There's a petition going into No10 in January regarding motorists passing to close to cyclists while commuting.
Follow the link
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/3feet2Pass/
Paul
Groundhog day. Again. It was a shit idea the last 3 times too (note the double-o).
It's been on here about half a dozen times before and each time it's been ripped to shreds as being a rubbish idea that's completely unworkable. Even the CTC aren't backing it.
It's different this time.
I [b][i]think[/i][/b] there's a veiled threat that PaulBecks will come round, kick your head in and steal your bikes if you don't sign.
Either that or you'll wake up to find Steve Peat's head in your bed.
Well let's just scrap the whole collective voice idea then shall we?
You've got to start somewhere... we're not going to to turn into Copenhagen or Berlin overnight!
I'm In!
we're not going to to turn into Copenhagen or Berlin overnight!
Good.
p.s. the sentiment of the petition is laudable but it would be spectacularly bad law.
That's the point though, there's already legislation in place called the Highway Code. It states that motorists should give a cyclist as much room as they would give a car. Now most motorists don't obey that but at the same time, the vast majority overtake safely. And how exactly are you going to measure 3ft when a car is overtaking? Are you then going to phone the police and say "car reg xxxx overtook me with only 2' 4" space"? No, so it's totally pointless.
Turn it the other way round - suppose you're filtering through stationary traffic, bars inches from wing mirrors and someone says "sorry mate, you need to give 3ft space". You can't have it all your way.
The time and effort would be better spent encouraging more people to ride bikes. The more cyclists on the roads, the safer the roads become. They don't become safer by more and more unenforceable laws that make the motorist feel ever more alienated and discriminated against.
End of rant - I'm off for a ride...
daft idea that would take up parliamentary time and never be enforced by the police.
Bring in assumed liability on motorists involved in accidents with peds or cyclist as they have on the continent. far more easily enforced and far more likely to change the psyche of the average UK [s]killer white van man[/s] motorist.
Load of shite- as has been said every time it's been posted on here.
As above, daft idea, plus totally wrong because it's using feet, not metres.
Next week; a petition for motorists to leave a 0.9144 metre gap when passing cars....... 😈
I actually signed this about a month ago, but now I've had second thoughts. A juggernaught passed me on a small A-road at 60mph, gave me about 3-4 feet, and blew me off the road onto the grassy verge. He could have killed me, whilst obeying the letter of this law.
If the Spaniards can do it, why can't we?Bring in assumed liability on motorists involved in accidents with peds or cyclist as they have on the continent.
wouldn't this rule stop cyclists and motorcyclists from filtering down between two lines of stationary traffic? That would double my journey time. No thanks, just get some more traffic cops on the road and hit drivers for driving with due care and attention. The law is already there, there's just no-one to enforce it.
Unworkable, unenforceble, and not good enough anyway....avoid!
Mistercrud; maybe the truck driver was a Scottish STWer who remembers your fanboy- style defence of Thatcher some time ago? 😉
Right, take a deep breath 😉 Some of these laws aren't designed to be constantly enforced. For example, mobile phone driving. After the initial hype there's not many people being stopped for driving with a mobile, but, if you're involved in an accident or stopped for another offence while using a mobile, then you get a stout kick in the balls. A law doesn't need to be constantly enforced to be useful. In this case in the case of a car/motorist collision it would give a more specific case to bring than the usual driving without due care and attention or DD, and could make prosecutions easier.
Stoner wrote, "Bring in assumed liability on motorists involved in accidents with peds or cyclist as they have on the continent. far more easily enforced and far more likely to change the psyche of the average UK motorist."
With the slight downside of being insane. Hands up anyone who believes that with the terrible standard of UK road cycling, that this would be a reasonable move to make?
[i]With the slight downside of being insane. Hands up anyone who believes that with the terrible standard of UK road cycling, that this would be a reasonable move to make? [/i]
Does anyone actually understand this law?! It's called no-fault liability, you can google it. It works fine in various European countries and in some states of America. It's actually designed to make insurance cheaper and easier.
It does NOT mean that a cyclist can jump a red light, go hurtling across a busy junction and claim thousands when he gets knocked off by a car because (in that instance) the cyclist is clearly at fault.
As usual it's been hyped up and misrepresented by the reactionary gutter press in much the same way as most "news stories" and articles about cycling are deliberately negative.
As you say, it's possible for the motorist to prove they're not at fault, but the burden of proof is on them, which is why I say it's insane. Cyclist swerves into path of car, cyclist gets hit, impossible to prove fault without witnesses so the car driver is held liable. The only way to justify it is if you cling to the cyclist's belief that it's always the motorist's fault, IMO- and since only one half of the accident is on the road without any training, testing or licensing, that makes little sense. The burden of proof should never be on the defendant. As you say it makes insurance cheaper and easier- just not for the insured party in the accident.
Funnily enough, if you do google it the top hit is a BBC article which includes a quote from someone on here 🙂