Bez wrote:The Plymouth Herald article has now been amended. The collapse of the justice system and all that is decent in the world has been postponed for just a few moments
I think your stance on this and your perception that motorists won't take the 75cm as the main thing is wrong. You only have to look at what happened when a coroner made a totally haphazard speculation based on no evidence whatsoever regarding headphones (they themselves showing bias based on false information/misleading hearsay) and immediately the vast majority were stating that headphones should be banned, headphones will kill you whilst wearing them on a bike, you know this because you were defending against such IIRC.
The message that is most definitely to be taken away is not that you must give X space, it's this is where you should be (75cm away from the kerb) or you're in the wrong.
To not understand why is a failure to understand the human psyche in these types of scenarios, humans take what others should be doing, especially outgroup people, to avoid situations/outcomes e.g. helmets/hi-vis, stay off the roads etc when confronted with effectively a telling off/told what to do.
They don't/won't look at themselves first, we already know this as fact and the way the HC and the law is twisted in favour of those {EDIT} in a motorised vehicle, even when it comes to cases in court and because the police and pretty much everyone else is backing this it has plenty of weight so it'll be the 75cm part that is focussed on.
So yes, the takeaway message for the selfish (read average) motorist is that I understood that they should be no more than 75cm from the edge, not my problem if they got killed/injured, felt fearful for their safety/life.
Also, again, without enforcement, it's worse than what we already have because now it's giving targets that would have to be proven in court (just like speeding) - prove I was inside XX distance because we are told that that is what I should give and the 'at least' bit will be ignored too (again we know this to be true), targets that just like speed signs are simply not safe for ALL vulnerable road users in all circumstances and in some circumstances less than a metre is acceptable to, speed differential is a massive factor, a car coming past at a small speed differential (5mph or so) in a straight line without cutting in/revving engine but say 2-2.5 feet from elbow is much less stressful/fearful than a bus/HGV/tipper etc coming past at 5 feet at 40/50/60mph and/or chopping in front.
In any case a motorist will plead that if the XX distance is what I'm told diagramatically/in numerals is safe, then why is XX+XX safer, would that not by definition mean that the XX is not safe enough? This ties the hands of the police and the justice system even more. Without giving official training to every single license holder in a way that re-enforces what we want then how will it hold water for those not given the training because the HC states "at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" which in itself is moronic but is open for interpretation and as I said above is ignored despite the picture and ignored not just by motorists but the police/justice system also.