[Closed] PSA Petition for permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists

Unenforceable, pointless, focus on getting proper infrastructure built instead.

I'm in the every little bit could help camp... Education and minimum passing laws can only help save lives and bikes

No one enforces the laws we currently have. I'm out.

You've no chance.

Plod in a Landrover gave me a punishment pass last week. He wasn't remotely contrite about it.

Laws will never beat ignorance.

Crap idea, you've just reminded me I forgot to vote against the CTC campaigning for it.

Would it make if legal for me to boot cars that are too close?

No one enforces the laws we currently have.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. It is unrealistic to expect everyone breaking a law to be caught but if a law is there at least they can be caught and you are in a much stronger position than if no law existed.
Plus there are some of us who are law abiding, not everyone breaks the law all the time.

For example not many people using mobile phones when driving get caught but if you crash and were using one it goes against you badly because it is against the law. Also helps that drivers can actually get caught and pay the consequences (excessive insurance rather than fines) so does deter some people whereas if it were not against the law none of that would happen.

It is dangerous as it distracts peoples attention from actually spending time arguing and campaigning for something that will help

I don't know how you could argue with kerleys point, scottchegg is right - there's no accounting for ignorance.

Anything that strengthens the cyclists position in the general publics eye is surely a good thing.

Anything that strengthens the cyclists position in the general publics eye is surely a good thing.

I'm all for giving cyclists more protection, but is there any point in passing laws which are completely unenforceable?

Well said kerley.

I do agree with the CTC's concerns over how to set an appropriate passing distance for all traffic and all speeds, but it's still something that I think would be very valuable - if that objection can be dealt with.

[i]but is there any point in passing laws which are completely unenforceable? [/i]

+1

It would help by providing de facto evidence of a crime when a driver mows down a cyclist. Currently this doesn't seem to be against the law.

the trouble with trying get stuff like this is it will open the door for the counter arguments e.g. if there's a cycle path/way you'll have to use it.

jam bo - Member

No one enforces the laws we currently have

That's sometimes actually a good reason to change. It shouldn't be, but a new law or change gets more attention both from the public and enforcement, whereas existing laws can become pretty much invisible and forgotten.

Rule 163 and associated are too wooly, too much is left to the judgement of the driver. "plenty of room" is absolutely meaningless really and "as much space as a car" is open to confusion (people think it means "allow as much space between you and the bike as you would allow between you and a car"). It's like making the speed limit "Go at the speed you think is appropriate"

I don't think you can seriously argue that it's not easier to make a case, when someone passes a foot from you, that it's less than 1 metre, than whether or not it's "plenty of room". Both in court and in conversaation

Not necessarily saying this proposed change is perfect; I do think it's better. But basically definition of "plenty of room" is what's needed imo.

Education only works on those who have a care for cyclists and they probably allow a good distance anyway.

The worst ones are those driving for work. Vans, lorries, busses, taxies, etc. Not their vehicle to risk scratching and they chuck the thing around without a care anyway. Probably pissed with cyclists dealing with them all day long. Few times I'm on the road it's this group in the main who close pass me and seem aggressive about it. I've done the defensive cycling when coming up to island crossings and cars will hold back, but had numerous vans who try to squeeze by and get a beep if I've held them up.

Anyway, if this petition gets any traction it will hit the press and then be swamped with anti-bike rage and the usual crap will come out. They'll be backed up by the press and TV/radio presenters. The number of times I've heard a radio chat get onto the subject of cycling such as accidents and starts sympathetic and then the callers come in on mass with hate, then the bloody presenter agrees with them and never contradict crap about "don't pay taxes, don't have insurance" etc.

Would it make if legal for me to boot cars that are too close?

Haha - my gran used to do that. My Gran and Grandad used to tandem from London to Scotland for their hols and from the stokers seat she used to kick any cars that passed too close. 🙂

No one will care so pointless. Also it is wrong. 1 m is not acceptable anywhere.

guess drivers will need a metre stick glued to the near side mirror to make sure the distance is correct down the the last cm to avoid conviction.

and I'll assume cops will be walking around with a metre stick to measure each gap somehow for every pass.

waste of time.

I haven't seen a traffic car in months now, and while I think its an interesting idea- unenforceable. At least, unenforceable given the current drastic reduction in road policing.

They can't even stop the RLJs.

Also it is wrong. 1 m is not acceptable [b]anywhere[/b].

I am currently sat at a table 1m wide. I've turned myself sideways down the table and looked across to the other side. Whilst if on a dual carriageway and the car was going 70 if might feel a little close, in a town with more modest speeds if you can't handle another road user that close I think it might be you with the problem.

Very silly petition - random scattergun 'campaigning' like this just make the cycling community look like a bunch of whinging cockbags imo irrespective of how well intentioned it is.

One problem I see a lot is cyclists coming out of a side junction onto a road when a vehicle is coming and squeezing into the gap between the vehicle and kerb, because they don't want to lose momentum. This could then put the driver in a difficult position.

Makes more sense to reduce the power of cars.

40bhp used to be enough to take you from one end of the country to the other in much the same time as you can do now.

Obviously a period of adjustment would be necessary. Maybe free penis extensions could be offered under the NHS for those who were truly devastated.

I have many more similarly amazing and innovative ideas. I'm surprised the govt hasn't co-opted me into an advisory position in transport matters. 🙂

A 70 yr old guy got mullered last week on the a338 between Bournemouth and Salisbury. Road closed all day he's alive, just i think, but in a bad way. Hit and run. Police looking for white transit double w heel with mesh extensions on the drop sides at the back and a broken passenger side wing mirror I guess the part that contacted him. There's no excuse but how can you enforce passing distances. If there was a copper there to see a cyclist being cut up or buzzed surely they'd stop the motorist anyway.

Another in the pointless camp here, as it is utterly unenforceable. It would also prevent you getting a sticky bottle 😉

And what happens when they ride 2-3 abreast? They suddenly become a rolling road block as you can't give the off side one enough distance.

epicyclo - Member

Makes more sense to reduce the power of cars.

40bhp used to be enough to take you from one end of the country to the other in much the same time as you can do now.

Aye, because you definitely can't pass too close in a low powered car.

random scattergun 'campaigning' like this just make the cycling community look like a bunch of whinging cockbags imo irrespective of how well intentioned it is.

A 70 yr old guy got mullered last week on the a338 between Bournemouth and Salisbury. Road closed all day he's alive, just i think, but in a bad way. Hit and run.

like that makes cyclists even more annoying and even more vulnerable.

It's a law change that would mean in any provable case, someone that broke the law for no good reason would be prosecuted. It would become a known law that drivers would need to begrudgenly accept - just because you see hundreds of drivers using mobile phones behind the wheel every day doesn't mean that none of them get prosecuted - at some point.

Any cyclist with a camera or any cctv camera that witnesses an incident would provide evidence. Any change that provides cyclists a stronger position in road awareness is a good thing.

Why on earth you would say 'no point' is beyond me.

Anyone here admit to being a righteous two abreast roadie regardless of the situation/location? I sneer.

Bez has written about this and I mostly agree with him.
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/04/11/passing-laws/

Would the law apply if the sun is in your eyes so you can't see the cyclist?

And what happens when they ride 2-3 abreast? They suddenly become a rolling road block as you can't give the off side one enough distance.

I think you've got it wrong there.

I've seen this point argued before and the thing is, if a group of ten riders are all single file, the vehicle passing them out will have to stay over the white line for a lot longer (putting both at more danger) when compared to the cyclists being two abreast. That is providing you are giving them enough room in the first scenario 🙄 .

Strict liability would be a far better thing to campaign for.

A similar petition reached 100,000 signatures a while ago and the answer came back from Government saying the current rules were sufficient. Not sure how this second petition will make the blindest bit of difference.

I'm out for the reasons Bez wrote about and because it's a massive distraction from the wider issues like presumed liability, better infrastructure and a judicial system that's actually fit for purpose.

Given how regularly drivers are either cleared altogether or given a paltry fine and points for killing cyclists (and pedestrians), exactly what purpose will a 1m passing law serve?

I think you've got it wrong there.

I've seen this point argued before and the thing is, if a group of ten riders are all single file, the vehicle passing them out will have to stay over the white line for a lot longer (putting both at more danger) when compared to the cyclists being two abreast. That is providing you are giving them enough room in the first scenario .

I dont think so, if the off side rider is close to the white line then there isn't the physical space to pass them, we are discussing the 1m and 1.5m minimum passing distance are we not? I'm not talking about what is actually safer.

And what happens when they ride 2-3 abreast? They suddenly become a rolling road block as you can't give the off side one enough distance.

In either distance you'd be spending a lot longer over the white line.

There's no reason the off side rider should be close to the white line though. As in nearly in the middle of the road!

Hmmmm, interesting. I've just landed from the States, was riding on the roads there yesterday.
I saw several signs, stating the minimum distance required and that it was a state law. It may just be coincidence, it may be due to many other factors, but in my experience you're afforded a lot more room over there.
They're also big on 'share the road' signs, basically just reinforcing that bikes have as much right as anyone else to be there.
Morons are going to be morons. But on the basis that it will hopefully make reasonable people think a bit, I'm in favour.

Read Bez's piece.
Read Bez's piece.
Read Bez's piece.
[b]Read Bez's piece.[/b]

Read Bez's piece.

He waffles too much, can you give me a summary?

Read Bez's piece.
Read Bez's piece.
Read Bez's piece.
Read Bez's piece.

I did and I really wasn't convinced.

I read it too. He's a good wordsmith, but I'm not convince by his argument.
Still a great dancer though.....

He waffles too much, can you give me a summary?

Kind of like the conclusion at the bottom you mean:-

There is no evidence to suggest that a distance passing law will make cycling more attractive, nor is there much logical reason to suggest that it will. There is also no credible evidence that it reduces casualty rates or collision rates per kilometre cycled on the carriageway.

For sure, safer passing is an entirely desirable thing. But legislation is not a form of hypnosis that suddenly makes people behave better; especially not if enforcement is difficult.

The political stakes are high, and one of the greatest perils of any struggle to achieve real change is the temptation to gamble on hope; the belief in something being “better than nothing” often results in something worse than nothing.

CTC council is absolutely right to oppose this motion, and is absolutely right to recognise that if drivers are to be given additional guidance in this matter then the Highway Code—despite its volatile relationship with the law—is a better place for it than the statute book. The fact that it is not legally binding is actually no bad thing, because to make the measurements legally binding would be to fail to understand the practical difficulties and social ramifications of such an ill-constructed law.

Motion 14 is probably the most naive proposal I have seen in a long time, and the pursuit of any such policy would be harmful to the goal of achieving more and safer cycling. It plays into the hands of those who would prevent cycling becoming an accessible transport option and it undermines the efforts of those who would enable it.

If you are reading this as a CTC member, I would suggest opposing Motion 14; if you are reading it in any other capacity, I would simply suggest understanding that such a proposal doesn’t merely risk spending scarce resources for nothing, it risks spending scarce resources moving further from your own goals.

A metre isn't acceptable for any number of reasons. Firstly it can't be variable. So it has to be the same at 70mph or walking speed. Secondly it doesn't allow for variations in competence when pulling in, judging the gap to oncoming cars or any other variable. It is just case of a crappy compromise as those promoting it know full well that it is pointless but lip service to try and look as if something is being done.
The fact is that most car drivers, just like the rest of life, are selfish gits who would rather make life uncomfortable for others than wait a few seconds.
Just because its common or even universal to cut people up, it doesn't make it right.
I have no issues dealing with vehicles close to me, I am very often am the once who waves a dithering oncoming car past with much less room than that. Its the unsolicited passing at speed that needs dealing with. We won't. We have become a nation of apologists who seem to think that we all deserve everything we wish and bugger anyone else.
It does need education but it also needs punishment which just won't happen. If motoring fines had at least a zero shoved on the end with bans running into multiple years then drivers or motorised vehicles might well buck their ideas up. If cyclists stopped being f wits, motorists might well have some respect. I know not every bikie is a moron but it only takes one.

"And what happens when they ride 2-3 abreast? They suddenly become a rolling road block as you can't give the off side one enough distance."
Not sure what I am missing here but here goes.
First. 3 abreast is wrong. No argument. Secondly I don't know a road in the UK where its possible to pass a cyclist safely even in single file where it is possible to do so without crossing the central line, giving a decent gap and with the riders in the correct road position. This means that a driver needs the same space and view as if they were passing a stationary obstacle or lets say a horse and cart. No ifs or buts there. However and sadly this approach is very much not the case for most drivers.
What saddens me is the number of cars with bikes on the back who feel that the need to save a few seconds is important. They really should know better.

I assume this would work both ways and I'd have to pass at a similar distance when overtaking slow moving traffic in town. That would make filtering through traffic impossible in many places.

Northwind - Member
"40bhp used to be enough..."

Aye, because you definitely can't pass too close in a low powered car.

True, but maybe by removing the macho element from cars, they'd seek their thrills elsewhere, maybe in the aforementioned extensions...

On a serious note strict liability seems the best to me. It has a proven deterrent effect.

I always maintained there's 4 reasons for hitting a cyclist:

1. you intend to kill or maim them
2. you are blind
3. you were not looking
4. you were driving at such a speed that when you noticed the cyclist it was too late

All of which demonstrate a total unfitness to hold a licence and should result in a life ban. Bonus - a replacement cyclist for the one lost.

Cars do not choose to drive into cyclists, their drivers choose behaviours that result in that.

I always maintained there's 4 reasons for hitting a cyclist:

5. The cyclist did something completely daft beyond what could be reasonably expected by the motorist.
6. A third party did something completely daft beyond what could be reasonably expected by the motorist.

And what happens when they ride 2-3 abreast?

Strict liability would be a far better thing to campaign for

I agree it's pointless and unenforceable at present, it would be a waste of time and resources debating it given our present transport mix/infrastructure/culture(s)...

However, and this is maybe a little blue sky, thinking about the brave new world of autonomous vehicles which is apparently not far away: A sharpening up of the rules such vehicles will need to obey might not be so terrible, especially anything which governs their behaviour at close quarters to cyclists and pedestrians...
For such machines a law must be obeyed, a fuzzy, advisory passage in the highway code is down to the programmers interpretation...

Pass the law today and very little will actually change for Mr Mondeo today, but for the driverless car He'll be using in a decade...

There is a mandatory passing distance for bikes here in Germany which seems to work. Car drivers have to know this to pass thier test if asked.

Great to see so much anti-cyclist hate as usual. I suppose it's better that they are on-line tapping away rather than driving their Audis around with bikes on the roof.

Great to see so much anti-cyclist hate as usual. I suppose it's better that they are on-line tapping away rather than driving their Audis around with bikes on the roof.

Personally I think it's quite good to see that not everyone who swings their leg over a bike becomes an unthinking tribal 'campaigner' and are actually prepared to think beyond a simple ill conceived self serving viewpoint. Not all pro cyclist campaigns are born equal and the skill is in differentiating between them. It doesn't make you 'anti-cyclist', just shows a modicum of intelligence.

I find the type of folk who like to use 'Audi' as an insult (I don't have one or any other luxury brand, so no skin off my nose) struggle to make coherent argument.

Personally I have more faith in mass adoption of self-driving cars than I do in the UK changing its laws and law enforcement in favour of keeping cyclists safe and changing driving behaviour... good news is there are some very rich and very serious companies looking at self-driving cars who're very motivated to do it - certainly in my opinion more motivated than UK government, Police and general public are to change their attitudes towards cycling.

On a more curious note, it would be very interesting to see a proper study looking at prevalent attitudes to cycling and cyclists across Europe, which examines just why the gulf is so wide across the channel. In Netherlands it seems to have been deliberate government action but in France, Germany etc I don't know.

I'm sure that with proper examination you could isolate the factors which have had the biggest impact, and we could then apply them in the UK...

Personal view...

1) it won't increase the passing gap except by those who already leave a sensible gap. It will be like mobile phone use. No one will ever get pulled for it so there will be no incentive to comply.
2) how do you ever prove a close pass when there isn't a collision? If there is a collision then the safe distance rule is crud because we're now looking at whether it was careless it dangerous driving and you still can't prove it was a safe distance issue (eg cyclist swerves or child runs into road and driver reacts)
3) if someone passed me carefully in tight traffic at 50cm in town at 25mph that's OK to me (its more than i often get) at say no more than a 10mph speed difference, make that difference 40+mph and I'd like 2m and in the middle a spread of differences. Make it an hgv and I want 2m to be vaguely safe at any speed. A fixed distance of 1m or 1.5m is totally inappropriate.
4) It will also focus those drivers who pay any attention to the campaign (about 0.43% of them by my guesstimate) that 1m or 1.5m is what is needed in every situation and it will become a de facto minimum (if they observe it all) AND also a maximum.

brooess - Member
...I'm sure that with proper examination you could isolate the factors which have had the biggest impact,

Oh that's easy.

Selfish prats in carelessly driven cars...

(Sorry 🙂 )

I'm not in favour, for reasons many have stated above.

I would even hazard to suggest that the current laws are sufficient - they are just not enforced often or severely enough. It's like all the fuss about binge drinking when people suggested we needed new laws. Strangely, if you used the existing laws and took away the licenses from pubs that served the under age and people who were already drunk, and banged people up for the night for being drunk and disorderly, I suspect the problem would go away fairly quickly.

stevenk4563 - Member
I dont think so, if the off side rider is close to the white line then there isn't the physical space to pass them

Then you don't pass them. You wouldn't overtake a car without fully going over the white line into the opposite lane, and if there isn't space to do that you wouldn't overtake the car.

Just wait and pass when safe, like overtaking cars, and in fact give the width of a car to overtake bikes.

When overtaking 2 abreast and there *is* enough space on the other side, then it's a load faster to overtake a group than those in a long line.

7) you drove at, or past the cyclist and expected them to get out of your way, and were surprised / remorseful when they didn't (had a ****t drive at me on a single carriageway road on Saturday, he went from two lanes to one, I was on the one lane, plenty of room, rather than wait a little bit he simply charged at me. S 18 KER I'm looking at you.

Then you don't pass them. You wouldn't overtake a car without fully going over the white line into the opposite lane, and if there isn't space to do that you wouldn't overtake the car.

I think the point (missed by many) being made is that when two cars pass each other (either going in the opposite direction or one over taking the other) on a narrower 2 carriageway road there is not a separation distance of 1m (or 1.5m if on road with speed limit >30mph) between wing mirrors. If the cyclists arranged themselves to be the width of a car (by going 2 or 3 up) even if the overtaking vehicle was safely completely over the other side of the white line they would not be able to establish a minimum separation distance. You would be in a position where you could legally pass another car/van/lorry but not a pair of cyclists. And therefore a rolling road block. You could argue that cars travelling in the opposite direction would also have to pull over and stop as they to could also not ensure they had a 1.5m minimum separation distance despite being on their side of the road and in every other way diving considerately and sensibly.

I'm not disputing that paired up cyclists are not a better arrangement for all, god knows I spent enough of my life like that, but this request for a change in the law would, in certain circumstances, make is a pita for other road uses if they wanted to stay strictly legal.

You can't have one set of rules for one and not the other. You can't mandate that drivers must pass cyclists leaving at least 1m gap without mandating a limitation on how far away from the kerb or side of the road cyclists ride. Some cyclists insist on riding a good quarter to half way into the width of the road for no apparent reason. I'm happy to hang back and give cyclists a wide berth, its something I do now, but I often despair at some cyclists I see on the road. There are examples of bad behavior on both sides.

So the only way this will work in my mind is if every road there is a cycle lane painted at the edge of the road - cyclists must stay to the left of the line and drivers must stay to the right of the line. that is the only way you can sensibly and reasonably mandate some enforceable rules on this.

Some cyclists insist on riding a good quarter to half way into the width of the road for no apparent reason.

The no apparent reason is usually to stop the car behind attempting a stupid manoeuvre that would likely endanger the life of the cyclist.. Like overtaking round a bend, brow of a hill, wherever there is no clear line of sight.

Some cyclists insist on riding a good quarter to half way into the width of the road for no apparent reason.

It's the recommended position from BC and all the government-funded cycle training. You may not like it, or understand it, but it's still the recommended position...

It also helps to make the cyclist more visible to the driver by being away from the edge of the road.

It worries me there's so much ignorance around this... as per the other threads on this over the weekend, a lot of people seem to think their ill-informed opinion is right e.g. 'I think that cyclist is riding like an idiot/deliberately being a pain' when in fact there are very often very good reasons.

If you're in a car, you're a danger to everyone else, try and judge yourself rather than everyone else if you want the roads to be safer

convert - Member
I think the point (missed by many) being made is that when two cars pass each other (either going in the opposite direction or one over taking the other) on a narrower 2 carriageway road there is not a separation distance of 1m (or 1.5m if on road with speed limit >30mph) between wing mirrors. If the cyclists arranged themselves to be the width of a car (by going 2 or 3 up) even if the overtaking vehicle was safely completely over the other side of the white line they would not be able to establish a minimum separation distance. You would be in a position where you could legally pass another car/van/lorry but not a pair of cyclists

A fair point, and again highlights what's so wrong about this petition.

cloudnine - Member
The no apparent reason is usually to stop the car behind attempting a stupid manoeuvre that would likely endanger the life of the cyclist

Not just endangering the cyclist, but themselves also or more so. I cringe whenever I see drivers overtake cyclists on blind bends, brow of hills etc out over the (solid) white line and there's a near miss with an oncoming car. Not only do they then squeeze the cyclist, they nearly killed themselves and/or the oncoming car occupants.

I believe the term is defensive cycling, or vehicular cycling. Ride to make you appear more like any other vehicle.

Some cyclists insist on riding a good quarter to half way into the width of the road for no apparent reason.

Or to avoid potholes, poor road surface or to set themselves up for a turn or simply to make themselves more visible through a tricky section of road.

Spain has a minimum passing law too but they seem to operate on a different level over there. It's a much more pro cycling culture, the roads are far wider (and far better surfaced) and there's less traffic anyway.

And because of that, the riders are better behaved - they have the space to operate 2 abreast without any need to be constantly shouting "car up", "hole", "single out" - it makes the riding much more predictable, the drivers know what to expect and they drive accordingly.

Convert explained the point far better than I did. 🙂

I must admit that the "better infrastructure" argument annoys me. I like riding on the roads, I should be able to do it safely. I don't want a sanitised separated cycle lane up Winnats Pass, I want the motorists to gaze at me in awe as I magnificently crest it, rather than try and sneak past with 3 inches to spare. I love gliding past lines of traffic on my commute home. I also enjoy a long tow behind a much spreader when I'm bolloxed and miles from home.

All these "it will never happen" arguments forget that doggists now have to pick up shite and take it home. I don't think this is the right law but it needs something like it that just makes people think twice. How about mandatory porn on the back of all cycling shirts?

wobbliscott - Member

You can't have one set of rules for one and not the other. You can't mandate that drivers must pass cyclists leaving at least 1m gap without mandating a limitation on how far away from the kerb or side of the road cyclists ride.

There is a limitation on how far from the kerb cyclists must ride, it's called the lane.

I assume this would work both ways and I'd have to pass at a similar distance when overtaking slow moving traffic in town. That would make filtering through traffic impossible in many places.

The danger is that a 1m passing law (if it ever became law) would be used against cyclists far more than for them. Filtering in traffic, even using signposted cycle lanes which put you up alongside traffic... Get hit by a car and they'd simply say "oh I was closer than 1m but that's because the rider put themselves there".

Bez wrote an excellent column about that too:
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/

But I think it's rather too much to hope for that drivers might actually take time to read that and then exercise any common sense.
But it's another reason why that petition (like the same petition before it) is pointless bollocks.

So the only way this will work in my mind is if every road there is a cycle lane painted at the edge of the road - cyclists must stay to the left of the line and drivers must stay to the right of the line. that is the only way you can sensibly and reasonably mandate some enforceable rules on this.

Glad we're not relying on your mind.

So much negativity. Unbelievable projection.

Signed and encouraging others to sign up.

Of course it's not enforceable yet. It's there to make drivers more aware and I and a lot of you from like drive more than you cycle. It may help you drive safer.

I was thinking about the enforcement issue if it did become law, maybe a plain clothed copper on a bike with a laser distance measuring probe attached to the bike, if a car passes too close a light on the bars informs the rider and he snaps a picture of the cars number plate once it's gone past. The biggest hurdle I guess would be the legality of the whole thing and getting approval, and all the legal challenges etc. Let the police keep the fine money and they would be only too keen to have offices out riding about. Then we could all ride around with little black boxes with this stuck on it !
[img] [/img]