This image is odd. The whole point it’s trying to make is that it’s quicker to overtake cyclists who are two abreast as opposed to in a line.
In points 3 and 4 it suggests that because the driver can go completely into the other lane, they should, it doesn’t actually ever say why they should. It completely ignores that it obviously takes longer to drive across into the other lane and then back than to pass the cyclists as closely as is safe. Maybe not a huge difference in time but it’s not like this overtake is going to take a very long time in total.
If it wanted to suggest that it’s only ever safe to overtake a cyclist by driving entirely into the other lane then the diagrams aren’t necessary. It could just say:
More cyclists fit onto a given stretch of road if they’re side by side.
You have to drive into the other lane to overtake anyway.
Therefore it’s always quicker to overtake cyclists who are side by side.
The other thing it doesn’t take into account is that to overtake a cyclist you’d typically be accelerating, so the 2nd cyclist in a row would be passed more quickly than the 1st.
Oh my god, have we really gotten so stupid that we can’t even read the next paragraph? If the point is that it’s more safe (which is totally valid) then why does the the image specifically avoid saying that?
You'd think white car would be a fan of separated bike lanes... (sh.itjust.works)