[Closed] Motorists to be FINED for overtaking Cyclists, proposal by the governmnet

Great except

a good way of getting funding for cycle schemes

alos lots of jobs created in enforcement.

There are plenty of rules and laws to make the roads a safer place it's just that people (regardless of if they are driving or riding) ignore them.

I believe there is some research (can't find it right now) that concludes that unenforced laws actually make things worse as getting away with it reduces people overall regard for traffic laws.

I'd love to see old fashioned traffic cops make a return. The sort who actually got to fcide whether you needed a fine or just a bollocking.

That sounds a really crap idea IMO.

Onzadog +1, the more unenforceable rules that people don't like the more people will regularly break rules. The trend for reducing speed limits in inappropriate places is proof of that. Meanwhile drivers who kill or assault cyclists continue to get off or get very lenient sentences.

Seems a daft idea.

I can see it now - sad sack cycling 'activists' wobbling along at walking pace goading cars to pass them so they can film them with their helmet mounted gopros and make 'outraged' posts on internet forums and make us all look like even bigger cock wombles than we already do.

look like even bigger cock wombles than we already do.

Would the naysayers care to elaborate? A few roads where cyclists have priority would be great. It could make for some nice, safer corridors through the city and is likely to be in places where 15mph is optimistic for cars anyway. It'll hopefully stop the 'must overtake so I can join the queue of traffic ahead' attitude.

I did! Unless you come up with a way of actually enforcing the rules then they will be ignored.

It'll hopefully stop the 'must overtake so I can join the queue of traffic ahead' attitude.

"[i]cycle streets[/i]"

If you are going to have these, then why not just prohibit cars from said street, altogether ?

EDIT:
Actually, now that the second brain cell is starting to wake up. Wouldn't a better approach be, as in other countries. To keep cars and bikes apart ?

[img] [/img]

Albert reckons it's a great idea..........

[img] [/img]

Most cities don't have the space for separate lanes and they tend to run out when you get to the tricky bits. This seems like a realistic option. Round here bikes are the fastest form if transport once you get near the centre so limiting over taking seems sensible. Policing it will be hard but not impossible or impractical. At the very least it'll stop vulnerable riders feeling like they have to ride in the gutter.

Most cities don't have the space for separate lanes and they tend to run out when you get to the tricky bits. This seems like a realistic option. Round here bikes are the fastest form if transport once you get near the centre so limiting over taking seems sensible. Policing it will be hard but not impossible or impractical. At the very least it'll stop vulnerable riders feeling like they have to ride in the gutter.

how many people do you see using a phone, speeding, creeping at red lights, moving into ASL's, sitting in yellow box junctions etc.

Don't mind being overtaken but I'd like car drivers to learn how to overtake properly, i.e. indicating and giving plenty of room etc. When you're trying to avoid drain covers and pot holes in the wind and rain and some idiot gets that close to you it's a bit hairy.

Is overtaking cyclists a part of the driving test? They seem to be able to do it in France.....

Think these proposals are good as far as they go, they're for specific locations, it's the other roads that need action.

I don't see how it's 'un-enforcable'. No more than passing through a red light and much more clear cut than the speed limit. You might as well throw away all traffic laws with that reasoning.

[i]Think these proposals are good as far as they go, they're for specific locations, it's the other roads that need action[/i]

I'm not sure I agree. Dragging things down to the lowest common denominator doesn't strike me as an especially clever answer to the problem. Slowing motorized vehicles to 15mph is going to cause other issues, pollution, traffic jams. I know this is a bike forum, but the road is an entire environment made up of many groups. Cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, we all share the road or the areas immediately adjacent.
I'd rather see separate cycle lanes, but where this wasn't possible, then close the road to cars and buses, with a restriction for loading, if required.
Just my point of view and I'm open to other opinions.

We used have 2 laws in this country (still have as far as I know)

dangerous driving &
driving with undue care and attention

There are no motoring offences out there that could not be categorised by those 2 laws if there were a means of identifying and enforcing them (traffic cops?). New laws for specific offences just make people more aware of the potential issues of their actions but do nothing to increase convictions. However, they can lead to crazy situations where convictions are no longer based on common sense but rather on following the letter on these new laws.

Having traded in an old banger for a new car, I'd say part of the problem is drivers don't understand how quickly they are going, particularly when overtaking. New cars are so cushioned and quiet inside, but the experience is very different when you are on a bike.

There is also the sheer weight of traffic to take into account; where I live, Hertfordshire, the population has doubled to over a million in 20 years. My once quiet housing estate is now part of a quick cut-through for hundreds of commuters each morning.

As to introducing new laws, it's often to do with an election coming up and trying to curry favour with the cycling lobby. How exactly are they going to be enforced?

Cycle lanes would be a great thing, of course, the irony being where they were actually built (new towns like Stevenage) they are hardly used by the locals. Let's offer tax breaks to cyclists to move to Stevenage and Harlow:-

Here's something that would be more useful:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride US piece on US state laws, translatable for UK road signs

I can't see the point of that, it'll just alienate us even more..

I can see the point of that, it'll make cycling safer and more convenient 😀

traildog - Member
I don't see how it's 'un-enforcable'

It's not unenforceable just you would need to get somebody to enforce it.

cock wombles

My new favorite insult.

If this law came into effect Cyclegaz (shouty you tube number plate quoter) might actually explode on one of his commutes.....

I would much prefer an educational campaign regarding the overtaking of cyclists.
If we could get drivers to consider cyclists the same way they do horses then I think it would be a huge step forward.

It isn't just the pig headed drivers (and pig headed cyclists 😉 ) who cause the problem I think 'average Joe' drivers really aren't sure how to pass a cyclist safely

Plenty of room and lot's of patience please.

[i]Plenty of room and lot's of patience please.[/i]

Well, as a driver, why wouldn't I do this anyway ? Fact is I do.

Obviously, efforts to clone me to replace every other person on the planet, have yet to reach a successful conclusion. Therefore we are faced with the scenario where some drivers simply will never be bothered to do this, for several reasons, which may or may not include "[i]road tax[/i]" (yes I know its been abolished), I'm late, yadda, yadda.

Hence why, I feel its better to separate cyclists and cars.

Brussels ran a test of this sort of mixed bike/car thing with bikes being given priority on one of the main narrow roads here last year. Their view was that it was a success and the scheme is now being extended

My view is that it seems to work well as long as cyclists take their space rather than trying to keep to close to one edge as then the cars try and squeeze by. I haven't seen any hassle except by militant cyclists, cars seem to accept it. It feels safer that marked lanes as well as cars don't seem to consider that there is 'their lane' that they can speed down

I'm for it

(edit: I would prefer completely separated lanes but where that isn't possible this works rather nicely)

I can just see 15 mph and "No overtaking cyclists" zones, especially with fines/points for doing so, either helping to build more resentment between the two road user groups (if actually enforced) or contributing towards the general disregard for road legislation (if written in, but not actually enforced)...

I'm not sure cyclists actually need any bylaw protection from overtaking vehicles, a focus on better road layouts and measures to make motorists aware of cyclists presence especially at pinch points, so they spot us or don't "Left Hook" at junctions...

Enforcement of current legislation should be the test, for example if more people were bollocked/having points taken for using their phones when driving then I'd perhaps believe more traffic rules were warranted but the Rozzers don't have the resources or much interest in that presently, so what would make these additional measures any different?

Preventative planning, not extra legislation is where the focus should go IMO...

Separation of the three main user groups is the ideal I suppose, but not always practicable... I'd be more interested to see what might come from local authorities taking on some of the [url http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/infrastructure/route-design-resources/technical-guidelines ]Sustrans guidance[/url] than more punitive measures that just get the clarksonites up in arms...

It's an utterly stupid idea. Completely unnecessary and counterproductive.

It'll just really really piss motorists, and cyclists off and not give any benefit. There are already laws in Britain that should protect cyclists, it's just that they haven't been implemented properly. Partly because cyclists are viewed as being sub human. That's not going to change by bringing in this law.

People are talking about 15mph here, but a significant number of utility cyclists travel much closer to 10mph. It's just ludicrous to expect cars to crawl along behind them. And whatabout the traffic jams of medium-fast cyclists stuck behind cars that are stuck behind slow cyclists. They're going to be limited to whatever speed the front biker is going.

And for those people in favour, are you happy to keep to 15mph on your bike? I doubt it. Presumably you'll just be ignoring the limit like so many bikers ignore red lights.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm rabidly pro cyclist and anti motorist, but this proposal sucks big time.

[i]Preventative planning, not extra legislation is where the focus should go IMO...[/i]

Yeap.

[i]I'm rabidly pro cyclist and anti motorist[/i]
However, if we're to find a [i]real[/i] solution, then perhaps we need to leave our prejudices at the door and take a balanced view.

I drive and I also cycle. Frustrated drivers, dragging along at 15mph would give me cause for concern. Also, I want to see respect for cyclists and their safety, elevated.

...this prohibition could be accompanied by an [b]advisory[/b] speed limit of 15mph

Which cities are you guys driving in where 15mph is crawling along? We aren't talking every main arterial road, just a few in each city, likely close to the centre. Round here you'll do well to get up to 15mph except for the odd short bit when the lights change (which TBH you really don't need to do at 30mph)

I totally agree that stopping motorists performing dangerous acts would be better but if anything its getting worse, not better so doing nothing is not an option.

And for those people in favour, are you happy to keep to 15mph on your bike? I doubt it. Presumably you'll just be ignoring the limit like so many bikers ignore red lights.

Lets not start attributing blanket statements on anyone behaviour on the road, I am certainly not an RLJist thanks, And I'd accept that within built up areas of towns and cities, a bicycle (Much like a car) might have to travel at a reduced speed for general safety and to actually aid overall traffic flow...

Don't misunderstand me, I'm rabidly pro cyclist and anti motorist, but this proposal sucks big time.

There's the problem polarized "Debates" help nobody. As a wise member of this forum recently posted "Pick a side and be a dick about it"...

Getting caught up in Pro/Anti mud slinging misses the point, 99.99% of people whether in a car, on a bike or on foot, just want to get where they are going, in a timely fashion without receiving or inflicting injury, we're not all that different.

I can't pretend to know whether this would work, or indeed whether it would affect me, but the silly bitch this morning, who decided the moment to overtake was when I put my arm out to turn right should be fined.

The scheme doesn't go far enough. If we're gonna have zones of progressless dawdling behind the slowest cyclist on the day, then NO-ONE should be allowed to pass anyone. So no filtering past the cars and nipping by the 'not real cyclist' on a BSO at the front.

How's this work for motorcycles and scooters then?

Assume they are "vehicles" and bound by it?

The scheme doesn't go far enough. If we're gonna have zones of progressless dawdling behind the slowest cyclist on the day, then NO-ONE should be allowed to pass anyone.

thought about this myself when car drivers get pissed at cyclists filtering, option would be that no one can overtake anyone else unless there are multiple lanes, reckon the car drivers would get pissed off with this before cyclists tho.

Really? City boy Dynamo sitting behind tourist on Boris bike? Just can't see it myself. 🙂
Motorcyclists would be the worst though

The scheme doesn't go far enough. If we're gonna have zones of progressless dawdling behind the slowest cyclist on the day, then NO-ONE should be allowed to pass anyone.

As much as I don't like it you might be right. I saw a cyclist in this zone this morning run up the inside of a car and then smack its windscreen for being too close. There was no cycle lane so there was no issue with where the car was 🙁 arse

I've read the article and scan read this thread and I'm still struggling to see this as anything but a bad idea. It's a (relatively) simple thing to implement that doesn't even begin to address the root problems. Maybe I'd have a different outlook if I was a cycle commuter in a big city.

I think the main problem with this is that once you start to give priority to one group of road users over another on some routes, the group affected is going to demand something in return. If this actually happens (which it won't), how long will it be before the motoring lobby starts demanding that cyclists be banned from A-roads or other major urban arteries?

It's a terrible idea.

What we need are proper cycle lanes segregated from the road or places where cars are banned completely.

What happens if a cyclist overtakes doing more than 15mph ?

15mph is really really slow, motorisits will easily and inadvertently exceed the limit, some will be fined and it will further damage the relationship between cyclists and motorists. There will be a huge backlash against cyclists breaking the law, eg no lights, ignoring traffic lights, not giving way on pedestrian crossings.

If this actually happens (which it won't)

It happens it Brussels (without the fines as far as I know) and it appears to work sufficiently well that the scheme is being extended

The trouble is in Brussels people are sensible and have a modicum of patience (I presume). In this country drivers think their journey is more important than everyone else's, that the 20 seconds they'll save by overtaking a cyclist is a matter of life and death, and a cyclist overtaking them is akin to the worst kind of queue jumping. It really is a bizarre mentality.

It really is a bizarre mentality.

15mph is really really slow

All for making cycling safer on the roads, but another Act to take money off motorists?

Motorist will just look at it as another way of the Gov. getting money off them.

That's the main problem. Here is a scheme that asks for cyclists to be treated with a bit of respect and even dares to suggest they be treated equally to cars and lots of people are up in arms.

No it doesn't its using "Cyclist safety" as a pretext to fine motorists, is it really impossible to design roads where two modes of transport, which typically operate at in speed ranges, can move past one another?

Do we actually have to penalise either group in order to bring about a bit of "Respect"?

Ultimately we should stop cramming people into the South East congesting the roads, and then make petrol So chuffing expensive that cycling is the only ecconomically sensible option for people who aren't Kagillionaires: apply Chris Rock's Gun control model to Britsh motoring...

Sod all this fines for overtaking cobblers.

[i]and then make petrol So chuffing expensive that cycling is the only ecconomically sensible option for people who aren't Kagillionaires[/i]

Oh dear.
🙁

Well if we're going to extremes that will never happen, I thought I'd propose one... 😉

Do we actually have to penalise either group in order to bring about a bit of "Respect"?

Like I said, the mentality of people in this country is one of required instant gratification and a misplaced sense of priority over other people's needs. Combine this with a government and local councils with an ingrained authoritarian streak and you get proposals like this which treat everyone as if they're children.

It's well above the average speed in central London.

If they implement this there will a tsunami of public opinion to have cyclists wear helmets, high viz jackets and those with a driving licence have fines and penalty points for jumping the lights etc.

[i]when car drivers get pissed at cyclists filterin[/i]

Driving pissed is illegal anyway

If you make the max speed you can drive in London 15mph then with the traffic lights/buses the average will be what, 6 or 7mph ?

jambalaya - Member

If you make the max speed you can drive in London 15mph then...

that's not what's being proposed - so don't worry about it.

How about:

the average speed in London is low (11mph?) because of all the[s] buses and [/s]traffic[s] lights[/s]. . If you make the max speed you can drive in London 15mph then [s]with the traffic lights/buses the average will be what, 6 or 7mph ?[/s]traffic might actually flow better. It'll certainly be safer for more vulnerable road users

😀

What might help me is if somebody could suggest one or two,roads in central London that they think this could sensibly be of use on, and why. I'm struggling, tbh.

Another idea, which is so simple it will never be implemented;

Put bollards half way along all but designated through routes.

Local residents get an improved standard of life, with no through traffic outside their houses in exchange for the minor inconvenience of only being able to access their house from one end of the road.

Cyclists get an almost traffic free route down the back streets, if they choose.

Emergency vehicles can be fitted with sensors to lower the bollards, much like buses and some bus lanes now, giving them an option to avoid the traffic jams on the normal through routes.

No need for enforcement. Bollards tend to be self enforcing. 🙂

It'll probably come as no surprise that I think this is [b]a very good thing[/b]. (Handy since Newcastle is one of the trial areas).

To be clear, we're not talking about slowing an A-road to 15mph.

I think we're talking about city streets where, ideally, you might want to remove cars entirely and make it pedestrian/cycle access, but that isn't practical for various reasons (e.g. locals objecting, genuine need for residential access, shops requiring loading access, or just too big a step politically etc).

I'd rather they went the whole hog and removed motor traffic entirely from such city centre streets (as other cycle-friendly cities manage to do) but this is a good step, if only because it gets drivers used to the idea that they don't have priority.

Yes, Enforcement would be a major issue.

Some of this can be handled by design (e.g. ensuring the streets do not offer through-roads for drivers; clear signing and road surfacing; use of street furniture and trees to create a pedstrianised feel etc) but ultimately it'll need some legal enforcement too if the UK's drivers are to understand it.

My impression was that this was going to be used as a way of making rat run residential streets less attractive.

Yes, that's how I saw it as well.
I've never liked the idea of cyclists being used as mobile bollards for traffic calming though.

Emergency vehicles can be fitted with sensors to lower the bollards

It's good but those lowering bollards are mighty expensive and require maintenance.

And they are not foolproof enough for UK drivers:

My impression was that this was going to be used as a way of making rat run residential streets less attractive.

If that's the case then I'd say "Works in Netherlands".

Woonerf ("Living Streets") are designed to be nice places for residents and used at walking pace. There are cars, but no through roads and traffic is slow.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/woonerf

Notable also that Hembrow reckons the Shared Space concept has been tried and failed. But I suspect we'll have to make that mistake for ourselves.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/11/shared-space.html

Oh man I love those bus bollard things. That bit where the horrible Porsche SUV gets its engine smashed in is just beautiful, beautiful. 😀

Also: I am totally in favour of slowing motorists down to 15mph on some streets, but I'm not entirely keen on the idea of using cyclists as rolling human speed-bumps to do it. Perhaps the police could start out by properly enforcing the rules we do have first, rather than adding some more for everyone to ignore.

I'm not entirely keen on the idea of using cyclists as rolling human speed-bumps to do it.

It doesn't have to be done like that. Removing through traffic, removing kerbs, adding street furniture, etc.

Janette Sadik-Khan explains it far more eloquently than I can:

If they can do that in New York then why not here?

If they can do that in New York then why not here?

Wow, that's pretty amazing, I had no idea they'd done that sort of thing in NY. Good on 'em.

Not sure it'd help tbh - speed limits/speed humps/solid white lines/ASLs etc etc get routinely ignored now anyway - can't see how a new law would change behaviour.

More enforcement of existing laws and proper consequences would be better.

Maybe the copper standing by the Oval junction yesterday morning looking right at a car stopped in the ASL, but doing absolutely nothing about it - could become an illusion rather than reality!

Not sure it'd help tbh - speed limits/speed humps/solid white lines/ASLs etc etc get routinely ignored now anyway - can't see how a new law would change behaviour.

It won't.

Good road design informs and enforces behaviour, the change in law just gives that design some legal backing.

The design of these roads should be such that drivers don't expect to be able to drive fast on them (e.g. think about driving through a semi-pedestrianised area).

That's the Dutch approach I believe.

[img] [/img]

Sign says "Bike Street: Cars Are Guests"

A colleague of mine rides a scooter/moped to work. He shares similar thoughts about car drivers. Even been spat on apparently...

The problem is more than just how to improve cycling provision, it's more about the lack of basic empathy shown by people when they get in cars... this story shocked me...

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10441142/Driver-who-revved-at-pedestrians-in-frustration-accidentally-killed-great-grandmother.html ]Revving at pedestrians = dead grandmother[/url]

Revving at pedestrians = dead grandmother

I can only think that the grandmother was not using the crossing (article doesn't make it clear) otherwise it's a big WTF from me.

[i]"banned from driving for two years and ordered to take an extended driving test"[/i]

😕

As I always say, I can't understand why anyone convicted of death by careless or dangerous driving is EVER allowed to drive again.

Cars are dangerous machines which they have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to operate. Why would you give them another go?