AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

PH
Posts: 9434
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby PH » 7 Aug 2020, 9:52pm

Steady rider wrote:From memory they said they did not wish to specify a distance, https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/64572 ... ing.id=web
they now specify a distance.

Either you're trying to twist this or you're memory is poor. The opposition was to campaigning to have a distance enshrined in law, which was what the motion called for them to campaign for. If you have any doubt about it, a forum search might refresh your memory, there's plenty of posts on the subject with direct quotes from CTC, I'd be surprised if you hadn't contributed to most of them.
EDIT - It took all of 10 seconds to find the council response, which included
The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.

Do you need to read that again?
When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.

Which is what is being done, just what was your point?

Steady rider
Posts: 2258
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 8 Aug 2020, 9:33pm

You were lucky finding the information in 10 seconds. Can you provide their full reply or link?

new rules to address dangerous overtaking and ‘close passes’, with a guideline minimum safe passing distance of 1.5m at 30mph, 2m at higher speeds


In 2016 the motion asked for a legal requirement and specified minimum distances. I am trying to track down the full reply from CTC. Part of their objection was based on specifying precise figures.

The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.


They say 'clear advice' and 'guideline minimum safe passing'. Driver behaviour does depend on if advice or a legal requirement. They are now specifying precise distances that they use to object to the motion in 2016.

If someone passes at less than 1.5m, say 0.8m. The advice in the code could still be subject to legal debate and how enforceable in practice, with it being advice. It will be better than before but could it be better still and have a legal requirement or means to issue suitable fines.