[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.