Passing clearance - motion at AGM

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

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby lingy » 12 Apr 2016, 7:40am

Yes, enforced or unenforced, these signs send a powerful message and I want my national cycling organisation lobbying hard for these in in the UK...soon. ImageImage



I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

Steady rider
Posts: 2269
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Steady rider » 12 Apr 2016, 9:14am

Bez, you do not really get it,
Motion 13,
13) European Union climate change
The CTC to promote a European
Union climate change policy of national
governments funding cycling infrastructure,
with a 3% minimum investment of transport
spending on cycling infrastructure (built
to CROW standards) or investment in
relationship to the modal share of cycling.
Proposer’s note: This motion aims to ensure
that reasonable levels of funding are available to
provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries.
The CTC may gain support via MEPs and in
conjunction with the ECF.
Proposer Colin Clarke, seconder Tony
Franklin

Tries to provide a way of funding suitable infrastructure needed, but again our CTC Council friends wrongly object.

Waiting for research to assess a road safety measure can take a very long time, some results are obvious, drink drive enforcement, did show a positive outcome. Quite a few road safety measures we know work and could be implemented to benefit cycling and general road safety but this government is lacking in pushing forward some of these. They respond at times to pressure or what suits there own agenda. Many MP stood up for cycling at the recent events in Parliament. Accident data is available showing the connection with close passing/accidents. Dr Ian Walker has provided detailed measurements for different types of vehicle and the accident data and risk is already known. http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

So, if Motion 14 is passed and if CTC Council pushed it forward, MPs may raise the issue, quoting other countries that have already have similar requirements, quoting accident data already published, quoting cycling organisations concerned at the results from poor driving habits and close passing, Would a vote on an EDM succeed? Most drivers already pass at more than a 1m, so a 1m law is already being largely complied with in 30 mph zones. Many questions but a way forward is not that difficult to see. The CTC could be helpful, ask MPs for a meeting, ask the proposer if they could provide MPs with a briefing and present the suggested new legal requirements. Any MP opposing would run into the problems of justifying their opposition. The transport select committee could also consider the issue if a group of MP provide backing. In the end the basic idea is worth considering in detail. More passing places on minor roads would probably be one outcome, not passing at closer than 1m without due care or 1.5m, depending on speed. It could be possible to monitor the passing distances prior and after legislation in addition to cycling levels. In most towns and cities often room for providing separate cycling infrastructure is not available, so the option of a legal minimum passing clearance could e useful as an extra incentive to take care when passing. However obvious all this is, the CTC and Bez, have their minds adrift and make it harder to sell a positive message, pity
Last edited by Steady rider on 12 Apr 2016, 9:20am, edited 3 times in total.

reohn2
Posts: 40129
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby reohn2 » 12 Apr 2016, 9:17am

[XAP]Bob wrote: .......If you hit a cyclist then you haven't left a 1m, or 1.5m gap. By definition...


+1
Meanwhile......................
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8860
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 12 Apr 2016, 9:26am

Is Bez on the Committee? If so that explains a lot. Obsfucation is the enemy of progress. Meanwhile, unecessary accidents, injuries and deaths continue…

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 12 Apr 2016, 9:47am

Steady rider wrote:Waiting for research to assess a road safety measure can take a very long time, some results are obvious


And may things that seem obvious either turn out not to be the case or have such significant side-effects as to negate any benefit.

Steady rider wrote:Quite a few road safety measures we know work


And no-one has yet demonstrated that this is one of them.

Steady rider wrote:MPs may raise the issue, quoting other countries that have already have similar requirements, quoting accident data already published


Where is this published data related to the effect of distance passing laws?

Steady rider wrote:The CTC could be helpful, ask MPs for a meeting, ask the proposer if they could provide MPs with a briefing and present the suggested new legal requirements. Any MP opposing would run into the problems of justifying their opposition. The transport select committee could also consider the issue if a group of MP provide backing.


And all of this is time that is not spent discussing policies that are proven to be effective. How much time do you think all these people have in a working week and how many different interest groups do you think they have to deal with? Why would you vote to spend that very limited time on something which is not proven to work, which has numerous significant flaws, and which is to some debatable extent contradictory to the very policies which do work? How is that wise?

Steady rider wrote:In most towns and cities often room for providing separate cycling infrastructure is not available


Come on, that's a tired old canard and there is plenty of material out there putting this argument to sleep.

Steady rider wrote:However obvious all this is, the CTC and Bez, have their minds adrift and make it harder to sell a positive message, pity


Obvious, obvious, obvious. If the positive effect were so obvious then groups from the jurisdictions with the law would have been falling over themselves by now to publish data. It seems obvious. That's all we have here: that it seems obvious.

al_yrpal wrote:Is Bez on the Committee? If so that explains a lot. Obsfucation is the enemy of progress. Meanwhile, unecessary accidents, injuries and deaths continue…


No, I'm not. I'm just a CTC member. If you want full disclosure I do occasionally have conversations with people who are on the committee, but to the best of my knowledge I've never had a conversation with any of them about distance passing laws, and—other than constituting opposition—the views I've expressed don't align with council's response to Motion 14 anyway.

Did you have any response other than some blustering, an enigmatic emoji and an insinuation of collusion? I would have hoped that as the seconder of the motion you'd be able to provide something more concrete by way of justification. Have you looked into the details of the actual passing laws and whether France indeed has one? The government's legislation website appears to indicate that it doesn't, so I wondered where you'd got your information from. You seem to be implying that I'm obfuscating matters, yet you're not exactly providing any clear facts.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8860
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 12 Apr 2016, 10:18am

Have you ever heard of common sense? If vehicles are required by law to give cyclists at least 1 metre clearance they cannot collide with them. That is precisely why so many countries have such laws and prescriptions! Its as simple as that, dozens of paragraphs of waffle are simply not needed.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3637
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 12 Apr 2016, 10:24am

Bez wrote:No, I'm not. I'm just a CTC member. If you want full disclosure I do occasionally have conversations with people who are on the committee, but to the best of my knowledge I've never had a conversation with any of them about distance passing laws, and—other than constituting opposition—the views I've expressed don't align with council's response to Motion 14 anyway.

They couldn't – you have views and attempt to explain them, they don't!

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 12 Apr 2016, 10:29am

al_yrpal wrote:Have you ever heard of common sense? If vehicles are required by law to give cyclists at least 1 metre clearance they cannot collide with them. That is precisely why so many countries have such laws and prescriptions! Its as simple as that, dozens of paragraphs of waffle are simply not needed.


Ah, and here it is: "common sense", the phrase I predicted yesterday.

"Common sense" is the catchphrase beloved of anyone who loves shouting down things they disapprove of but refuses to allow critical thought. It's the modern counterpoint to facts and evidence. If something is "common sense" it must be true, because it's common sense. It's a no-brainer, literally so: it seems obvious, it's common sense, so no brain is required.

It's a bit off to come along interpreting a circumspect argument—whether or not you agree with it— as being "obfuscation" and "the enemy of progress" when of all things, the phrase "common sense" is that enemy. This is the problem: you see anything that disrupts the assumption of efficacy as obfuscation: your cry of "common sense" is a desire to yank the argument away from critical though and back to a gut reaction whereby Something Must Be Done And This Is Something.

Take a look at what you've written: "If vehicles are required by law to give cyclists at least 1 metre clearance they cannot collide with them."

Can you not see that this statement is, frankly, ludicrous?

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3637
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 12 Apr 2016, 10:30am

But while you (Bez) have explained why you think this motion will not achieve anything if passed, I think you need to explain more on why you think it is harmful. Your argument seems to be that it will be a distraction (from what?) and that if a law were to result from this, it would both risk a backlash (or unintended consequences such as not being allowed to ride on narrow roads) and reinforce the status quo. I don't see how that can be so; it won't reinforce the status quo, it will alter it to one where drivers have an obligation to give cyclists more space and, what's probably more useful, some guidance as to how much space that is. The unintended consequences should be dealt with in the bill itself. I did read somewhere (a link here? can't remember now) about South Dakota passing a law requiring cyclists to pull off the road completely to allow other vehicles to pass – do they have a minimum passing distance? I'm pretty sure that's a law that's been passed without any backlash to prompt it.

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 12 Apr 2016, 10:32am

Bmblbzzz wrote:They couldn't – you have views and attempt to explain them, they don't!


Well, to be fair, I think council's response is reasonable given the conciseness required for where it's published. This sort of thing has always been Roger Geffen's area and I'd hope he'd be happy to offer a fuller explanation if required.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8860
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 12 Apr 2016, 10:33am

If vehicles are required by law to give cyclists at least 1 metre clearance they cannot collide with them.

Perhaps I should have added 'when passing'. It really is as simple as that.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 12 Apr 2016, 10:44am

Bmblbzzz wrote:But while you (Bez) have explained why you think this motion will not achieve anything if passed, I think you need to explain more on why you think it is harmful.


Well, hopefully the article did…

Bmblbzzz wrote:Your argument seems to be that it will be a distraction (from what?)


From policies proven to improve both safety and participation: infrastructure.

Bmblbzzz wrote:and that if a law were to result from this, it would both risk a backlash (or unintended consequences such as not being allowed to ride on narrow roads) and reinforce the status quo. I don't see how that can be so; it won't reinforce the status quo, it will alter it to one where drivers have an obligation to give cyclists more space and, what's probably more useful, some guidance as to how much space that is.


By "status quo" I mean having to share the carriageway with motor traffic. The matter of how the distribution curve of passing distances changes shape after a law is one of complete speculation: Will it be a case of everyone leaving a little more room? Will it cause the already-careful drivers leave loads of room but have no effect on the less thoughtful ones? Is the actual issue really only caused by people
who are somehow distracted, on whom it seems unlikely the legislation could have any effect? We don't know any of these things; but in any case, all of them are really just tinkering with the status quo: none of them are a shift away from it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better passing and I'm all for clearer guidance as to what that actually means. But I don't see any way in which the proposed law is an effective means of ensuring that or even improving the situation to any non-negligible extent. Until someone produces some credible evidence to say that it improves matters to an extent where the effort is worthwhile, I can't support it as an expense of effort.

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Bez » 12 Apr 2016, 10:46am

al_yrpal wrote:If vehicles are required by law to give cyclists at least 1 metre clearance they cannot collide with them.

Perhaps I should have added 'when passing'. It really is as simple as that.


OK. Adding "when passing" doesn't change the huge flaws in that statement. If you genuinely think "it really is as simple as that" then I'm sorry, but I think you're either being staggeringly naive or wilfully blinkered.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8860
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 12 Apr 2016, 10:48am

Yes, the same applies to you. Bye bye. :lol:

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Psamathe
Posts: 11542
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Passing clearance - motion at AGM

Postby Psamathe » 12 Apr 2016, 10:59am

I think the CTC's official stance
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.

Is just daft. Highway Code also says you
Highway Code wrote:You should wear ... a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

So do they think everybody should comply with everything in the Highway Code ? Because if Cyclists can ignore things like helmets why should drivers obey things like passing clearance ?

Not impressed.

Ian