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

"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]