CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Postby Steady rider » 13 Feb 2017, 5:30pm

press for compliance with the introduction of a statuary law


for improvement in the advice regarding minimum passing distance for motor vehicles passing cyclists


The motion has two parts that may help.
Si says;
No point in having law changes if they are not going to be policed (eg mobile phone laws).


https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones- ... ng-the-law
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... phones-200
The increase in sanctions comes as Ministry of Justice data for the past 10 years show the number of prosecutions have halved since 2010, with 17,586 motorists charged in 2015 compared with 35,255 in 2010.


In 2017 it has higher fines.

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Postby Psamathe » 14 Feb 2017, 10:43am

Si wrote:No point in having law changes if they are not going to be policed (eg mobile phone laws). Thus, to me the motion is a halfway measure, not likely to do much good, could even cause harm......"you asked for a law change, we gave you a law change, our job is done, no need for anymore effort". To make it worth anything it also needs a commitment to campaign to have it policed and publicised fully.

On the other hand, where we do see a bit of rigorous policing of close passing (e.g. the WMs), they seem to be getting on with it without a law change.

I can see your point and agree that any law without enforcement if not as effective. However, the act of creating a law will create (hopefully) some publicity and that will help spread the message to drivers. Like the "no smoking with kids in your car" - not been enforced at all (Police even said it could/would not be enforced before it was introduced) yet it has got a message out there reinforcing that exposing children to cigarette smoke is a bad thing for them so I'd still expect the law reduced cigarette smoke exposure (in cars) for children even though it has never been enforced.

Working on the assumption that most drivers do not want to put the fear of God into cyclists and want to treat them with consideration, I assume that most/many close passes are through driver ignorance rather than deliberate intimidation. So something that gets the message to those drivers will hopefully improve things. As for those who do close pass to deliberately intimidate then on the rare occasions they are adequately observed such a law would make prosecution easier.

As for "you asked for a law change, we gave you a law change, our job is done, no need for anymore effort", you could say that about any law and it depends on whose saying it. If that happens then as with so many things if that does happen and it proves insufficiently effective then it needs reviewing and updating. Or maybe the Police need to have the profile of the law raised within their ranks. This sort of thing is what we contribute to organisations like the CTC/CUK for.

As for rigorous Policing, I think we need sustained nationwide action rather than one Police force deciding to have a splurge for a bit on it (i.e. the South American policing model does not really help improve things on any long term basis). And the current funding/resource constraints the Police are operating under would make sustained rigorous Policing unlikely.

So if there are better alternatives (because I don't consider "just enduring them" as a sensible way forward) maybe the CTC/CUK should have said they would setup e.g. a working group/committee/something to look into the impacts of such a law and possible effective alternatives - rather than just rejecting the motion.

I'm working on the basis that the current situation is not acceptable and is perceived as a danger and is discouraging new and existing cyclists. A hidden sentence in the Highway Code will be a complete waste of time and totally ineffective. The only idea I've heard that might happen is a law change. I'm certainly open to alternatives but I've not yet heard any. My desire is to stop these scary/dangerous passes and "doing nothing" isn't working.

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Postby Steady rider » 14 Feb 2017, 11:13am

When the law was passed in Queensland Australia about 95% of drivers were aware of the new law.

http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advi ... tsheet.pdf

However, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) present a particular danger for cyclists, especially in
London where around 20% of cyclist fatalities occur involve an HGV. These often occur
when an HGV is turning left at a junction’. About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious
injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.


About one quarter of crashes resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach “passing too close” to the rider

http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advi ... -paper.pdf

The main reasons given when asked what prevents them from cycling more often were “concerns around the safety of road cycling” (41%) and “concerns about drivers treating me badly when cycling” (31%).


Pedal cyclists are also easily affected by side winds when being overtaken and in the last five years, 13% of cyclist deaths and serious injuries in crashes away from junctions were a result of the cyclist being overtaken by a motor vehicle.


see https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q= ... searchgate