Passing clearance - motion at AGM

[PH]

If I felt there was any chance of getting such a law I'd vote for the motion, I believe if there was any chance of that there'd be no need for a motion anyway, the campaigns department would be pushing for it without the AGM.
For me it's a simple question of whether I trust the campaigns department to choose the most effective way to use time and resource or I think they need telling what to do.

[Psamathe]

I also wonder how much CUK has to restrict its campaigning with recent expenditure (probably higher than normal for non-campaigning activities) together with government restrictions about tax-payers money NOT being given to charities to campaign against government policy. Assuming that the government is/went through with the publicised change on charity funding for campaigns against government policy it may mean that more CUK campaigns have to be funded from member/donor income.

So, government/Civil Service could e.g. say that government policy is not to introduce min passing clearance - meaning no taxpayers/government grant money could be used for a campaign to introduce such legislation.

My impression was that the restriction on funding for campaigning against government policies was not going to include Gift Aid (but it might even be considered that Gift Aid is government funding but I can't see how that would work).

Either way, I suspect the government grant changes or restrictions are going to mean that CUK are going to have to fund more campaigns from other (member) income so they may have to be more careful over prioritising what campaigns they select. And maybe that is a contributing factor for their not wanting to adopt this motion.

Ian

[gaz]

I also wonder how much CUK has to restrict its campaigning with recent expenditure (probably higher than normal for non-campaigning activities) together with government restrictions about tax-payers money NOT being given to charities to campaign against government policy.

The "restrictions" have been discussed briefly before: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=103566

[MikeF]

As long as this isn't the solution to close overtakes.

[gaz]

This sort of thing is bad enough.

[Psamathe]

I also wonder how much CUK has to restrict its campaigning with recent expenditure (probably higher than normal for non-campaigning activities) together with government restrictions about tax-payers money NOT being given to charities to campaign against government policy.

The "restrictions" have been discussed briefly before: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=103566

I was thinking more that it might be a reason why they were wanting the motion rejected where under different grant prospects/financial position they might have been happier for it to be adopted.

Ian

[al_yrpal]

The point I am making in my last post is that the passing law will be enforced like all the other traffic laws i.e the law abiding will obey them, the criminal minority won't. That isnt a reason for not having a law… better than vague advice in tbe Highway Code.

Al

[Bez]

The point I am making in my last post is that the passing law will be enforced like all the other traffic laws i.e the law abiding will obey them, the criminal minority won't.

Could I, with reference to the 83% I quoted in regard to speed limits, ask what is your definition of the word "minority"?

[gaz]

That isnt a reason for not having a law… better than vague advice in tbe Highway Code.

Vague advice in Highway Code = Bad, Law = Good?

Isn't there some vague advice in the Highway Code about hi-vis, helmets, using cycle farcilities ... perhaps we need some laws.

[sjs]

The point I am making in my last post is that the passing law will be enforced like all the other traffic laws i.e the law abiding will obey them, the criminal minority won't.

Could I, with reference to the 83% I quoted in regard to speed limits, ask what is your definition of the word "minority"?

Supposing it were true that 83% of drivers sometimes break the speed limit: would you prefer that speed limits were abolished?

[lingy]

Yes, people arguing 'But how will it be enforced' miss the point entirely. I can think of loads of road regulations that are almost never enforced but still are helpful. They create a social expectation and remind people what is reasonable. Off the top of my head, 20mph residential zones and advance stop lanes would both be better if they were enforced but are much better than no regulation at all.
The passing with rule/law should be supported...in my view the different widths is s logical thing to cater for different traffic.
In France I bet this is never enforced but I've seen the big reminder signs which create a powerful message.
This should be supported and I am really surprised that it is not.


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

[al_yrpal]

At last… someone who totally gets it! I wish the CTC Committee did!

Al

[[XAP]Bob]

The point I am making in my last post is that the passing law will be enforced like all the other traffic laws i.e the law abiding will obey them, the criminal minority won't.

Could I, with reference to the 83% I quoted in regard to speed limits, ask what is your definition of the word "minority"?

Supposing it were true that 83% of drivers sometimes break the speed limit: would you prefer that speed limits were abolished?

No, but claiming that those 83% are a minority is pushing it a bit.

[Steady rider]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... sts-204275

It is possible with video evidence from the police or may be by others, to press charges for passing too close, if a law was introduced.

About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advi ... tsheet.pdf

page 3

However, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) present a particular danger for cyclists, especially in
London where around 20% of cyclist fatalities occur involve an HGV. These often occur
when an HGV is turning left at a junction’. About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious
injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.

The CTC Council should have supported the motion and engaged in how best to deliver. CTC Council takes an 'advice' approach, rather than a legal approach.
in cases of serious injuries to cyclists it is better where possible to cover the situations with legal requirements to make it clear to drivers.

[mjr]

The point I am making in my last post is that the passing law will be enforced like all the other traffic laws i.e the law abiding will obey them, the criminal minority won't.

Could I, with reference to the 83% I quoted in regard to speed limits, ask what is your definition of the word "minority"?

Wrong word to focus on. That 83% will include people like me who sometimes leave their foot on the accelerator of their new turbocharged car as long as they did in their old heavier normally-aspirated one and hit 41mph into a 40mph zone away from a roundabout, partly to try to avoid being tailgated as much by a speeder. If asked, I would say that I have sometimes exceeded speed limits. Heck, I did it in the driving test I passed - I'd failed an earlier test for not driving fast enough. I think that's wrong, but that's the current practice.

I don't think anyone gets prosecuted for 41 in a 40 at the minute, do they? So, the criminal minority are those who have points or been ticketed, or if we want to be broader: those who exceed the speed limits frequently by a goodly portion because they think they're irrelevant, unreasonable, unnecessary and/or other reasons. I'd say the criminal speeders are a minority.

This is all dictionary lawyering anyway. Most motorists would obey a passing distance law most of the time, but there would be a minority who disregard it and a majority who make occasional mistakes. Like mostly-unenforced 20mph limits, they're still helpful.