Cars & berth – cyclists vs pedestrians

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Cars & berth – cyclists vs pedestrians
  • Premier Icon sirromj

    Just been thinking about it recently. Are car drivers told to drive 1.5m away from pedestrians walking along the edge of the pavement? When cycling or driving on the road I’ll give pedestrians a wider berth especially if they’re close to pavement edge. Discuss

    Premier Icon kelron

    No because raised kerbs form an impenetrable barrier, similar to white lines.

    Premier Icon Cougar

    Hob Nob, anyone?

    Premier Icon seosamh77

    It’s called hazard awareness.


    If they’re on the road then yes I probably do give them as much spacer, unless they’ve seen me and have stepped back. Then they’ll probably get an appreciative wave.

    On a footpath I’ll give a wide berth/slow down if it looks like they are likely to end up in the road, especially kids or dogs.

    Premier Icon garage-dweller

    Not sure about 1.5m but the kerb does add a degree of separation. Most drivers don’t routinely mount the kerb when driving forwards and it gives a very obvious reference point to not cross. I think it’s also partly a mental thing of the perceived value of the kerb. If there’s no footpath I slow and make a heap of room.

    With an overtake you are talking about a car diverting from its direct and normal path of travel and needing to pull out and describe an ark around you but also there’s a greater risk of wobble from a cyclist than a pedestrian.

    One of the issues/benefits that drives the 1.5m must be the fact that there’s no forward looking reference point to judge width against (as there is when following a kerb at normal driving distance).

    As an experienced cyclist I tend to think the 1.5m is a bit of an over simplification.

    If someone passes me at a closing speed of 10mph in a car I’d probably live with 1.0m without complaint. In an ideal world (yeah, right) I don’t really want an HGV or a car closing on me at 40mph at much less than 2.0m.

    I guess the 1.5m gives a decent mid point that stands a chance of legal enforcement.

    I alter my road position depending on hazards.


    As AA – especially when cyling see a pedestrian move out from the kerb. also when driving.

    1.5 m is barely adequate

    Depends how young, old or wobbly they look. I guess you could apply the same reasoning to cyclists, but there’s always the chance of a gust of wind or a pothole causing them to swerve out.


    Pedestrian deaths from being hit by lorry wing mirrors are a thing.

    Premier Icon a11y

    Poor road planning plays a part in this – but doesn’t excuse the muppetry.

    Example near me: road which is also main bus route with bus every 15min; islands in middle of road (which double as refuge points when crossing) cause traffic to travel very close to pavement; pavement is just wide enough for a normal buggy with a solid wall on other side. IMO road is too narrow to have the islands in the middle. Not pleasnt walking along when any vehicle passes doing 30mph, and terrifying when pushing a buggy while leading another toddler. Feels like their mirror misses my head by inches. The decent thing would be slowing down but aye right.

    Premier Icon Pickers

    Pedestrian deaths from being hit by lorry wing mirrors are a thing.

    Mrs Pickers was hit from behind on the shoulder by a Transit van door mirror, she was on the edge of the pavement, walking the kids to school. Still gives her gyp some 20 years on.

    I find I’m mysteriously more visible to oncoming traffic if I’m walking at the side of the road whilst carrying a large stick….

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.