Passing distance for cyclists petition

[Psamathe]

...

My own rides will never have any cycle infrastructure (a lot of single track country lanes).

Why not? We've single-track country lanes with gates that cyclists can get through but motorists have to stop and open (when allowed to) which are great for encouraging most motorists to stick to the bigger roads. Infrastructure in the countryside doesn't have to look like it does in towns.

I've not come across any such "infrastructure" round me.

Ian

[mjr]

We've single-track country lanes with gates that cyclists can get through but motorists have to stop and open (when allowed to) which are great for encouraging most motorists to stick to the bigger roads.

I've not come across any such "infrastructure" round me.

That's as maybe, but it does exist - it's just not used much in the backwards end of the county

[Bmblbzzz]

I've also come across such infrastructure (gates or bollards to close minor lanes temporarily or permanently) but they are rare. I've also known people argue against them on the grounds that rural inhabitants need to use the whole network of lanes (something I wouldn't deny them and which is not incompatible with having to take a longer way round).

The four panniers point is true. I experienced that myself this weekend! The irony is that you're actually no wider than without them, as normally your widest point is your elbows : you just look wider.

I'm still considering the petition, though I think it's definitely a good idea to encourage some kind of talk about this.

[bikerwaser]

Thanks Steady rider for all that info !

Interesting about Ireland and their 1.5 metres petition. I've signed it. I think we all should . The more countries get this legislation the better.

[al_yrpal]

Received an email this morning…

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.

Ends… .

Well, more vacilating from the government. It only needs the word 'Must' put in front of the Highway Code advice and we would all be somewhat safer.

As it stands if its your habit to pass another car at an overtaking speed difference of 50 mph giving the slower car 3" clearance, thats quite alright by the numbnuts who dreamed up this stupid and ineffective 'advice'. Doh!

Al

[Bmblbzzz]

Received an email this morning…

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.

Ends… .

Well, more vacilating from the government. It only needs the word 'Must' put in front of the Highway Code advice and we would all be somewhat safer.

As it stands if its your habit to pass another car at an overtaking speed difference of 50 mph giving the slower car 3" clearance, thats quite alright by the numbnuts who dreamed up this stupid and ineffective 'advice'. Doh!

Al

Stronger advice and guidance in the HC would be good, certainly. But you can't just edit it like that. HC's use of must and should reflects legal obligation and advice respectively. The HC is based on the law, not the other way round! So you can't put must in there until and unless a relevant law has been passed.

[FatBat]

I guess everyone who signed will have received the same reply. I'm going to write to my MP, who is quite keen on cycling, asking for more pressure to be applied. I can think of three good reasons why we need this;

It will remove any doubt about what constitutes an acceptable passing distance and is much easier for motorists to understand than the current wording in the Highway Code

It wil help in the prosecution of drivers who pass too close - like in Martin Porter's case, where he was passes very close by a speeding driver. If there evidence that the motorist was closer than the stipulated distance, they can be fined for a specific offence and there would be no need to try for a Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving conviction.

It should help reduce the number of dangerous traffic restrictions, such as refuges that narrow the carriageway to the horrible range of 3.2m to 4.0m. I've had supposedly qualified highways engineers tell me that 3.2m is wide enough for a car to pass a cycle on a 40mph road - if this legislation were to be passed, it should be less likely that such opinions will prevail. Well, we can hope.

The Government's weasel words about it being too hard to enforce just don't wash. Lots of highway laws are hard to enforce, and no-one would expect strict enforcement of every single one. But, the law is there to instruct people as to what is acceptable and gives a mechanism to punish those who transgress. At the moment, someone can pass a cyclist as close as they wish, at whatever speed, and any kind of conviction is almost impossible.

[bikerwaser]

Yes, anyone that signed the petition got the email.

What utter rubbish it is.

They say "1m passing would be hard to enforce".

The rest of Europe has 1.5m passing law

Stopping Terrorism is hard to enforce and is very costly but more people die on our roads than from Terrrrrrrrr (insert G.W.Bush accent).

I'm sick of the BS in this country. So many other countries in Europe have a safer cycling environment. I feel like i'm wasting my time here hoping for things to change when I can live a better life abroad where cyclists aren't treated like gutter scum. Let the roads fill with cars and maybe then the drivers will slowly realise .... well, maybe they won't even then.

à plus tard !

[MikeF]

They say "1m passing would be hard to enforce".

The rest of Europe has 1.5m passing law

How is it enforced? That's the key issue.

The HC is weak with this statement .....the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”. It would be better to say "at least half a car's width". Also "drivers should" would be stronger than "advises drivers". Anyone know how alterations to the HC can be requested?

[Steady rider]

The Code is revised to keep up with the law and once in about 6-10 years a full revision and consultation takes place.
The word 'should' is advice. A legal requirement is needed.

Wording of The Highway Code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Video evidence can be scaled, e.g http://www.automobiledimension.com/car-comparison.php Nissan Pulsar 2015 is 1.768 m wide. A rear image of the vehicle passing a cyclist could be used. The police guidelines may suggest to issue a fine if passing within 0.9m or similar.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... sts-204275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtFluE ... e=youtu.be

Based on evidence of states in the USA where laws have been passed, those states increased their cycling levels at twice the rate of those without passing laws.

% change Commute by Bike 2005-2014, averages about 22% for states without passing legislation and about 50% for states with passing legislation.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transporta ... lists.aspx
http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default ... ta_web.pdf

[MikeF]

The Code is revised to keep up with the law and once in about 6-10 years a full revision and consultation takes place.
The word 'should' is advice. A legal requirement is needed.

Exactly that's why I said "should" instead of "advises". It's a stronger word when there isn't legislation where "must" can be used.

I have signed the petition, but I think it is poorly worded (and with typo ) and weak. "Cycling in the UK has become a truly popular sport and way of commuting, but we still vulnerable."
Truly popular sport? (Roadies and chain gangs?) Not the sort of wording for a petition in my view.

I don't cycle for those reasons. Cyclists need to use roads. That's the point that needs making and they need respect as users of the road with wide passing amongst other things.

A large number of people don't cycle ie are "prevented from ", because it's perceived as "dangerous"; close passes is possibly one of the biggest reasons. Remove motor traffic and many people will cycle. Wide passing minimises the "danger" of cycling. Not only does more people cycling mean fewer cars, but fewer traffic jams.

I'm not surprised by the Government response to this petition.

[reohn2]

I'm not surprised by the Government response to this petition.

Nor me,but not because of the wording or the typo in the petition.
It's more because the government as usual,only ever pays lip service to cycling and cyclists and doesn't seriously wish to increase it in any useful way.
IMHO they see restricting motorists as a vote loser in favour of a minority activity however good that activity is for public health ie;increased fitness,lowering pollution levels,and a happier populous.
Cycling doesn't bring in enough tax compared to motoring and they fear the backlash such laws will cause from the motoring lobby.

We have successive governments who simply will not grasp the nettle and look forward enough to see where the continued increased use of the private motor is leading,their outlook is totally cynical and disgraceful.Compare it with the more forward looking European countries where short trip motoring is discouraged and cycling encouraged and provision is far better whether that be on the roads or by good quality cyclepaths that make cycling both desirable,useful and safe.
My 2d's worth.

[Steady rider]

The CTC did not support the passing motion and they gain funding in part via the DfT.

Some people may have read the Code 50 years ago and whatever words are used.such as should or advises, they are advice and not directly attached to a criminal offence.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted,

these are the should or advises type rules.

Drivers passing too close would be committing a criminal offence and could be fined if the law is introduced. The driving culture would change from I may be able to squeeze past or I will pass close deliberately knowing I can get away with it, to I better take more care knowing I could be fined or have points on my licence. The risk per km of travel by bicycle in the UK can be compared with parts of Europe where drivers give more space to cyclists, any handy links to data?

[Psamathe]

The CTC did not support the passing motion and they gain funding in part via the DfT.
...

I think that is very relevant. CUK are interested in grant income more than the interests of cyclists and their being against the recent AGM motion completely illustrates this.

Ian

[Steady rider]

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/ ... in-cycling

Any group receiving £500,000 would be careful and try not to rock the boat with its provider.