Petition- To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists

[JaneF]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190 will take you to the petition if you wish to find out more.

 

 

Cycling in the UK has become a truly popular sport and way of commuting, but we still vulnerable.In 2014 21,287 cyclist were injured in reported road accidents in the UK, 113 were killed and 3,401 were seriously injured.The Highway Code, Rule 212 states giving "plenty of room" when passing cyclists.

More details

The lack of a clear specification may result in a personal decision what a "plenty of room" means in terms of distance. Therefore, introducing a minimum legal passing distance when overtaking cyclists will considerably reduce the number of cyclist casualties, aiding in a safe cycling practice. Suggestion of 3.28 ft (1 m) when overtaking cyclists on roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph. On roads with higher speed limits, the minimum passing distance should be 4.9 ft (1.5 m).

 

•  

 

[XXX]

Sorry waste of time impossible to implement and police

Simple education is all that's required

[Gerard Deeley]

I have signed it and I urge others to do so too.  This will not solve problems overnight, but must form a part of the cycling community's continuous campaign for greater road safety through law and education.

[Mark O]

I read this last night and, in the light of Ginty's episode, I think that while the highway code could be more specific, the petition to set minimum passing distances is barking up the wrong tree. Billy is probably calling it right on this occasion. A change in the law/HC, as proposed, is unworkable as it is in practice unenforceable, therefore a bad law IMO, see mobile phone usage as a reference point. As Ginty's experience shows it is not always about what room you are given but how cyclists are regarded by motorists at all times.

 

I think perhaps a petition seeking the inclusion of cycling for an hour in urban traffic as part of the driving test, any retest or test to drive a class of vehicle not covered by the standard licence would be more productive. If you can force motorists to experience what riding in traffic is actually like then there probably is a higher chance that motorists will have greater empathy for cyclists and a greater understanding of how vulnerable cyclists can be. Dead easy to implement - if you don't do the cycling experience bit of a driving test then you don't get the licence.

 

The DVLA could employ BC coaches to do the training and on road instruction. Might even help the bonkers cyclists who get it so wrong on the roads too - spotted a bloke on a bike riding down a busy Paisley Road West which has really rubbish surface in sections, no helmet, headphones on, no hands on the bars, head down texting. Superb balance but a candidate to prove darwinism. No it wasn't Ginty before anyone asks.

[DavieB]

As Mark suggests bampottery is alive and well on both sides of the divide.

 

Cultures do not change via the implementation of laws and it is culture change that is required. The pessimist in me predicts this will never happen and it is akin to safety cultures / behavioural safety of which I have some experience - these prgrammes can work but not remotely, they require personal interaction and leadership with direct lines of communication.

 

One more reason I prefer sticking to the country roads I grew up cycling around.

[chung]

But surely when the law comes into existence & after a period of time, it will become part of the "culture" or norm e.g: compulsory seat belt, drink driving, smoking in work places etc ..........

 

Safety issues in our roads is a difficult problem to tackle, petition for this "law" will not solve it alone, but I think it's a helpful approach.

 

Our approach to designing & building infrastructure has to change too, we are still very pro cars when it come to that.

 

We could also look at the Dutch & Danish where motorist is presume liability when involve in an accident with more vulnerable road users i.e: pedestrian & cyclist etc.

How many times have you read, where the outcome of road incidents where cyclist fatalities/deaths have resulted in only minimal penalties for the car/van/lorry drivers, take the great Jason MacIntyre tragedy as a prime example!

 

But all of these will take time & lots of joined up thinking & effort to make any difference, it won't happen over night. But I think every little helps!

 

Also, I agree with Mark's suggestion of involving cycling experience as part of the driving test, but I would suggest longer period still.

 

Cheers

 

Chung

[XXX]

Chung

Changing the liability would help as drivers would be more risk adverse if they were presumed to be at fault if involved in accidents .

How do you measure the distance , can't be done so pointless

Focus should be on things that work like liability not unworkable laws

[chung]

I'm not sure if you have seem these adverts behind buses where a school kid on a bike with his right hand sticking straight out with the slogan along the lines of ...... "give me room when you're passing ....." (i.e the length of his arm I assume)

Now, that's not a "law" but just a suggestion, does it work? I'm not sure it does to be honest ............ but it hi-lights the importance & make people aware of the issue.

So, even just for that I think it's helpful.

 

99% of motorist I encounter every day are fine, but you will get the odd dangerous/careless drivers, but when serious incident involving pedestrian/cyclist does happen, then the vulnerable will be the worst off, no matter if the car/van/lorry drivers is convicted or not!

Isn't this very idea that motor vehicle "should/need" to give cyclist (or even motor cyclist) room when over-taking is the right step whether it's "law" or not?

Ultimately, the very fact that it install this point into drivers head must be a good thing.

 

Sometime, when I'm out cycling, I don't actually mind it that much if cars passing me closely, but it's the speed in which it's done that worries me to be honest

 

Cycling might be on the up in the Uk, but it's only as a "sport/hobby" not "cycling" as a means of transport/way of live (countries like of Belgium, Denmark, Swedan & Holland etc) we have a long, long way to go before we make ours a cycling nation.

 

Cheers

 

Chung

[AlanT]

The suggestion of a legal minimum passing distance is unenforceable, for a variety of reasons. There is already sufficient legislation ranging from 'due care and attention', all the way up to 'causing death by dangerous driving'. The answer, the only workable answer, is education of drivers AND cyclists. Be honest now, how many cyclists have you seen runnng through a red stop light?

Education of ALL road users is the main answer, although it has to be said, presumed liability would help a bit as it would put some teeth to it. It's worth noting that has already been ruled out by government in the past year.

[LenMcD]

Adopt the Froome 'elbows out' position. Job done!

 

Seriously though, a minimum distance would be impossible to enforce. The law as it stands covers for bad driving.

When on your bike take the lane as you see fit and safe, don't leave space for a car to pass without it having to cross the central line, which will have markings to show the road user whether this is safe / legal or not. Take the whole lane when the road dicates e.g. when there is traffic calming etc. Accept that non-cyclist motorists will get irate with this. Motorists will always mis-judge your speed and the space you need as a cyclist. Treat them all with dis-trust, read the road well ahead, plan for junctions / roundabouts with the expectation that a car / lorry will pull out in front of you and position yourself to be visible and to be in a position to move from danger.

 

Busy touching wood now.

[Tony]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the "miminum passing distance" law has been implemented in other European countries (such as France, Spain, Germany) for many years now. It may be difficult to enforce but it's a statement (or a declaration of intent, if you like) which must surely help the case of the cyclist, and help to improve driver education if nothing else. 

 

The only downside I can see is that many motorists would demand that cyclists be forced to ride in single file...a fair trade-off in my opinion. 

[JaneF]

I only meant to spark a small debate...

The Government reached the minimum for an answer... FYI, J

 

Government responded:

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a carâ€.

We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.

Department for Transport

[XXX]

Ridden in Spain and France , France didn't notice any difference with here.

Spain was different more to do with liability than distance though .

 

Tony's comments on single file is just ridiculas imagine a group of 12 plus riders strung out on the road it would take a week to pass.

Laws have to be enforceable this is not

Cycling should push the presumed liability law get that in and force councils to include cycling as a mode of transport and we might even get decent bike routes built when we build new roads

[Mark O]

Tony, riding two abreast takes up no more room on the road than a small car. Billy's point regards the length of a bunch is also very valid. I'd guess most motorists would not aim to 'squeeze' past/overtake said small car at the same passing distance as they do cyclists, says he who got his butt slapped by a wing mirror of late. Squeezing past would threaten their shiny paint. There should be no trade off.

 

The bottom (no pun intended) line is cyclists are not just cyclists. We, at a fundamental level, are human beings. We are someone's partner, parent, sibling, child. And we don't have a ton(s) of steel and plastic to protect us if someone gets it wrong. It is up to us to make drivers realise that, as was done this morning with Mr large SUV driver who almost took me out - very sheepish once I had pointed this out! We have a right to do what we do without being willifully or carelessly put in danger by others. There is, in my opinion, only one solution to road safety and that is enforcement of existing laws/HC and education via road user training and that means putting drivers in the cleats of cyclists. A lot of mistakes I witness on the roads are by people who just don't think but should know better, or don't know to think (the brain dead oblivious road user). I include the ear bud wearing, RLJ, gutter dwelling cyclists in that.

[Iain67]

Mark can't agree more, 30 minutes on a bike in heavy trafiic as part of the driving test would sort it out. At the risk of sounding ageist, I would also bring in a mandatory yearly test for anyone over 75. Had a recent example where I helped an old lady find her car in Morrisons carpark. She forgot where she parked it and spend 1 hours looking for it. Thinking how scared I was as I watched he driving away.....

 

Hopefully Google will sort the problem for us all when they bring out their driverless cars,. Yikes!   

[PaulL]

Seems these days most laws are hard to enforce, I can't see a safe distance law having a detriment to cyclists. It may just make some people think about the consequences of how close they drive(even if unenforceable) and with the use of Video/GoPros etc. at least there is a legal path to follow if you wanted to press charges. 

 

I think it's a great Idea to make people taking a driving test have cycling in traffic incorporated into their instruction, but somehow I think this would be a legal minefield for insurance/health and safety. Making someone who doesn't want to ride a bike, ride through heavy traffic to get a driving license will never happen... Maybe we should have people learn to ride horses as part of their test? In a perfect world.. but alas