CTC AGM possible motions

[Psamathe]

...Campaigning for a change in the law on passing distances - when the current law if properly enforced would require this - seems strange when the problem is enforcement of existing laws - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... ur-and-law .

:? Did you perhaps mean to link this one: http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... t-overview

If you did then I can readily accept that close overtakes should fall into the categories of careless/dangerous driving and be charged accordingly. That was how using a mobile phone at the wheel was prosecuted, before it was made a specific offence to eliminate the wriggle room otherwise available. In the same way a minimum overtaking distance eliminates wriggle room. It still needs the resources and will to enforce it.

(My bold and underline) I think that is the problem. Were resources to be used to campaign for such a new law and for such a law to be introduced then it would be nothing beyond another ignored bit of paper. Better to campaign for enforcement of existing laws before campaigning for introduction of more laws (that will also be ignored).

Ian

[Steady rider]

John Catt » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:53 pm wrote

The change was to require fewer nominees for those standing for Council. It is now down to 5. As I recall it was 12. See http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... et-elected

they seem to have changed it

The selection process/requirements for nomination of Council members was changed some years ago, requiring more nominees,

I was thinking about when they increased it, probably to 8 or 12, some time ago.

The CPS would I assume would require good evidence to bring a prosecution of passing too close.
Having distances prescribed in law could help decide if a case would succeed and guide the CPS to bring a case. A private members bill could highlight the need, not many succeed, but they raise the issue and some evidence can be put to support the proposal.

The seat belt law was proposed several times before being made law, so laws often take pressing over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

In the UK, a requirement for anchorage points was introduced in 1965, followed by the requirement in 1968 to fit three-point belts in the front outboard positions on all new cars and all existing cars back to 1965. Successive UK Governments proposed, but failed to deliver, seat belt legislation throughout the 1970s.[7] In one such attempt in 1979 similar claims for potential lives and injuries saved were advanced. William Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport in the Callaghan Labour Government (1976–1979), stated: "On the best available evidence of accidents in this country - evidence which has not been seriously contested - compulsion could save up to 1000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year."[8]

Psamathe » Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:14 pm wrote

(My bold and underline) I think that is the problem. Were resources to be used to campaign for such a new law and for such a law to be introduced then it would be nothing beyond another ignored bit of paper. Better to campaign for enforcement of existing laws before campaigning for introduction of more laws (that will also be ignored).

A court may decide to accept video evidence of passing too close and if evidence is provided by a cyclist, or via a member of the public, would a private prosecution case succeed? trying to answer - may depend

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ju ... dence.html

In order to use video/tape recordings as evidence, the prosecution must prove that the tape or video recording is authentic or genuine. The prosecution must explain how and why the recording was made and who had control of the recording afterwards.

[SA_SA_SA]

.....
if some cars lights are getting too strong may need investigating

or are misaligned
and/or a horrible bluey-white colour (== brighter than the measurement units say: your eye is more sensitive to blue light dim/nighttime but candelas/lux etc ignore this.....

[Steady rider]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1771460/
the article 2003, and lights do seem stronger now.

[Psamathe]

...Psamathe » Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:14 pm wrote

(My bold and underline) I think that is the problem. Were resources to be used to campaign for such a new law and for such a law to be introduced then it would be nothing beyond another ignored bit of paper. Better to campaign for enforcement of existing laws before campaigning for introduction of more laws (that will also be ignored).

A court may decide to accept video evidence of passing too close and if evidence is provided by a cyclist, or via a member of the public, would a private prosecution case succeed? trying to answer - may depend

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ju ... dence.html

In order to use video/tape recordings as evidence, the prosecution must prove that the tape or video recording is authentic or genuine. The prosecution must explain how and why the recording was made and who had control of the recording afterwards.

My impression (from forums and blogs) is that there is massive reluctance by the Police to bring such cases to court when nobody is seriously injured. Which leaves private prosecutions, which in practice means they are not going to happen.

I'm certainly not against a minimum overtaking distance but it will achieve little without Police enforcement. As a detail I do think the terminology used in the original proposal should be changed as I don't like cars thinking of passing cyclists (proposal "Ask for a trial of a minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists"). They are overtaking, just as they would be overtaking any other vehicle on the road. Cars "pass" lamp posts, trees, etc. and they "overtake" other vehicles including cyclists. To me the distinction is important I I feel that "passing" suggests passing a static obstacle whereas "overtaking" is passing a moving vehicle (and many of nasty incidents I've experience have been from vehicles turning back in too soon i.e. without making allowance for the fact that I'm moving maybe as 20mph against their 30 mph).

Ian

[Steady rider]

It is interesting, just by having a law some drivers may be more careful passing knowing if an accident did occur they could be held responsible for passing too close, they would have to explain in detail why they hit the cyclist. On the other hand if a group of cyclists filmed a dangerous passing event, would the CTC fund a test case? If the CPS or police refused consistently to bring cases where the law had been broken, they may have video evidence and statements and a proportion of accidents are due to passing too close e.g.

The contributory factor ‘passing too close to pedal cyclist’ is also commonly recorded for buses and HGVs. Between 2009 and 2013, 23 per cent of HGVs and 21 per cent of buses involved in accidents with a pedal cyclist were allocated the contributory factor ‘passing too close to pedal cyclist’.

what would be the outcome? I would hope that the CPS and Police could be held accountable. I would expect the police to mainly issue fines for passing too close and not engage in court proceedings unless a very high risk was involved or if it resulted in an accident.

I prefer 'passing' as it may also cover vehicles passing too close when coming in the opposite direction. If passing too close a vehicle is making a dangerous maneuver rather than waiting for a safe place to pass.

[al_yrpal]

Rule 163 is a 'should' not a 'must'. Its therefore just advisory and not the law. It asks for as much room as if overtaking a vehicle which can be just a foot - not enough! There is no adjustment of this distance to take account of speed. Therefore a lorry travelling at 50mph can overtake you with a foot to spare, even 3" to spare. Its absolutely barmy and highly dangerous.
The french LAW requires 1 metre minimum clearance and 1.5 metres above 50 kph (I think). This is reasonable, sensible and safe. Its urgently needed here in the UK.

If nothing else emulating this sensible French law is the one thing for the CTC to campaign and get passed into law in the UK. It will reduce overtake/ left turn accidents and deaths.

Al

ps when in France I have noted its only UK drivers, especially motorhome drivers that flout it. Probably because they have never heard of it and in the motorhome case dont actually know and understand the width of their vehicle.

And, as for the idea that it wont do anything because it wont be enforced - speed limits are flouted, mobile phone laws are flouted, all traffic laws are flouted. Why shouldnt we have a law to protect cyclists? Most will obey it, halfwits and criminals wont, how is it any different?

[Steady rider]

Edit 2016 AGM details and motions added, link below
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

Two motion have now been submitted, listed below. I am wondering about a motion to amend the CTC Constitution.
The CTC asks for AGM motions and the CTC Council has the final say on policy matters. A possible motion would be to require the CTC to report on the progress of motions that were passed, giving feedback to the membership who have voted for the motions. An annual update of actions taken to support motions that were passed. The membership would know if a motion had been successfully implemented, had made any progress, was being blocked in some way, or other details. A process of putting motions and feedback for the members. If any of the other motions listed have sufficient support they can also be put forward.

1)
Asks for a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30 mph/hr, a 1m minimum is suggested and on roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested.

Reasons
Trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available, http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/south ... -cyclists/

2
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure (built to CROW standards) or investment in relationship to the modal share of cycling.

Reasons
Trying to ensure that reasonable levels of funding are available to provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries. The CTC may gain support via MEPs and in conjunction with the ECF.