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.
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
). 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?