mjr wrote:I campaign for infrastructure as a priority, but they are not mutually exclusive and adopting the proposed policy does not commit existing resources to it.
So what is more effective: adopting a policy in favour of a minimum passing distance and letting it sit on the books, or rejecting it and sending out a signal that 1.5m is too much space to give cyclists?
How does rejecting the motion send the message that 1.5m is too much space? We already do have the guidelines in the highway code, which should arguable be reworded.
In my anecdotal experience the distance passed is much more dependent on the environment than the driver. If they can pass properly, they usually do. If they can't, many try it anyway, which is why we have this ''primary position'' suggestion.
Consider speed limits: although a good thing, it is true that a very large percentage of drivers exceed the limit, large than those who pass too closely. To effectively catch those who do, however, we need cameras or speed guns to ensure they are actually speeding. Measuring an overtaking distance is vastly more difficult. How would we be able to use it against close passes? Eyewitness or camera footage is certainly not enough. In other words, the motion appears redundant at best. It wouldn't be of any use after a close pass, and we already know what the distance is in the event of a collision.