Cycling UK Forum

14) Legal minimum passing clearance The AGM requests a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of motor vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph or when passing at a speed up to and including
30mph, a 1m minimum is suggested. On roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested. In addition, on narrow roads frequent passing places should be provided.

The Council opposes this as "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances". This sounds like a counsel of perfection ; 1.5m of clear space is a lot better than what we get at the moment. Explanations in the Highway code ,which are already there clearly are not working and a clear legal requirement can only help in making drivers take it seriously .

I was overtaken today with clearance of less than 30 cm by a car that made a speed indicator "frown" at 35mph in a 30 zone. If that had had a camera speeding AND dangerous passing could have been identified.

PRL wrote:14) Legal minimum passing clearance The AGM requests a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of motor vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph or when passing at a speed up to and including
30mph, a 1m minimum is suggested. On roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested. In addition, on narrow roads frequent passing places should be provided.

The Council opposes this as "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances". This sounds like a counsel of perfection ; 1.5m of clear space is a lot better than what we get at the moment. Explanations in the Highway code ,which are already there clearly are not working and a clear legal requirement can only help in making drivers take it seriously .

I was overtaken today with clearance of less than 30 cm by a car that made a speed indicator "frown" at 35mph in a 30 zone. If that had had a camera speeding AND dangerous passing could have been identified. :twisted:

Strikes me that the different clearance at different speeds s just complicating and confusing the requirement. So somebody driving along at 25 mph pulls out to overtake giving 1m clearance (as required). But as they pullout to overtake they accelerate to get past quickly and exceed 30 mph but they only allowed for 1m clearance ...

And how many drivers will learn the different clearances for different speeds.

Personally I'd go with 1.5m everywhere.

What is the situation in other EU countries e.g. France ?

I'm all for regs to give better passing clearance, so not disagreeing with the principle, more the detail.

Ian

I seconded this proposal. I cannot understand why the council are not supporting this motion and taking it forward to make it a MUST i.e. LAW in the Highway Code. To me this law is the biggest single safety measure to protect cyclists that could possibly be implimented in the UK.

Its already the law in France, Germany and Spain and being imlimented in parts of Australia!!!

We all suffer close passes on nearly every ride. Most drivers are great but its that tiny number of idiots that dont think or seem to realise how intimidating and downright dangerous close passing is. Many dead cyclists would now be alive if this law were in place.

However, all is not lost YOU can get the CTC council to take this seriously. The AGM is coming up. There is a chance to vote on this proposal. If you agree look at the voting sheet included on the back of the address sheet included with the latest edition of Cycle magazine. There is a voting paper. If you agree that the CTC should be pursuing a new law to protect cyclists tick 'Agree' on Motion 14

If you have thrown away your voting paper you can vote for Motion 14 online at http://www.votebyinternet.com/ctc2016 .

The council has recently demonstrated that it is out of touch with the CTC membership. Unfortunately the Chair of the Council, Mr Cox has a lot of proxy votes and no doubt will try and vote this proposal down. If its good enough for France, Germany and Spain its good enough for Britain.

Dont let the new CTC dictatorship get away with it. Use your vote and get this proposal made law by getting the CTC to do something that will hugely increase your safety on the road.

Al

Raises the question of how any legal minimum would be enforced. Presumably the law could be used in case of a collision, but that would be too late.

MikeF wrote:Raises the question of how any legal minimum would be enforced. Presumably the law could be used in case of a collision, but that would be too late.

Possibly; but not too late to raise awareness for next time. As in my OP speed cameras could catch gross violations - we just need more of them.

http://www.safecyclingireland.org/stayin-alive-at-1-5/ (the similar Irish campaign) claims 1.5m is law in France, Belgium and Portugal. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9pa ... Conditions says for France, it's 1.5m in rural areas and 1m urban (for a whole category of users, including two-wheeled) but cites no sources and it wasn't clear to me in the code of the road. I don't know enough Portuguese to confirm it for there.

http://www.tenerife-training.net/Teneri ... -cyclists/ claims 1m is law in Spain.

I think CTC council has lost the plot in continuing to oppose this, instead of trying to amend the motion to resolve whatever problems they think it has.

Enforcement would be fairly simple: just mount a measuring device sideways on the bikes of our cycling constables and pedalling PCSOs and allow them to issue fixed-penalty notices like for other offences, or put horizontal markings for cameras similar to the front-back ones used to take two pictures for speed checks. And it's another charge to add to what should be a decent list in a collision which hopefully should stick even if the usual ones like dangerous or careless driving don't.

I'm not sure that citing France as an example of road safety is perhaps a good idea, seeing as they allow convicted drink drivers to carry on in heavily restricted lightweight cars.

How far is it from a typical secondary position to the white line on a 'normal' road? That should be what it is.

Yes, it's overly complicated with different distances for different speeds, and it would be difficult to enforce. It's not perfect. But it is good. It's certainly better than nothing. If you can simply point drivers at Rule x of the HC where it says 1m or whatever distance, that's better than, as the OP says, 30cm.

Actually, have any motions from other than Council been supported by Council in recent years?

Speeding laws are difficult to enforce! This proposed law (give 1 metre clearance up to 30mph and 1.5 metres if you are going faster than that) cant be enforced at all unless the plod is watching or its filmed just like breaking the speed limit can't be enforced everywhere, its no different.

I have cycled a lot in France, all French motorists give cyclists a wide berth and hang back at pinch points, its a pleasure to cycle there because there is a LAW that aims to protect cyclists and you get plenty of clearance. Here giving clearance is not a MUST (i.e. a law) its just a vague bit of advice in the Highway Code.

I am staggered that the council won't support this motion. Is it too basic for their corporate brains because its not couched in corporate blather ? What is wrong with the Motion?

Perhaps one of them will be brave enough to stick their head above the parapet and explain their position? This is a forum…

Al

It is rather preposterous that given there is no passing distance in law even the most dangerous overtakes get dismissed because the vehicle didn't hit the cyclist.

Drivers seem to manage complicated things like national speed limits, and using roundabouts. I'm sure that they can handle 1 m and 1.5 metres, or going wide enough to be sure.

Perhaps Vorpal can tell us if there is any such law in Skandinavia or the USA.

In New Zealand last year I noticed signs indicating that cyclists should be given 1 metre clearance, so they think that its important too.

Al

I've voted for the introduction of such a rule. Even if it does not become law, I would hope that the publicity surrounding any campaign to make it so would help to raise awareness - such publicity could be actively generated.