Meanwhile on the Roads...

Edit: sorry, meant to quote/reply to magicbastarder.

Maybe just 1 exception would be where the opposite carriageway is less than the width of a car plus the required 1 or 1.5m clearance (plus of course a couple of feet to the right of the overtaking car so they're not bang up against the right edge of the roadway.). So less than approx 3.5m-4m wide depending on the 1/1.5m clearance required.

On the last question, if a road is too narrow for a safe overtake then according to Reg 9, there is no obligation at all because it's impossible to allow someone to overtake safely (as just one example, a road that's only 4m wide, unless it's a bike or a motorbike overtaking a bike)

Edit: sorry, I've done it again! This one is meant as a reply to Seth Brundle

I'm not any way relying on any attempt to claim a lane or carriageway is the same as a roadway. I agree with your reading of the definitions of those 3 words. (And of course some roadways don't have any marked lanes or carriageways.). The wording in Reg 9 after "roadway" is particularly important and can't be ignored. If it just stopped at "roadway", then there's no debate.

I've quoted the legislation but you seem to have ignored the second half of Reg 9, after the word "roadway". Rather than throw more insults my way, maybe you could actually address that part of the wording.
All I'm trying to highlight is that there is some level of obligation on a cyclist (which includes me on a reasonably regular basis) to cycle in a manner to allow a safe overtake (only a safe overtake) , when possible and safe. That's all, doesn't sound too controversial.

I never said it required people to make space to allow an overtake in the same lane; it's obvious for example that an overtake by a car wholly in the same lane could never be safe in a typical lane of 3.5m width, there's just not enough space.

Just going back to the wording of the regulation, it refers to driving (which includes cycling) in such a manner as to allow a safe overtake, where safe and possible of course. It doesn't attempt to go into more detail as to how that might occur on the range of road widths and formats that there are, just where it's safe and possible. Some posters made good points around this, that there can be more than one way to allow enough space. That made me agree that it wasn't always necessary to go as far left as possible and safe, just far enough (while safe) to allow a safe overtake.

I guess some of you might be getting tired of me repeating some of this (as am I) but I only do so when my own words have been misconstrued or misquoted or not considered fully.

I have started to take the road recently due to that fact.

My what you would call 'crusing/easy speed' is 22/23kph/15mph due to the years of running and cycling fitness I've built up. Its just safer with the cars at that point.

I've only started recently with the weather - with more and more cycling to work its a lot more stopping and starting whilst being careful looking for pedestrians.

In the winter I find its generally much less busy with the weather and lack of sunlight.

The former Passat owners passed all their electrical exams and moved up to 10-15 yer old A4s and A6s.

A mate got a wasp stuck in his helmet a few years ago, and was duly stung before he could stop and take it off, not a pleasant experience.

Jesus.

I did a sportif (100 miles I think it was) and fell and broke the arm on mile 99 - adreneline got me through last 3-5 mins and finish line was in sight.

Can't imagine having loss of sight for a third of it.

Hardy Fella