https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190
Both British Cycling and Cycling UK consider drivers passing too close needs to be tackled – it’s not only hazardous for cyclists, but also extremely intimidating.
Roughly in the UK we cycle about 5 billion km per year, assuming a low figure of 5 vehicle passes per km on average, 25 billion passes. Roughly about 1 in 50 passes may be passing too close and should be fined, 500 million per year, 1.37 million per day. In 2014 there were 21,287 cyclists injured in reported road accidents, including 3,514 who are killed or seriously injured.
European data on the death rate per billion kilometre cycle reported Norway with 11.0 cyclist deaths per billion kilometres cycled, followed by Denmark with 12.1, the Netherlands with 12.4, Sweden with 14.4 and Great Britain with 22.4, so a practical approach to improve safety is needed.
Data from Queensland, Australia reported cyclist deaths reduced from 23 to 10 and the number of serious (fatal and hospitalisations) reduced from 674 to 485 following their Minimum Passing Distance rule.
British Cycling approach;
Former Team GB star Chris Boardman, now a policy adviser to British Cycling, said the new law should be brought in “without delay.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mo ... es-8102754
In addition they would look to changes in the Highway Code when next revised.
The BC approach would mean that a passing law could be enforced and education and understanding that all road users need to share the road safely. This approach would be practical and allow the police to issue tickets for close passing without undue delay.
Cycling UK approach;
Cycling UK policy manager, Roger Geffen has supported the idea of a passing law in his submission, http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... _con_0.pdf
page 6 of 17.
A minimum passing distance, as called for in https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190. Although we are dismayed at the Government’s response, we are pleased that the Government is keeping its position on this under review. We believe it should be incorporated into the next HC revision.
They also say;
"We agree that close overtaking by motor vehicles should be tackled – it’s not only hazardous for cyclists, but also extremely intimidating. We have always been reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance, though. This is 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.
We therefore feel that the Highway Code (rather than the law) is the best place to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, but also elaborate on the circumstances in which more (and sometimes much more) space is needed – e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather etc. When the next revision is announced (we never know quite when this will be because it’s not regular), we’ll be campaigning for a variety of amendments, including much better/clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.
Our policy is also to promote cycle awareness training as an integral part of the driving test and compulsory practical cycle training for the drivers of large vehicles (lorries, buses and coaches etc.). This would, we think, help ensure that drivers learn to be very wary of overtaking cyclists, give them plenty of room and not overtake at all if they can’t do this."
Assuming people read the Code, follow its advice, that it is revised at some point to the liking of Cycling UK it could be helpful in the long term. Mainly new drivers read the Code. Advice in the Code to leave 1.0 m or 1.5 m would not be a legal requirement and therefore not enforceable. Recommending 1.0 m or 1.5 m without the legal support of legislation could lead to test cases and drivers challenging the Code with a loophole left for them to avoid either a charge or conviction of close passing.
Cycling UK approach is not really a practical solution to close overtaking.
Cycling UK has also voted against a legal requirement this year,
AGM result motion 14
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... esults.pdf
At the AGM the directed voting were 1261 (20+53+1188) for and 844 (14+37+793) against. I make this 59.9% in favour of directed voting.
The Chairs discretionary voting 881, my view, this is questionable. This is because the voting paper puts the Chair’s option first combined with they do not have to name the person. The AGM is set up so that the Chair is always either the Councils Chair or deputy Chair. All other proxy’s have to be given to individuals and named and if they do not manage to attend their votes will not be counted from what I gather. In short it is an easier process voting for the Chair, a tick box option and gives an advantage. The Chair discretionary vote was used to oppose the motion, basically asking for a legal requirement.
Cycling UK Chief Executive Paul Tuophy was looking for more research into this issue.
Cycling UK also say;
We therefore feel that the Highway Code (rather than the law)’
They are giving mixed messages about a Minimum Passing Distance Law and offering a poor approach. To issue fines a law is required with the distances specified and included in the Highway Code, including only advice is not sufficent. They are also undermining the approach of BC by complicating the issue by suggesting it is either the law option or the Highway Code option when both can be used together.(legislation plus education are needed)
They are also discouraging people from signing the petition by their approach.
The Government and Parliament would decide if 1.0 m and 1.5 m were the most suitable values but they have been used and found to provide good results.
Cycling UK have been asked to look at this issue again at their next Council meeting and hopefully they may join the BC approach and contributing to changes in the H/Code.
