al_yrpal wrote:In Germany the law says should give adequate clearance and in practice through prosecutions 1 to 1.5m has been established and more clearance should be given the faster the passing speed. Here we have nothing. Over the years I have seen dozens and dozens of posts on this forum about dangerous close passes sometimes with contact, sometimes with people falling off and suffering injuries with no subsequent police action taken.
And how many German/Spanish/French cycling forums have you been reading over the years in order to see how many posts there are about similar incidents?
You seem to be assuming two things: 1. that the situation is better in all of these countries, and 2. that if it is
better, then this is to a significant extent due to a passing law. (And, as per my earlier post, are you sure
that they all have such laws?)
It's often said that cycling in France is a blissful experience, but those anecdotes come largely from those of us who holiday there, riding on rural roads where the traffic density is far lower than in most of the UK. It's my experience that even in the UK people will leave plenty of room as long as they don't have to slow down significantly in order to do so, and I would argue that this is a majority part of why riding on the open road in France is more pleasant: there's simply less oncoming traffic (and in many cases the roads are often straighter, too). Anecdotes from people who commute in cities don't differ wildly from elsewhere; nor, as far as I can tell, do they in most of Germany. Spain is, broadly speaking, somewhat notorious for being a faintly terrifying place to cycle.
al_yrpal wrote:It seems crazy that people including the CTC Council are happy for this situation to continue by doing nothing.
I can't speak for council, but I would suggest that is a total straw man. The argument against seeking legislation does not equate to being "happy for this situation to continue", and although it is inevitable that people will attempt to equate the two it is ludicrous to do so. (Hopefully I shouldn't need to explain why?)
al_yrpal wrote:A campaign will start a debate and from that debate the law will be strengthened to give cyclists a law with teeth that will protect us all better.
How with the law "protect us all better"? What are these teeth? They are presented only as metaphors. All the arguments go along the lines of "there's a law, so people won't do it", which is nonsense. People smoke dope, drive at 80mph, cycle without pedal reflectors, ride on the pavement… laws haven't magically stopped those, nor have they necessarily even reduced them.
al_yrpal wrote:What I am sure about is that drivers need to be aware that they legally need to give adequate clearance at all speeds and in all road conditions. We cannot continue with the present toothless Highway Code recommendation, it is patently an inadequate safeguard as the barrage of complaints here clearly demonstrates.
But if your goal is awareness
then legislation is not necessarily the best way to achieve it. As for the HC, most of us—myself included—would agree that the wording is currently seriously flawed. Council's position is the same, and that is a position of opposition to legislation.