at me.

I was annoyed as I thought the cyclist might think I'd been tooting at him, so I backed off even further to make it plain that I wasn't the one being aggressive.
The driver behind wasn't pleased, but at least had the grace to stay behind.
On the hill there were two lanes coming the other way, to allow for lorries coming up, but still two solid white lines. As the hill has, in effect, two areas of 'blind summits', that's why the lines remain solid. I stayed behind the cyclist until he (as I expected, knowing the area as a cyclist) turned off. It really didn't hold anyone up for more than a minute or so at the very most, and I know there is always a queue at the far end of the village anyway, as indeed there was, so in the end, nobody was held up at all. And any regular commuter ought to know that.

[Pete Owens]

The problem with wider hatching is that some motorists refuse to enter it until the last minute and will harass cyclists. If no better solution is possible, such as alternating which side is wider, it's better than dodgy "in between" lane widths.

The problem occurs where lane widths are critical (ie between 3m and 4m - "in between" as you say) this is not wide enough to overtake safely, but not narrow enough for some drivers to think they might be able to squeeze past.

Narrow lane widths are OK (though obviously not as good as spacious lanes), but they have to be VERY narrow (2.9m or less) to make it obvious to all drivers that it is not possible to overtake. Unfortunately, traffic engineers are extremely reluctant to create lanes that narrow unless they are forced to by physical constraints. So genuinely narrow lanes are actually very rare - the ones we think of as "narrow" will usually be around 3.2m like the one in this post. I am not aware of any example where central hatching has been used to reduce lane widths to less than 3m - though I can think of plenty where comfortable spacious lanes have been turned into nasty critical width lanes by this treatment.

Asymetric lane widths can work well on hills (with a wide lane uphill and a narrow one downhill) and for dual carriageways (with the kerbside lane wider than the overtaking lane). But, in the case of double white lines they would absolutely refuse to to make the narrow lane narrow enough, as it has to be able to fully accomodate the longest, widest vehicles on the bends.

If you have a run off area on either side you can actually achive lane widths down to 2.5m (ie fully occupied by a truck) - this is typical of a fietsstraat:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fietsberaad/4270689953/

[Vorpal]

Narrow lane widths are OK (though obviously not as good as spacious lanes), but they have to be VERY narrow (2.9m or less) to make it obvious to all drivers that it is not possible to overtake. Unfortunately, traffic engineers are extremely reluctant to create lanes that narrow unless they are forced to by physical constraints. So genuinely narrow lanes are actually very rare - the ones we think of as "narrow" will usually be around 3.2m like the one in this post. I am not aware of any example where central hatching has been used to reduce lane widths to less than 3m - though I can think of plenty where comfortable spacious lanes have been turned into nasty critical width lanes by this treatment.

Asymetric lane widths can work well on hills (with a wide lane uphill and a narrow one downhill) and for dual carriageways (with the kerbside lane wider than the overtaking lane). But, in the case of double white lines they would absolutely refuse to to make the narrow lane narrow enough, as it has to be able to fully accomodate the longest, widest vehicles on the bends.

If you have a run off area on either side you can actually achive lane widths down to 2.5m (ie fully occupied by a truck) - this is typical of a fietsstraat:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fietsberaad/4270689953/

Engineers are reluctant to make lanes under 3.2 metres for very good reasons. The maximum width for large vehicles without an escort or additional approval from DVLA has been 2.55 metres. Some special vehicles up to 3.0 metres wide have approval from DVLA. Though the use of such vehicles is usually limited.

[mjr]

And so, widest route availability for niche motor vehicles is prioritised over encouragement and protection of potentially huge numbers of cycles....

[Vorpal]

And so, widest route availability for niche motor vehicles is prioritised over encouragement and protection of potentially huge numbers of cycles....

In rural areas, roads have to be wide enough to accomodate tractors and harvesters. It doesn't matter whether you call them 'niche motor vehicles'. In most other countries, tractors and harvesters are wider than they are in the UK; larger vehicles are generally more cost effective in agriculture.

[mjr]

In rural areas, roads have to be wide enough to accomodate tractors and harvesters.

Roads do. Individual lanes don't (and frequently aren't), plus tractors and harvesters have never been cited to me as a reason for dangerous lane widths, so I wouldn't try to blame them. They tend to be very limited speed, used to dealing with passing places and cycles and horses and generally usually driven by pretty down-to-earth people.

Here, the large vehicles I'm thinking of are occasional oversize loads to/from the port of King's Lynn which apparently have to be allowed to use several roads as soon as they get to the town bypass, even though they are restricted to exactly one route between the bypass and port. This combines with width restrictions in villages such as a small distance between a house and a church hall or cemetery wall or grand estate wall (thinking of just three such roads nearby) to leave the sorts of nasty lane width which Pete Owens describes, often as well as severe footway narrowing which leaves wheelchairs or mobility scooters barely room not to fall off the kerb. Give them routes between ports and the motorway/quasimotorway network and accept that when they leave that, they'll have to negotiate narrower lane widths sometimes and that's why they have escorts. Designing too many roads for occasional oversize loads at the expense of mass cycling and walking must be considered harmful.

[Bmblbzzz]

The problem with wider hatching is that some motorists refuse to enter it until the last minute and will harass cyclists. If no better solution is possible, such as alternating which side is wider, it's better than dodgy "in between" lane widths.

The problem occurs where lane widths are critical (ie between 3m and 4m - "in between" as you say) this is not wide enough to overtake safely, but not narrow enough for some drivers to think they might be able to squeeze past.

Narrow lane widths are OK (though obviously not as good as spacious lanes), but they have to be VERY narrow (2.9m or less) to make it obvious to all drivers that it is not possible to overtake. Unfortunately, traffic engineers are extremely reluctant to create lanes that narrow unless they are forced to by physical constraints. So genuinely narrow lanes are actually very rare - the ones we think of as "narrow" will usually be around 3.2m like the one in this post. I am not aware of any example where central hatching has been used to reduce lane widths to less than 3m - though I can think of plenty where comfortable spacious lanes have been turned into nasty critical width lanes by this treatment.

Asymetric lane widths can work well on hills (with a wide lane uphill and a narrow one downhill) and for dual carriageways (with the kerbside lane wider than the overtaking lane). But, in the case of double white lines they would absolutely refuse to to make the narrow lane narrow enough, as it has to be able to fully accomodate the longest, widest vehicles on the bends.

If you have a run off area on either side you can actually achive lane widths down to 2.5m (ie fully occupied by a truck) - this is typical of a fietsstraat:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fietsberaad/4270689953/

The fietsstraat* is interesting but irrelevant to this case, as it's a completely different type of road to the one the OP has problems with; even a typical UK urban street has less traffic, lower speeds and different destinations and purposes than the A roads in question.

*Can we invent an English equivalent for that? Or Anglicise it to eg footstreet? I know fiets refers to cycling rather than walking and maybe straat is closer to the original Latin sense of paved area than the modern English street, but I'm talking about Anglicisation not translation.

[mjr]

*Can we invent an English equivalent for that? Or Anglicise it to eg footstreet? I know fiets refers to cycling rather than walking and maybe straat is closer to the original Latin sense of paved area than the modern English street, but I'm talking about Anglicisation not translation.

If it was anglicised to footstreet then many councils would ban bikes, just as they have done from many "pedestrian zones" including ones with delivery vehicles hooning through at all hours.

We've had many English rough equivalents such as quiet street, play street, home zone and so on, but few have worked. Councillors and council officers seem to love cars too much still.

[Bmblbzzz]

Play street and home zone indicate specific purposes which only sometimes apply, though. Quiet lane is one some LAs seem keen on in rural areas, but its meaning seems to vary from "we know too many people are driving too fast here but we don't have the will/money to tackle the problem" to "we will not maintain this road".