1gunsalute wrote:Even then cyclists need to be able to travel safely on-carriageway on the rest of the network.
And where is the evidence that a passing law will achieve this? It's all assumption: that legislation will save us all.
1gunsalute wrote:Even then cyclists need to be able to travel safely on-carriageway on the rest of the network.
MikeF wrote:ie if there's a speed limit then they switch their brains off and drive like morons at that speed limit. What they really campaigning for is to drive faster the current speed limit!Bmblbzzz wrote:
Anyway, after posting the bit quoted above but before reading your Singletrack piece, I remembered this:
Several years ago there was a serious campaign to abolish specific speed limits and replace them with an offence of "inappropriate speed," which would apply to driving too slowly as well as too fast. The argument in favour of this, mostly by the ABD or some group of that type, had two main prongs.
1. Freed from the restriction of speed limits, drivers would be able to judge for themselves the most appropriate speed for any situation. Sometimes (in a crowded town centre on a rainy Friday afternoon, say) this might be lower than the speed limit and sometimes (on an uncrowded motorway, say) it might be higher.
But to believe that creating a law against it will fix it is not only naive, it is downright harmful to the goals of achieving more and safer cycling.
Possibly the most obvious problem with a passing law is that of the lack of enforceability.
For instance: riding two-abreast. In the short film “Side by Side”, Chris Boardman explains why riding two abreast makes it easier to overtake safely; yet—depending on the road and the exact position of the riders—this may make it difficult or impossible to adhere to the 1.5m passing rule. Would pro-driving organisations therefore seek legislation against two-abreast riding?
Equally, what happens on singletrack carriageways? Certainly, there are many times on such roads where it is dangerous to pass, but how does the distance passing law deal with a rider who voluntarily slows and moves aside, gesturing to allow a driver to pass?
The Highway Code currently advises slow road users to move aside to allow a queue of traffic to pass; would pro-driving organisations seek legislation to make this mandatory?
lingy wrote:Yes, people arguing 'But how will it be enforced' miss the point entirely. I can think of loads of road regulations that are almost never enforced but still are helpful. They create a social expectation and remind people what is reasonable. Off the top of my head, 20mph residential zones and advance stop lanes would both be better if they were enforced but are much better than no regulation at all.
The passing with rule/law should be supported...in my view the different widths is s logical thing to cater for different traffic.
In France I bet this is never enforced but I've seen the big reminder signs which create a powerful message.
This should be supported and I am really surprised that it is not.
At last… someone who totally gets it! I wish the CTC Committee did!
Bez wrote:1gunsalute wrote:Even then cyclists need to be able to travel safely on-carriageway on the rest of the network.
And where is the evidence that a passing law will achieve this? It's all assumption: that legislation will save us all.
The Code de la Route does indeed say, "Rappelons que la distance latérale en ville est au minimum 1 m, et 1 m 50 hors agglomération." However, Legifrance (which is a law site, not a highways site) says of the overtaking chapter of the Code: "Le présent chapitre ne comprend pas de dispositions législatives."
In other words, it seems that the situation in France is exactly as per council's opposition stance: distances are stated in the equivalent of the Highway Code, but there is no legislation.
Council response: CTC Council disagrees with this motion. Council agrees that close overtaking should be tackled. It’s hazardous for cyclists and extremely intimidating. However, Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance because (for example) even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don’t want to risk giving drivers the impression that it is. CTC Council also says 'Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance because (for example) even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don’t want to risk giving drivers the impression that it is.' I would disregard the CTC Councils reply and that from 'Singletrack'
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.
, then suggestsCouncil remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance
. It sounds unsure and prepared to wait. The Singletrack articles offers very little, unsure how to measure distances, how to police policies, no details of collisions and how a benefit may be gained, mixes in other laws that do not encourage or benefit cycling, fishing for anything it can provide, not sound. Laws do need detailing, monitoring and assessing their outcomes, all these could be done with the minimum passing clearances suggested plus extra lay-by's. The Highway Code would be amended if a new legal minimum passing clearance was introduced and it could explain the details. There is far more to be gained by passing the motion than not.The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance
reohn2 wrote:Bez wrote:1gunsalute wrote:Even then cyclists need to be able to travel safely on-carriageway on the rest of the network.
And where is the evidence that a passing law will achieve this? It's all assumption: that legislation will save us all.
It won't 'save us all' but it make it illegal to close overtake and with camera evidence could lead to prosecution,and should any more cyclists be killed or injured by vehicles striking them from behind they'd be more liable to be subject to prosecution as a result.And when news travels that you can't get away with it the chances of being 'buzzed' and bullied by goons and myopic idiots in motors.
YVMV.
“Amending the road rules to mandate a minimum overtaking distance will help reduce crashes between vehicles and bike riders by changing behaviour,” Mr Textor said. “We know that the ‘one-metre rule’ trial is working in Queensland and it will have an immediate impact on the safety of bike riders in South Australia,” Mr Textor said.