It is regrettable they used the Chairs discretionary votes to oppose the 2016 motion, otherwise it would have passed. Cycling UK are now heading to support the police, when they could have been leading the way.
Psamathe wrote: a matter they had previously abdicated from campaigning on and with trivial effort from their side. Ian
It is understandable that cyclists take this view. Seeking funding from cyclists in providing some mats is perhaps a bit trivial but may gain important publicity. Hopefully in 2017 they will up their support.
FWIW if education is the ticket why does 0.75m need come into it at all? Why can't motorists be educated to give 1.5m clearance between offside edge of the bike and nearside edge of the motor,it's a simple instruction is it not?
The problem seems to me to be that there could be carrot but without a stick........
Also why isn't a 1.5m rule not being plastered all over the TV and radio news and other media outlets,along with a reinforcement of educating the motoring public that cyclists have as much right to the roads as anyone else
Last edited by reohn2 on 9 Mar 2017, 8:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"Fed up with dangerous overtaking that's too close for comfort?" Says Paul Touhy in a recent circular email. Here's my answer:
Yes Paul, I am. That's why I voted FOR motion 14 at the last AGM, calling for a legal minimum passing distance. Where were you on that one Paul? Oh I remember, you got your tame Councillors to stamp all over it! First with a disagreeable response in Cycle magazine, secondly at the meeting and thirdly, in spite of having lost the argument not only with those in the room but also 'postal' votes, by dumping all of the unthinking votes vested in the Chair, onto the hitherto almost empty NO side of the balance!
Having been told by your "reluctant to specify" Council that "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don't want to give drivers the idea that it is." I find that picture of you enthusiastically specifying precisely 1.5m, quite ironic. Please explain why this is a terribly bad idea when it comes from the CTC grassroots, the members who pay your wages Paul, in case you forgot, but a terribly good idea when it's yours? I remember the days when CTC was a bottom-up organisation, when I for one was proud to serve the members. Seems to me that CUK is well and truly top-down, with members mere foot-soldiers in campaigns directed by staff.
But wait, it isn't your idea is it Paul. You got this from Manchester Police. CTC would've and CUK could've led the way, if only staff and council didn't have a knee-jerk response to anything suggested by long-time CTC members. But instead of taking the initiative in this and so many recent campaigns (thank you Chris Boardman), CUK is reduced to the status of a 'waggoner'!
So: you want a tenner from me do you Paul, for this campaign that was such a bad idea only ten months ago? Some cheek! If you'd asked me before the 7th May 2016, you'd have got it. But if you want my money now you're going to have to eat some humble pie, apologise on behalf of Staff and Council for their short-sighted and unnecessarily damning response to Colin Clarke's popular and non-controversial motion, and promise to pay more heed in future to people who've been members of CTC a whole lot longer than you.
Chris Juden One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
reohn2 wrote:FWIW if education is the ticket why does 0.75m need come into it at all?
To educate motorists that it is unreasonable to expect a cyclist to be anything less than 0.75m from a kerb.
I take your point but that works both ways in that it could be construed by motorists that cyclist shouldn't ride further out from the edge of the carriageway than 0.75m. There's many times I ride 1.5m out into the carriageway for my own safety.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I think 0.75m is about right for the usual riding position, I would call this primary position (because it is my usual position, roughly 0.75 to 1.0m perhaps). The distance will vary depending on several factors but as a guide 0.75 is probably OK for many road situations and for some riders. There is no need to mention it as part of passing requirement, making it more complicated. One is a general guide of where to position a bicycle, that most cyclists already know but some ride too near the edge. The deliberate close pass is putting people at risk and is both dangerous and intimidating.
reohn2 wrote:FWIW if education is the ticket why does 0.75m need come into it at all?
To educate motorists that it is unreasonable to expect a cyclist to be anything less than 0.75m from a kerb.
I take your point but that works both ways in that it could be construed by motorists that cyclist shouldn't ride further out from the edge of the carriageway than 0.75m. There's many times I ride 1.5m out into the carriageway for my own safety.
If the education was administered solely by a police officer saying "look at the mat, that's what's supposed to happen" then it could be construed as a maximum distance a cyclist should be from the kerb. AIUI the education as delivered by the WMP is that 0.75m is a minimum distance and that there will be many times that a cyclist will ride further out for their own safety. Likewise 1.5m is a minimum passing clearance; if it's not safe to overtake, don't overtake.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
CJ wrote:... in spite of having lost the argument not only with those in the room but also 'postal' votes, by dumping all of the unthinking votes vested in the Chair, onto the hitherto almost empty NO side of the balance! ...
Before counting undirected proxy votes vested in the chair the count was 1261 for, 844* against. 59% for, 41% against. By your methodology 41% of the vote equates to "almost empty" on the NO side of the balance.
Do you simply feel that some member votes are more equal than others?
Edit: Originally misposted as 884 , apologies.
Last edited by gaz on 10 Mar 2017, 8:24am, edited 1 time in total.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
gaz wrote:AIUI the education as delivered by the WMP is that 0.75m is a minimum distance and that there will be many times that a cyclist will ride further out for their own safety. Likewise 1.5m is a minimum passing clearance; if it's not safe to overtake, don't overtake.
Yeah, both minimum, not ideal or target distances, but MINIMUM.
Trouble is that the average educationally-challenged Brit has a poor understanding of limits, be they MINIMUM safe distances, or MAXIMUM safe speeds, tending to regard them instead as a target! I find that a poor excuse however, for doing nothing. One simply adds (or subtracts) a stupidity margin, so as to end up with behaviour that's good enough.
In NZ a few years ago I was delighted to see big speed limit posters made like an archery bullseye with the words: It's a LIMIT not a target!
Chris Juden One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
Steady rider wrote:I think 0.75m is about right for the usual riding position, I would call this primary position (because it is my usual position, roughly 0.75 to 1.0m perhaps).
That's not primary position. "The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel." (Cyclecraft, p87) - standard traffic lanes are 3.7m wide IIRC, so it's going to be about 1.85m from the kerb.
0.75m isn't even secondary position, which is "about 1 metre (3 feet) to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide" = 0.85m on standard lanes, but it's debatable whether it means the wide standard lanes which are 5m, so it would be 1.5m from the kerb.
I disagree. It seems harmful to cycling to perpetuate the 0.75m mistake. That's barely better than the 0.6m we were told in 1980s Cycling Deficiency, sorry, Proficiency. I'm disappointed by CTC/CUK.
Steady rider wrote:There is no need to mention it as part of passing requirement, making it more complicated.
I agree.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
CJ wrote:... in spite of having lost the argument not only with those in the room but also 'postal' votes, by dumping all of the unthinking votes vested in the Chair, onto the hitherto almost empty NO side of the balance! ...
2016 AGM Results Motion14.png Before counting undirected proxy votes vested in the chair the count was 1261 for, 884 against. 59% for, 41% against. By your methodology 41% of the vote equates to "almost empty" on the NO side of the balance.
Do you simply feel that some member votes are more equal than others?
CJ may have exaggerated but he has a valid point. Excluding the chair's discretionary votes, the balance was 60/40 in favour (not 59/41 - your 884 count should be 844). That's a substantial majority and a pretty clear indication of the membership's will - one the chairman took it upon himself to overturn for fairly flimsy reasons.
That's not primary position. "The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel." (Cyclecraft, p87) - standard traffic lanes are 3.7m wide IIRC, so it's going to be about 1.85m from the kerb
I disagree with calling it primary,
I think 0.75m is about right for the usual riding position, I would call this primary position (because it is my usual position, roughly 0.75 to 1.0m perhaps)
I would use the term 'primary' for the usual position when cycling. I think it gives the wrong message to the average cyclist to say your primary position is in the centre of lane. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q= ... finition&*
I appreciate since Cyclecraft gave this view of primary position, many cyclists have used the term, in my view the wrong term to use. I would probably call it secondary position that is used on occasions to move/change lanes or deter overtaking in an unsuitable location or to provide for a good viewing position by motorists. It is primary for motor vehicles but not for cyclists, at least that is my view.
, apologies.
