[Closed] Overtaking cyclists, how to

How much room would you want other people to give you when you're on your bike?
Give other people that much.
I was overtaking a man on a bike one day (in a 15metre coach) i was a good distance away, but when i was 2/3 of the way past he looked down at his feet and swerved towards me.
If id been, say, 1.5m away he would have hit me.
Because i was further out, it was only a near miss.
We're all people, we can all make mistakes.
EDIT: I regularly drive between kingussie and aviemore, on the back road (not the A9) and if I encounter someone on a bike I have to follow them, sometimes for a few miles as it's impossible to get past in the coach.
In ten years of this, none of the passengers have ever complained about being 'held up'

in an ideal world I move over to the other side of the road well ahead of the cyclist check my left mirror after I go past that I'm well past and pull back in

I treat them as a slow moving car and go past them when I can use all of the other side of the road. You don't usually have to wait that long, and even if you do, meh.

Patience. It's not the cyclist holding you up, it's the oncoming traffic preventing you from passing safely.

A cyclist needs a minimum of 1.5 metres. That is more than the width of a cycle lane. I often tell cyclists to get out of the gutter, even when in my car.

I'll start by saying I'm a roadie, I've spent many many hours in double pacelines or two abreast on roads of all sorts.

It's my opinion that in these situations it's kind of on the cyclists to end up single file and lubricate the whole situation a bit.

On the continent you'll get beeped, especially in Italy. It's a beep to let you know the cars there not some road rAge.

In the U.K. a beep is up there with gbh and that's a shame because a horn can be quite expressive. but I would use your horn when you're stuck for ages behind two inconsiderate roadies, if they don't know why then...

If they're on the rivet leave em alone

Don't assume that road people have a clue these days, most of them look the part and have no class they're also really grumpy so it's lose lose.

Since I came back to the U.K. I'm shocked by road etiquette from cars and cyclists.

So (quick) beep/pip and take flack is my advice

-I got hit by a car from behind last year on a country road riding alone. suddenly i got real interested In mountain bikes and bridleways...

Agreed on the gutter point
You're almost encouraging a close pass imho

I also signal cars to pass me when I want them to, I let them know I'm a aware of them then em orange them to go

This isn't rush hour commute stuff though.

I live in Cambridge and it's bad news when it comes to car and bIke tensions.

A cyclist needs a minimum of 1.5 metres.

(* as a rule I try to avoid the constant leapfrog on either the bike or the car).

So (quick) beep/pip and take flack is my advice

[quote=lexhorton ]It's my opinion that in these situations it's kind of on the cyclists to end up single file and lubricate the whole situation a bit.

Which leaves me kind of surprised that you claim to be a roadie. In the vast majority of situations being two abreast makes no difference at all to whether a car can overtake cyclists safely, as on most roads there still isn't sufficient space to pass without crossing onto the other side of the road. Hence singling out only "lubricates" the system for those drivers who will pass too close.

I still think OP is trolling, but anyway...

In the vast majority of situations being two abreast makes no difference at all to whether a car can overtake cyclists safely, as on most roads there still isn't sufficient space to pass without crossing onto the other side of the road.

Nearly all the roads I cycled on when I lived in Scotland were single lane roads, more or less. If you didn't single out a car definitely couldn't over take safely.

Single lane as in single track - ie cars going opposite ways can't pass without a passing space?

Dpnt forget to look well ahead and olan the overtake. You can often ease off a bit and arrive at the cyclist at the same time as a hap, or indeed speed up to do the same. Move out early too..really grips my shit wben you see people still moving out when going past the cyclist and are furthest out 20m past them.

Exactly as you would any other traffic. In the next lane out, and only when safe to do so. On single track roads only at a passing place ( I would say this is the one situation where a beep is justifiable).

Patience is a good thing.

Overtake them the same as a car, pretend it's your elderly mum/gran in her car if you have to have something to focus the mind. After a year or so you should have the habit ingrained in your normal driving.

..in reality it's the morning commute, the other side of the road is full of cars and lorries..

So the roads will be busy, by forcing yourself past all you'll do is join the back of the next queue of traffic quicker ie not gain anything at all. If you spend any amount of time riding during busy times on the road you quickly realise that you see the same car going the same way as you constantly, they can't get anywhere any faster than you can on your bike as there's so much traffic.
Likewise when I'm driving in heavy traffic I find that any cyclists I come across tend to be able to get along at a similar pace to me anyway so rushing past them makes no sense, it just increases the danger for both of us.

..if another vehicle happened to be coming the other way on the corner encroaching onto my side of the road, I would have had nowhere to go except into the cyclists I was overtaking, so likesay I just sat behind them.

Best thing to do. In that situation you're causing a dangerous situation to potentially occur. This can end in a few ways:

1: you make the pass without hitting anything, purely by luck.
2: you have to brake hard to avoid an oncoming car who also has to take avoiding action. The cyclist craps themselves and has to take avoiding action also.
3: you hit an oncoming car and risk injury to either you or them. It'll also damage your car and hurt you in hiked insurance premiums.
4: you swerve to avoid the car and hi the cyclist, potentially injuring or killing them, can you live with that on your conscience? Plus your insurance will go up or you risk a ban/prison.
5: you hit the oncoming car, bounce into the cyclist and potentially kill 1,2 or all 3 of the people involved (plus passengers).
6: you choose to wait for a safer place to pass.

As you chose option 6 it means you have the correct attitude to road safety, keep this up. Never forget that when driving a car you have the potential to injure or kill anyone in your vicinity. Drive accordingly and you'll be reducing this risk dramatically. The fact you've come on here asking for advice is a good sign that you take your driving responsibilities seriously.

Either that or you're a troll 😉

I think I've decided how to make my millions and retire tomorrow, I'm going to patent a chunky, aerodynamic arrow that cyclists attach to their waist and visually shows others how much space the cyclist should be given. The arrow is 1.5 metres long.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner? 😉

Go and ride on the road for a few hours.. You'll soon see what's a bad overtake

I do think there is a market for a tubular rear light tube though. Mounted to the seat stays and brake boss. Approx 50cm wide so will fit through gaps if filtering in traffic. A 50cm wide by 60cm long U shaped light tube of say 15mm dia. would give height and width to the cyclist.

So rather than a centrally mounted rear light that effectively ' narrows ' your vehicle and gives a nice target for the cars to aim at , you have a 2ft long tube that sits 25cm to the left and right of your centerline. Making you appear taller, wider and bigger than you are.

^ I like this idea

up to do the same. Move out early too..really grips my shit wben you see people still moving out when going past the cyclist and are furthest out 20m past them

I drive. I cycle on the road. Overtaking cyclists properly isn't hard. Wait until you can use the next lane (assuming normal lane widths)/.

And filtering isn't the same. If i filter past a stationary car at 10mph there's a chance i might wobble and ding the car, but nobody is in serious danger. If a car overtakes me too close at 30mph then a wobble by either of us could kill me.

Nope not a troll, just wanted to other peoples views that's all. I've had bad overtakes or rather people driving past at 60+mph as if you're simply not there on the A635 in the dark peak area. To be fair as long as I'm given some room I'm happy but that's because I haven't cycled on the road much, if I did it every day my opinion would be different, hence asking on here

I think it's a very valid question OP

Well done in getting on the road but, like anything you are new to, somethings will crop up that you will not have seen in your lessons. That's no disrespect to your instructor or yourself, driving is a dynamic environment and you can't set things up. You can't set up a lesson on overtaking cyclists as you may not come across any.

You can't set up a lesson on dealing with emergency vehicles as you may not need to pull in....

Best advice I can give without being there whilst the cyclist is in front of you, is if you would not be happy with a driver passing you at that point, hold back till it's safer.

The best drivers never stop learning.

Hi muckytee,

There is really a pretty simple answer to this: treat cyclists like vulnerable human beings, who have as much right to be on the road as anyone else, and whose right to get safely home to have dinner with their loved ones absolutely supersedes your right to get to where you want to be 5 minutes earlier than you otherwise might. In a civilised society, they also have a reasonable expectation not to be scared or threatened, just as everyone else does.

If that means slowing down a queue of traffic by waiting for a safe place to pass, do it. It definitely means looking ahead and only overtaking if it's safe and if it is actually going to save you time - a significant percentage of overtakes that I see result in the car joining the back of the queue they'd have joined anyway, just a few seconds earlier.

A useful thing that I was taught was to not pull back in until the cyclist is visible in your rear view mirror rather than your wing mirror. That way, you're definitely well past them.

Whatever you do, don't take cues from other drivers. Half of them are below average and the best still make mistakes (I know I do :wink:).
Experience counts for a lot, and you will gain this, just don't over-estimate your ability in the meantime.
On your specific question, wait until it's obviously safe, and when it is, pull out using all available width and put your toe down a bit. I've been in one or two situations riding on the road AND driving where the first overtaker doesn't speed up, leaving the following car in limbo next to the cyclist (or slower vehicle) with a car now oncoming.
I've modified my driving now, and don't overtake unless there is space for me to move in to, a bit like a dynamic yellow box if you will.

The as much room as a car statement is bloody stupid. If you're overtaking a car then you only have a few feet between you and the car.

It should say pass on the opposite side of the white lines to the bike.

The other day I was driving down past 3 Counties show-ground, an often nasty-fast stretch (B4208) that I always try and avoid when cycling as drivers often act like idiots and it gets tight. There is no cycle path. So I see a driving-school car in front with L plates, and in front of that (travelling at the side of the road) a cyclist. Lots of oncoming traffic I make sure to check mirrors, lose speed, look up ahead for a gap to plan overtake, obv after the learner-driver.

Prepare to sit it out fro a while. But the learner-driver in the driving school car in front doesn't slow, instead progresses at the same speed UNTIL LEVEL WITH CYCLIST'S REAR WHEEL, then slows to match speed of bike, in hes from her back wheel, then makes a jerky close-pass narrowly missing her handlebars.

I was so hyper-alert to all the developing hazards at this point that I (stupidly) forgot to get the details of the motoring school. ffs.

I'm not sure what you think the beep achieves in that circumstance. Unless you have an electric car its unlikely that an alert / sensible roady is unaware of your presence after a few seconds. So the only people you are "beeping" at are those most likely to get wound up at (or startled by) your horn. As it is not custom and practice here, it will be interpreted as "get out my way".

Unless someone is right up behind cyclists then they are unlikely to HEAR a car ... of course they SHOULD be looking anyway ... but "should be" isn't very good as most of us drivers ...

A clash between a car and a bike is exceedingly one sided ... so in simple terms of self preservation it simply makes sense that cyclists accommodate "big things that will do them a lot of damage"

So if they don't know a quick pip lets them know and if they do know but refuse to acknowledge the car it doesn't seem inappropriate.

If the driver didn't give a toss they would pass anyway, its not like they get hurt if they need to pull back in and it kills the cyclist.

As it is not custom and practice here,

Tailgating a cyclist is such a common mistake, and makes it harder to judge when you can pass safely.

Hang back but position towards the right to discourage impatient drivers from overtaking.

The faster you go, the more space you need, this applies to parked cars and pedestrians as much as cyclists. 60mph and you really need to give them a whole lane, in exceptional circumstances you could crawl past at 20mph with a metre clearance, if constant heavy traffic means you are traveling slowly.

simple - imagine a car sized box around the cyclist. Do not go into this box when you pass

Just give some ****ing space, your dick won't fall off if you have to wait for 30 seconds.

On the other hand the clueless muppet driver I was following the other day was just hopeless. Afte catching some cyclists on a country lane, they hung back so far that they had no chance of overtaking on any of the numerous straight bits with good sight lines. Just sat bimbling along at 15mph average, about 200 yards back, for several miles for no good reason. Cyclists probably didn't even know they were there.

[i]simple - imagine a car sized box around the cyclist. Do not go into this box when you pass[/i]

Car sized box OVER the cyclist is a clearer explanation.

poly - Member
A cyclist needs a minimum of 1.5 metres.
It depends though doesn't it? Speed, Road Conditions, Surface, Weather... to my mind that is why the Highway Code doesn't stipulate a distance in m.

But the POLICE are curently enforcing their CLOSE PASS INITIATIVE, at Police forces around the uk 1.5 metres minimum passing distance.

http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/WebsitePages/CCB079668E765DA2802580CD0031656C?OpenDocument

 

[quote=Malvern Rider ]The other day I was driving down past 3 Counties show-ground, an often nasty-fast stretch (B4208) that I always try and avoid when cycling as drivers often act like idiots and it gets tight.

I've ridden that road a lot, and still ride it fairly often - can't actually remember ever having a problem with drivers along there (unlike many local roads, sightlines are good and normally you don't have to wait long for a gap so drivers don't seem to get frustrated). Maybe the speed I'm going helps - I'd usually be going almost 25mph along there, having carried speed off the hill (I almost always ride it going South).

Valid point about learner drivers and by implication instructors though - I was thinking about making a similar point (though without the useful anecdote) about many instructors not having good attitudes towards cyclists, and not teaching passing well even when the opportunity does arise - and given the number of cyclists now on the roads, it would seem unusual for a learner never to encounter one.

How much room would you want other people to give you when you're on your bike?
Give other people that much.

Probably terrible advice.

Not all people on bikes are aware of how much room they should safely be given (while cycling).
Or indeed where they should themselves be positioned on the road

eg. 'I'm a bloody cyclist myself and that idiot cyclist was slowing down traffic, riding in the middle of the road (sic), no hi-viz nor nothing. Get by the kerb, you selfish idiot, you're (sic) type make the rest of us look rediculous (sic)'. &c

Source - the endless internet commentary

(I almost always ride it going South).

Agreed, excellent visibility going South (although ironically the woman who was subjected to a near-miss on Monday was cycling South South), I'm normally heading North and past Blackmore Park lodge it gets sketchy with a slight bend heading towards Poolbrook into a dark section (trees) and a then the blind hill ahead where people should 'ideally' not be overtaking as they leave/enter the 40 zone 😕

My spider-senses always tingle past the Blackmore Park entrance and I gun it to Peachfield Rd 😆

[quote=poly ]

A cyclist needs a minimum of 1.5 metres.

I suspect you're attributing too much intelligence to the HC there. A lot of the HC regarding cycling is badly written, or even just plain wrong. As project says, it might depend, but 1.5m is still a minimum. Filtering is completely different and doesn't require the same space as a car passing a cyclist - drivers might not like that, but tough, that's the way it is - and yes if a car came past me after I'd filtered I do expect a lot more space than I gave it! The mistake you're making here is that the situation isn't symmetrical - it's not cyclists introducing danger to the road.

[quote=Drac ]The as much room as a car statement is bloody stupid. If you're overtaking a car then you only have a few feet between you and the car.
It should say pass on the opposite side of the white lines to the bike.

As above, I agree - that's part of the HC which should be better written (though far from the most wrong, even regarding this particular topic). However it's not a completely useless statement - a few feet the same as you'd give a car might be less than that 1.5m which is what I'd prefer, but it's not close enough that I'd consider it a close pass.

I also signal cars to pass me when I want them to

Filtering is completely different and doesn't require the same space as a car passing a cyclist - drivers might not like that, but tough, that's the way it is - and yes if a car came past me after I'd filtered I do expect a lot more space than I gave it! The mistake you're making here is that the situation isn't symmetrical -

That is your view ... but correct or not is immaterial as this is not [b]how [/b]the majority of non-cycling motorists are going to think.

it's not cyclists introducing danger to the road

I'm living in Spain, and legally vehicles have to give at least 1.5 metres when overtaking a cyclist. Usually they'll pass by on the other side of the road, and if they sound the horn it's to let you know they are there rather than anything aggressive. On occasion you'll get a grumpy Spaniard, but for the most part they'll shout words of encouragement etc. The main perpetrators in therms of nationality, at least as ascertained by the vehicle registration seems to be Belgium closely followed by the U.K. If you see a rental car you know to keep on your toes...

[quote=stevextc ]That is your view ... but correct or not is immaterial as this is not how the majority of non-cycling motorists are going to think.

It's not only my view, it's also the view of WMP and various other police forces. I'm not sure the incorrect view of some ignorant drivers is terribly relevant - sure they might rant and produce all sorts of mistaken opinions in comments on articles, but they're still wrong. You appear to be suggesting here that you should only filter when you have as much space as you'd like a car to pass you and/or cars can pass you as close as you'd filter. So effectively you're either saying that cyclists can't filter or that drivers can pass closer than the recommended (and now enforced) 1.5m - could you clarify which?

it's not cyclists introducing danger to the road

again that is not how the majority of the driving public are going to see it. Nor do I think it is even partly correct ... cyclists ignoring red lights, riding down a one way the wrong way etc. might or might not kill someone ... but causing a car to swerve into a pedestrian because a cyclist doesn't believe a red light applies to them is a cyclist introducing danger.

Again I'm not sure of the relevance of the opinions of ignorant drivers, but your strawman is also strawmanny. It's an interesting deflection I've seen used before, but not only have I never seen a report of a pedestrian being killed because a car swerved to avoid a filtering cyclist, I haven't even ever seen such a report for a car swerving to avoid any cyclist (let alone where the cyclist is behaving badly, rather than the driver being at fault). What's more, even if there were such a case, it's STILL NOT the cyclist introducing the danger - it's still the ton of metal hitting the pedestrian which is the problem.

Are you really suggesting that the situation is symmetrical and cyclists are introducing as much danger as vehicles because despite the numerous pedestrians and cyclists killed by drivers every year you've come up with some hypothetical where a pedestrian could be killed due to the actions of a cyclist? Let's try an analogy - man walking down the street with an automatic assault rifle, toddler who has escaped the grip of his mum bumps into him causing his finger to slip onto the trigger and spray bullets at the crowd of shoppers. So the toddler is introducing just as much danger as the bloke with the gun?

But let's come back to filtering, which is what we were discussing here - do you really not see the difference between 80kg of cyclist filtering at 10mph and 1000kg of car overtaking at 30mph or more? Do you think they both result in the same amount of danger, and therefore require the same amount of space?

but they're still wrong

it's STILL NOT the cyclist introducing the danger - it's still the ton of metal hitting the pedestrian which is the problem

Lets replace the cyclist with a car.... the car goes through red lights causing another car that is going through a green light to swerve and hit a pedestrian... ?

But let's come back to filtering, which is what we were discussing here - do you really not see the difference between 80kg of cyclist filtering at 10mph and 1000kg of car overtaking at 30mph or more? Do you think they both result in the same amount of danger, and therefore require the same amount of space?

[b]Nope I think that if you demonstrate to a non cyclist driver how much room YOU need they will expect that is how much room YOU need. [/b]

But let's come back to filtering, which is what we were discussing here

I thought we were discussing overtaking cyclists...

[quote=stevextc ]It only matters what the majority of car drivers THINK...

Ah, so traffic rules are reduced to the level of the average ignorant driver? Thankfully not the view of WMP (and now other police forces).

So effectively you're either saying that cyclists can't filter or that drivers can pass closer than the recommended (and now enforced) 1.5m - could you clarify which?

It's the position of the pedestrian and the ton of metal that's the problem which is introduced in that case by the cyclist.

It's still a strawman, but if you want to persist in beating it, then let's remove the cars from the road - are the cyclists actions causing danger? Quite clearly it's only the presence of cars on the road which makes the situation dangerous (and handily also applies to your latest deflection).

So, instead of a toddler we have another bloke with a gun walking down the street bumping into original bloke with gun who sprays everybody with bullets - which of them has introduced the danger?

Can I just check again - you consider the situation to be symmetrical and cyclists introduce as much danger as vehicles despite the stats because of some hypothetical?

Nope I think that if you demonstrate to a non cyclist driver how much room YOU need they will expect that is how much room YOU need.

Ah, are we back to something similar to "giving cyclists a bad name" here? (though in this case by the interesting action of doing something perfectly safe and legal). Presumably drivers can't be expected to pay any attention to what the HC says and are reliant on demonstration from cyclists.

I don't ever signal cars to overtake me. Not my responsibility

Correct. It's also potentially dangerously distracting to signal others to overtake. They should be making such a life/death decision to overtake on a lot of ever-changing factors, not a hand-wave. Humans being suggestible and all.

cyclists ignoring red lights, riding down a one way the wrong way etc. might or might not kill someone ... but causing a car to swerve into a pedestrian because a cyclist doesn't believe a red light applies to them is a cyclist introducing danger.

Read that back to yourself and imagine you're on MailOnline. Not hard is it?

🙄

I don't ever signal cars to overtake me. Not my responsibility;

I don't ever [s]signal cars to overtake me[/s]hold open doors for people. Not my responsibility;

I generally wave cars past on single track (or nearly so) roads when I reach a wide bit (passing place or otherwise) where I can slow up and drift into it a bit. That way the car gets off my arse with minimum hold-up to all parties. Sometimes I stop of course, often it's not necessary especially if the driver is paying attention and responds reasonably well to my signal.

The OP had better be trolling, otherwise what the ****ing hell were they taught when they learnt to drive? We're all ****ing doomed if you can get a license and not know the answer to the question!

I don't ever signal cars to overtake me[s]hold open doors for people[/s]. Not my responsibility;

False equivalence. Overtaking is a potential life/death decision. This decision should be taken by the motorist and only when it is safe to do so. Waving them on opensup a whole can of potential worms:

- They may squeeze-pass
- They may get nervous/make a mistake because they may not wish to pass yet
- If something goes wrong some fingers will be pointing at you

I certainly remember my driving instructor tellng me that it's usually safer to ignore 'encouraging' signals from other road users.

I'd prefer to pull off the road for a few if oncoming traffic + me is causing a tail-back.

I sometimes signal cars to pass, but only when I can see it's totally safe. They seem to appreciate the courtesy.

A lot of the time I don't, if I feel there's any potential risk to them, myself or others.

Ah, so traffic rules are reduced to the level of the average ignorant driver? Thankfully not the view of WMP (and now other police forces).

So effectively you're either saying that cyclists can't filter or that drivers can pass closer than the recommended (and now enforced) 1.5m - could you clarify which?

Nope I'm simply pointing out it doesn't matter what the RULES say.
Because ....

[quote="chakaping"]Read that back to yourself and imagine you're on MailOnline. Not hard is it? .. because most drivers don't cycle and many read the Mailonline...

Ah, are we back to something similar to "giving cyclists a bad name" here?

nope ...

(though in this case by the interesting action of doing something perfectly safe and legal). Presumably drivers can't be expected to pay any attention to what the HC says and are reliant on demonstration from cyclists.

Firstly it's NOT perfectly safe .... it may be perfectly legal but it is not safe because you can't rely on drivers to have read the HC in decades.
The thing is most drivers don't cycle... they will see a bike pass them and so assume they can pass a bike at the same distance.

As to giving cyclists a bad name... don't we have Boris for that ??

This decision should be taken by the motorist and only when it is safe to do so

Are you saying you cannot tell when there is a clear section of road ahead with no oncoming traffic?

I have also gone into the middle of the road holding my hand up in the stop sign as well when i can see something they cannot that is ahead.

I have yet to falsely deem it safe to overtake me and been killed in the process.

Out of interest do you ignore everyone who flashes you in a car as its not their decision? Would i be correct in I assume assuming you never flash other cars either to let them go?

Sometimes cooperation between road users is essential and helping someone get past me safely falls into this category for me if nor for you.

Are you saying you cannot tell when there is a clear section of road ahead with no oncoming traffic?

No I did not say or mean that.

Out of interest do you ignore everyone who flashes you in a car as its not their decision?

Not customarily, no. Do I ignore some? Yes, if I note/foresee that their decision/judgement has been or could be compromised by a quickly changing situation, or simply bad-judgement/blind-spot on their part. It all rather depends on the situation. I also prefer to trust my own judgement, as a motorist (who also cycles), when passing a cyclist. This applies whether or not they wave me past.

[I]TiRed - Member
Patience. It's not the cyclist holding you up, it's the oncoming traffic preventing you from passing safely.[/I]

Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Don't pass until the other side of the road is clear. Then swing over to the other lane and pass.

Pity though that when I look in the RVM, 99% of the time, the following idiot drivers then pass, usually with only the O/S wheels having crossed the white lines, if you're lucky!

I see lots of close passes, which make me wince.
It's frustrating to see, but until there's a collective willingness on behalf of all drivers to be patient and pass only when it's proper to do so, the current behaviours will persist.

[quote=stevextc ]Nope I'm simply pointing out it doesn't matter what the RULES say.

Right, hang on a minute here. I've read back through the thread to find out where we started discussing the DM rules of driving, and it appears to be your lone crusade. The rest of us are busy fairly sensibly discussing what drivers and cyclists SHOULD do, which is after all what the OP was after.

nope ...

yep, because "they will see a bike pass them and so assume they can pass a bike at the same distance" is exactly that mindset, given it's not the cyclist who safely and legally filtered past them who gets the close pass by the ignorant driver.

Firstly it's NOT perfectly safe .... it may be perfectly legal but it is not safe because you can't rely on drivers to have read the HC in decades.

So in what way is filtering past a stationary queue of traffic not safe (notwithstanding being Graylinged)? Even drivers completely ignorant of the HC would struggle to break it whilst stationary. Ignorance of the HC is another matter, but not a reason or an excuse for any driving failure.

BTW you still don't appear to have answered whether you consider cyclists shouldn't filter, or drivers should be allowed to pass them closer than 1.5m, nor who is introducing the danger, the toddler or the bloke with the gun.

[I]aracer - Member
nor who is introducing the danger, the toddler or the bloke with the gun. [/I]

And breath.
😉