Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Bez
Posts: 1176
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 11 Apr 2016, 5:31pm

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.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2715
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 11 Apr 2016, 5:42pm

MikeF wrote:
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.
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! :evil:

In practice, obviously, yes. And to indulge their fantasies of being brilliant drivers.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2715
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 11 Apr 2016, 5:47pm

Cycling in France: I've never cycled there, so don't know, but a couple of Sundays ago I was riding on the Somerset Levels and was impressed by how every single driver that passed me went right over to the other lane. I put this down to long, straight (and flat!) roads giving very good sight lines and light traffic meaning that road could be seen to be clear.

But the best place I've ever ridden in terms of consistent passing distance is Poland. Not as a tourist, either! In city traffic and on rural roads. I shall look up if there is a minimum passing distance there, but it could also be down to the fact that utility cycling is still commonplace, particularly in rural areas, and so many drivers remember riding to school and that their dad still goes to work on his bike.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2715
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 11 Apr 2016, 5:58pm

Turns out there is and it's 1m when overtaking cyclists, cycle trailers, mopeds, motorcycles and columns of pedestrians (but not individual pedestrians). Road Transport Act, Article 24, Point 2:

2. Kierujący pojazdem jest obowiązany przy wyprzedzaniu zachować szczególną ostrożność, a zwłaszcza bezpieczny odstęp od wyprzedzanego pojazdu lub uczestnika ruchu. W razie wyprzedzania roweru, wózka rowerowego, motoroweru, motocykla lub kolumny pieszych odstęp ten nie może być mniejszy niż 1 m.

The driver of a vehicle must take especial care when overtaking, in particular keeping a safe distance from the overtaken vehicle or road user. In the case of an overtaken pedal cycle, cycle trailer, moped, motorcycle or column of pedestrians this distance may not be less than 1m.

In practice, virtually all drivers there leave far more than this.

http://kodeks-drogowy.org/ruch-drogowy/ ... przedzanie

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13264
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby mjr » 11 Apr 2016, 6:07pm


Rather than post it here where this discussion has equal status with it, post it to another website where the right of reply is only for "Premier account" people and a flawed article can stand with less challenge?

Indeed, the article is such a ragbag of trolling, rhetorical questions and disjointed points with no overall narrative beyond opposing a minimum passing distance that it's difficult to reply to it without Fisking the whole thing. Some highlights:
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.

That's one good old trolling tactic, attributing beliefs to your opponents which they have not claimed! Indeed, the motion text itself says it is only "to try and reduce the frequency".

Possibly the most obvious problem with a passing law is that of the lack of enforceability.

And yet then it goes on to mention the nearmissometer, video and other possible enforcement tools. :lol:

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?

Standard carriageway lane width is 3.65m (and many are wider), the dynamic envelope of a cyclist is 1.0m width, cyclist-kerb or cyclist-cyclist separation is 0.5m, so two abreast is 0.5m+1.0m+0.5m+1.0m = 3m, so taking the worst case that the 1.5m minimum passing distance is measured from the envelope edge (unlikely), that still leaves up to 0.65m in the same lane so the left edge of the overtaker need only be 0.85m over the centre line to leave 1.5m gap. Even if a cyclist was riding their edge of the white line, most cars could still overtake legally by changing lanes. I accept that their may be a few strange road layouts where it causes complications, but most of those I can think of are places where motorists really ought not be overtaking anyway (although plenty do :roll: ). Can someone explain how to calculate that a 1.0m or 1.5m passing law could make overtaking illegal in normal road situations?

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?

Well, it could simply say "except when the operator of the vehicle in front has signalled that it is slowing/stopping" - pretty much like a slower motorist puts on the left indicator and brake lights to indicate that following vehicles should pass. Or it could do something else. It doesn't seem like a blocking problem.

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?

Some of the loonier motoring organisations are already doing that, aren't they? They even got one minor political party (UKIP) to adopt some get-out-of-my-way policies in an election manifesto a while ago.

Then there's a load of silliness about the cost of lobbying (which happens anyway) and the risk of scum politicians amending any borderline pro-cycling legislation to include vociferous anti-cycling legislation. I suspect cycling is currently such small fry politically that anti-cycling measures are about as likely to happen whether or not one organisation tries to get pro-cycling measures... or more likely, merely adopts a policy of being in favour of a particular pro-cycling legal measure.

The other two big problems with bez's article are that it sets out no positive alternative and it doesn't consider the costs of CTC yet again opposing minimum passing distances: for example, is it basically telling any watching motorists that they can continue to skim or buzz cyclists as much as they like without CTC calling for any greater punishment?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7563
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 11 Apr 2016, 6:47pm

Thanks for that, the article was so daft that I couldnt be bothered to nitpick it apart.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

reohn2
Posts: 35249
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby reohn2 » 11 Apr 2016, 6:52pm

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.

+1

At last… someone who totally gets it! I wish the CTC Committee did!

And begs the simple question why don't the CTC/CUK officialdom,or what the 'charity' now goes under the name of lately,support such a motion?
They surely aren't planning on an overtaking limit 7ft(2.1m) are they?

Al,I'm with you and the proposers,100% and then some.The sooner a 1.5m,with a 1m in 30mph and less limit is made law the less change cyclists will be frightened off the roads,and there'll be no excuses for a motorist colliding with a cyclist from behind.
All the waffle about motorists not obeying laws is only an excuse not to have any laws at all AFAIC,whereas ATM it's open season on cyclist,and the CUK(whaich does suck IMHO)is doing nothing to change that attitude by opposing such a motion :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 35249
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby reohn2 » 11 Apr 2016, 7:09pm

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Steady rider
Posts: 2165
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Steady rider » 11 Apr 2016, 7:34pm

Bez says
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.


Bez, CTC or http://singletrackworld.com/columns/201 ... sing-laws/ does not offer good advice.
Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance
, then suggests
The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum 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.

1gunsalute
Posts: 92
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 5:38pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby 1gunsalute » 11 Apr 2016, 8:45pm

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.

Thanks reohn2 :)
Bez, I'd welcome your alternative solutions to the problem. And they don't have to be 100% effective. :wink:

Steady rider
Posts: 2165
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Steady rider » 11 Apr 2016, 9:00pm

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transporta ... lists.aspx

http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/ ... /cyclists/
Factsheet and frequently asked questions (PDF, 300KB)

https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-a ... cle-riders

http://cyclingtips.com/2013/12/a-metre- ... st-safety/

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/cyclis ... -law-2yk8s

In part, opinions stem from experience, the CTC proposer of motion 14 has cycled in more than 20 countries including Au, NZ, Canada, USA etc, if that helps.

“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.

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/10/south-au ... -cyclists/

For the UK Dr Walker from Bath Univ can measure the passing clearances, so they could be measured on average before to after legislation and checked against vehicle type. The police would issue guidance on enforcement, as they do with speed limits and could target the most dangerous vehicles.

Bez
Posts: 1176
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 11 Apr 2016, 9:55pm

OK, let's deal with this idea that I need to provide an "alternative solution" (and indeed the clearly implied idea that I haven't already provided one, because I have). There are two issues with it.

Firstly, it rather implies that this is (even partially) a solution in the first place. The fact that there's a connection between X and a piece of legislation prohibiting X (or at least a somehow defined subset of X) is not the same as the latter reducing instances of the former. We're into "common sense" territory here, where it's shorthand for assumption (or in some cases, though not this one, deliberate obstruction). "Something must be done, and this is something."

Secondly, it assumes that "something must be done". Something must be done about this. The thing is that you're asking for an alternative solution to this specific problem (here's a related discussion), and the "alternative solution" I propose is not to actually solve this problem. At least, not to solve it by retaining the status quo with occasionally a few more inches of air between vehicles. (Here's a related point.) I've already stated the alternative in the article:

"[Policies like distance passing laws] are not just a reflection of the status quo but an introspection of it, and as such they are political diversions from the policies that actually will make a difference—by which I mean those which have actually been shown to make a difference. And those policies are: build good infrastructure, build good infrastructure, and build good infrastructure."

Now, I'm well aware of the perennial responses to this, which are "it'll take decades to get good infrastructure" (correct), "we'll never have good infrastructure" (incorrect) or, occasionally, "infrastructure isn't the answer" (painfully incorrect) and I'm not suggesting that no other issues should be addressed until we're living in a quasi-Dutch utopia. What I'm suggesting is, again, in the article:

"The goal of protecting the people already cycling on the road is a valid one, but if you’re taking your eye off of the far greater goal [of more *and* safer cycling, which means good infrastructure] to deal with that then you’d better make sure that whatever you demand—especially something so significant as an additional law—is going to make a significant difference."

By all means, let's do things that help the status quo while we chase the greater goal. But things like this are basically tinkering at the edges, so let's be sure that they help. Let's be especially sure of that if they're politically risky. Let's also be especially sure that they don't undermine the greater goal.

Produce evidence that passing laws help, and I might change my mind. And I don't mean surveys of people saying they think some people pass wider, I mean collision data, casualty data and participation data. Plenty of other places around the world are serving as experiments for this. They're doing our research for free. Let's watch those.

If the data comes back saying there is a benefit, then it's time to have the discussion about whether it's worth asking for a law.

But until that point, this is all just blind faith, and that is no way to run any organisation.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7563
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 11 Apr 2016, 10:14pm

I think that says it all :?

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

lingy
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Jun 2007, 5:22pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby lingy » 12 Apr 2016, 6:56am

Well perhaps we need British Cycling to take this forward without all the agonising. Some of their campaigning stuff has been pretty good in the last few years.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16882
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby [XAP]Bob » 12 Apr 2016, 7:16am

It's the same reason that you have to sign a form saying you aren't a terrorist when you enter the US. It's something easy to charge with...

If you hit a cyclist then you haven't left a 1m, or 1.5m gap. By definition...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.