E-Petition: 3 Feet 2 Pass

[paulah]

5 ft , you have got to be joking, Why do you need that amount between you and motorists.

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking !

Not only that but also to leave enough room if the cyclist swerves.


Highway code rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

[johncharles]

5 ft , you have got to be joking, Why do you need that amount between you and motorists.

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking !

Have I said that. I don't think so.

[johncharles]

5 ft , you have got to be joking, Why do you need that amount between you and motorists.

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking !

Not only that but also to leave enough room if the cyclist swerves.


Highway code rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Can you please explain why you quote from the highway cade, or are you the only one who has read it.

[niggle]

FWIW I've set up a petition for a new law that makes it illegal for motor vehicles to overtake a cyclist with less than 5ft (1.5metres) clearance.
I'm waiting for approval from Drowning Street, when its approved I'll inform the forum,hope you will support it

I certainly will vote for that one, keep us posted.

[paulah]

Can you please explain why you quote from the highway cade, or are you the only one who has read it.

Can you please explain why you feel the need to roll your eyes at a perfectly civil post.

[johncharles]

Can you please explain why you quote from the highway cade, or are you the only one who has read it.

Can you please explain why you feel the need to roll your eyes at a perfectly civil post.

I just don't see why you had to quote part of the highway code, the rolling eyes is just my reaction to this.

it is as though you feel the need to try and educate me even though you know nothing about me.

[reohn2]

5 ft , you have got to be joking, Why do you need that amount between you and motorists.

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking !

Have I said that. I don't think so.

Do forgive me I seem to have taken things to a ridiculous extreme.I would like 5ft minimum please, if that means sometimes I get 4ft I'd settle for that,but if 3ft is the law I wouldn't be too happy with 2ft how about you?
Perhaps you could tell us what you would be happy with?
Err,you do ride a bicycle don't you?

[paulah]

Can you please explain why you quote from the highway cade, or are you the only one who has read it.

Can you please explain why you feel the need to roll your eyes at a perfectly civil post.

I just don't see why you had to quote part of the highway code, the rolling eyes is just my reaction to this.

it is as though you feel the need to try and educate me even though you know nothing about me.

I was making a general remark in reply to reohn2s post aimed generally at anyone who might be reading it.

[Tonyf33]

91.44cm is ample up to 40 zones, 50 & over only needs another 30.48cm. To expect cars to overtake giving 152.4cm to your elbow or bar end at all times is a nonsence. When overtaking in the car rarely if at all would I give that distance between my left wing mirror and another motorised vehicle's right wing mirror, on most single carriagway roads this is barely possible & for the most part just not necessary.
I can't see any practical way to enforce a given overtaking sideways gap (not sure how it would be possible in all but city centres?) I think we should concentrate on trying to get the powers that be educate & improve at source driving standards full stop. An example could be including cycling specific hazards in the theory & practical tests as a mandatory segment.

[dave holladay]

The basic rule should be, at speed, to allow sufficient space for the cyclist to fall over - ie the height of the cyclists plus a bit - effectively 6 feet. When moving slowly and in a position to negotiate visually with the other road user then distances can be reducedMany motorists have extremely poor observational ability - I hear of a bollarded island in Harrogate which has had a bollard in place since the death of a pedestrian hit by a car turning right out of the supermarket egress at that point - it has been struck 3 times since it was installed recently but the Council has rightly stood their ground - the bollard is placed to meet the swept arc requirements for all vehicles right up to a full-size articulated truck, and in a car you will miss it by a huge margin if you don't cut the corner - 2 of the cars have managed to get up to speeds at which the impact with the bollard flipped them on to their roofs - speaks volumes doesn't it.

[reohn2]

91.44cm is ample up to 40 zones, 50 & over only needs another 30.48cm. To expect cars to overtake giving 152.4cm to your elbow or bar end at all times is a nonsence. When overtaking in the car rarely if at all would I give that distance between my left wing mirror and another motorised vehicle's right wing mirror, on most single carriagway roads this is barely possible & for the most part just not necessary.
I can't see any practical way to enforce a given overtaking sideways gap (not sure how it would be possible in all but city centres?) I think we should concentrate on trying to get the powers that be educate & improve at source driving standards full stop. An example could be including cycling specific hazards in the theory & practical tests as a mandatory segment.

The point is we aren't talking here about motorvehicles overtaking motorvehicles,we are talking about motorvehicles overtaking vulnerable road users who sometimes travel very slowly and sometimes wobble a little,or serve around broken bottles in the gutter,thorns from hedgecutting,broken branchess from overhanging trees,dead cats,badgers,squirrels,dogs,not seen a horse yet but give it time,and any number of other objects that a motorvehicle driver doesn't see whilst they're on the phone,things we swerve around but to a motorvehicle just make a little bumping sound as the wheels go over them,you know like cyclists!!!

Please,please read the rest of the thread,and realise we have as much chance of petition for 152.4cm clearance as we have full employment and a carbon neutral economy.
Let me spell this out,its a counter measure against 91.44cm (or 3ft) posted by the OP,if more people sign the petition for 152.4 than 91.44cm(3ft) it,the 152.4cm(I'm getting the hang of this metric system now) will nullify 91.44cm automatically so the pratts running the show won't do anything stupid,like make another stupid law that endangers us(vulnerable road users),not that a caring socialist,left wing party that is now in power would ever do such an unwise thing .

[orbiter]

As for the CTC fighting to get the relevent Highway code rule on the statute books I wouldn't hold my breath,the hierachy won't bite the hand that feeds them.

Read my lips...... NOT a new law !!! NOT on the statute books !!!! Just a big road safety campaign !!!!!

Pete

[johncharles]

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking ![/quote]

Have I said that. I don't think so.[/quote]

Do forgive me I seem to have taken things to a ridiculous extreme.I would like 5ft minimum please, if that means sometimes I get 4ft I'd settle for that,but if 3ft is the law I wouldn't be too happy with 2ft how about you?
Perhaps you could tell us what you would be happy with?
Err,you do ride a bicycle don't you? [/quote]

Why, do you ride a bike as well or just because I don't agree with the 5 ft bit are you assuming that I don't ride one.

[reohn2]

So your happy being passed at 50mph with 1ft to spare(or maybe less)? I think its you who must be joking !

Have I said that. I don't think so.

Do forgive me I seem to have taken things to a ridiculous extreme.I would like 5ft minimum please, if that means sometimes I get 4ft I'd settle for that,but if 3ft is the law I wouldn't be too happy with 2ft how about you?
Perhaps you could tell us what you would be happy with?
Err,you do ride a bicycle don't you? [/quote]

Why, do you ride a bike as well or just because I don't agree with the 5 ft bit are you assuming that I don't ride one[/quote]

I'd like to start again but it seems you're happy with questioning questions am I right?

[johncharles]

The basic rule should be, at speed, to allow sufficient space for the cyclist to fall over - ie the height of the cyclists plus a bit - effectively 6 feet. When moving slowly and in a position to negotiate visually with the other road user then distances can be reducedMany motorists have extremely poor observational ability - I hear of a bollarded island in Harrogate which has had a bollard in place since the death of a pedestrian hit by a car turning right out of the supermarket egress at that point - it has been struck 3 times since it was installed recently but the Council has rightly stood their ground - the bollard is placed to meet the swept arc requirements for all vehicles right up to a full-size articulated truck, and in a car you will miss it by a huge margin if you don't cut the corner - 2 of the cars have managed to get up to speeds at which the impact with the bollard flipped them on to their roofs - speaks volumes doesn't it.

Speaks volumes about what may I ask.

I should imagine that a large proportion of cyclists are also motorists so that makes them as culpable in having poor observational ability as those motorists who are not cyclists.