Minimum passing distance initiative in the UK

doozerie

Interesting to see the proposed approach in the UK to minimum passing distance, I wonder how it will fare:

Petition: LINK

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.

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).

jive

doozerie wrote: »

Interesting to see the proposed approach in the UK to minimum passing distance, I wonder how it will fare:

Petition: LINK

It'd be good to have as at least then if some gob****e does skim by you or is clearly driving dangerously close you will have some legal recourse. You know if it was put into place it'd be one of those laws that's never enforced though.

diarmaidol

The presence of a law and it's enforcement are separate things.

But without the law, enforcement (usually retrospective) can't happen no matter what the circumstances.

So Ireland should look to introduce legislation there. But when doing so we should consider whats practical for this country as well. You can't pass with more than 1m spare on a lot of Irish roads the wide variance of speed on our national road comes into play here.

For instance , if passing a cyclist on a single lane road, a car should slow to the same speed as the cyclist before over taking.

traprunner

Another problem in Ireland is that speed limits are not adhered to. 30mph/50kph are considered minimum speed limits by so many drivers.

Beasty

I think we need to be a little careful as to what we wish for.

Many roads in Ireland simply cannot accommodate 1.5m (or in some cases 1.0m) of passing space. If we get a law requiring that, the risk is we get another law saying we've got to pull in and allow traffic to pass if we're holding up other vehicles.

doozerie

One of the interesting aspects of that UK initiative is their seeking a different minimum distance under different circumstances. As far as I am aware the Irish call for a minimum passing distance is 1.5m everywhere. It's arguably a case of more practical in one case versus easier to enforce in the other.

There is certainly that risk with both though that casting a minimum passing distance in stone/law will introduce problems of its own that will ultimately prove detrimental to cyclists. So long as cyclists are seen as "lesser than" motorists such risks will always arise I guess, cyclists will always be expected to make way for motorists where compromise is required.

Personally, I think the merit in any such campaign is simply to raise awareness amongst motorists of the need to allow sufficient space when passing cyclists. Whether it ever gets enshrined in law is arguably moot, it could even be counterproductive, but if the debate itself opens up the minds of people to the concept of allowing space then I think that would count as a success.

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

I think we need to be a little careful as to what we wish for.

Many roads in Ireland simply cannot accommodate 1.5m (or in some cases 1.0m) of passing space. If we get a law requiring that, the risk is we get another law saying we've got to pull in and allow traffic to pass if we're holding up other vehicles.

Thats a reasonable concern and would need to be anticipated and dealt with.

I think it is also worth considering if a more nuanced approach is needed on the matter of crossing a solid white line to overtake.

So crossing a solid line would be provided for where the overtaken vehicle is a bicycle.

Chips Lovell

Minimum passing distances are all fine and dandy, but unenforceable in practice.

Beasty wrote: »

If we get a law requiring that, the risk is we get another law saying we've got to pull in and allow traffic to pass if we're holding up other vehicles.

We already have one of those.

Tenzor07

You could almost observe that speeding and use of bus lanes by private vehicles is "Unenforceable" unless of course Gardai witness it, and people report it?

Chips Lovell

Think about it. How is a guard going to prove that a vehicle was 1.3m away, as opposed to 1.5m away?

traprunner

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Think about it. How is a guard going to prove that a vehicle was 1.3m away, as opposed to 1.5m away?

For the most part, a guards word appears to be taken in court so it may not be an issue.

Beasty

To be fair, although I think the application of such a law would be completely impractical, it's introduction would send a message out to many people. Of course many more would choose to ignore that message. My own concern is that such a law could be turned round and used against cyclists in a way I have already alluded to

If we had roads of adequate standard I would have less of a concern, but you risk them turning certain roads into "no-go" areas for cyclists if you are not careful

Chips Lovell

The emphasis should be on driver education on what constitutes a safe overtaking manouvere, e.g. you can rarely pass a bike safely without leaving your lane.

Would be a better use of resources than putting another token law on the statute books.

Tenzor07

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Think about it. How is a guard going to prove that a vehicle was 1.3m away, as opposed to 1.5m away?

The same way that a driver can be prosecuted for going over the speedlimit?

http://www.bicycling.com/culture/people/cycling-cop-creates-space-cyclists-tennessee-roads

Lumen

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The same way that a driver can be prosecuted for going over the speedlimit?

http://www.bicycling.com/culture/people/cycling-cop-creates-space-cyclists-tennessee-roads

"It is even more surprising that I often have to explain why cyclists may ride in the roadway and not only on the sidewalk."

USAnians, you have my deepest sympathy.

Tenzor07

Lumen wrote: »

"It is even more surprising that I often have to explain why cyclists may ride in the roadway and not only on the sidewalk."

USAnians, you have my deepest sympathy.

In fairness, even the cops here don't know that a bicyclist may also use the roadway(and not just the shared cycle lane on the sidewalk)....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057598538

RandomAccess

Need a rule for cyclists passing other cyclists too. Some impatient lads are really taking the piss out there.

2RockMountain

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The emphasis should be on driver education on what constitutes a safe overtaking manouvere, e.g. you can rarely pass a bike safely without leaving your lane.

Would be a better use of resources than putting another token law on the statute books.

I'd agree with you for today, but with the work going on to develop a Near Missometer and the availability of cameras, it won't be too long before you get to the end of your ride and have an annotated video showing the reg numbers of the cars that did near misses.

Chiparus

Its introduction in South Australia has not led to a flood of prosecutions.
Although cycling on the footpath has encouraged a lot more women to cycle.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/three-drivers-fined-over-sas-onemetre-cyclist-overtaking-rule-in-six-weeks/news-story/05a2c8f42848f66182a0d51d3eab94ac

Civilian_Target

So, first, I'm really surprised that isn't law already. Many places have this law already and Ireland's usually pretty progressive in this regard.

In France I believe it's 1m when the speed limit is <= 50km/h, and 1.5m when the speed limit is over 50km/h
In Massachusetts it's 3ft for any vehicle passing any other vehicle, so that applies to cyclists, and cyclists passing cyclists also.
How do I know? Because I had to pass the driver theory test in both places, and this came up as a question.

I heard of this law enforced once in France, from someone at my work.
However, in general it's mostly useful in the case of accidents. So, for example, if a passing truck knocks a cyclist off their bike from just the draft, without touching them, this can be witnessed and reported and the minimum distance law will help the cyclist prosecute the case.
It also means that if a driver has any accident with a bike while overtaking in a lane that is narrower than width of car + minimum passing distance + width of bike, then the driver cannot escape fault.

Despite the narrow roads, this law will be worth it in Ireland. It will apply to new driver education and build good driving habits. It will clarify vague scenarios to let all road users act with less uncertainty. It will provide a basis for self-driving cars if some day that happens.

droidus

Good article reflecting some of the concerns raised here:

The desire to achieve this is wholly understandable: anyone who has cycled on the road knows that probably the worst aspect of it is the proximity with which some drivers pass. Those of us who ride on the road would all dearly love to fix that. We would all love to cast that magic spell which banishes the horrors of the close pass.

But to believe that creating a law against it will fix it is not only naive, it is downright harmful to the goals of achieving more and safer cycling.

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/04/11/passing-laws/

doozerie

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Despite the narrow roads, this law will be worth it in Ireland. It will apply to new driver education and build good driving habits. It will clarify vague scenarios to let all road users act with less uncertainty. It will provide a basis for self-driving cars if some day that happens.

I have mixed feelings on it personally.

Driver education is extremely valuable, no question, it needs to be automatic that drivers see a cyclist and recognise a vulnerable fellow road user that deserves consideration rather than just being something to be got round/past as soon as possible.

But I think there are many things enshrined in law which have lost all sense of "meaning" as a result. Speed limits for example, many people fixate on the limit figure to the exclusion of any consideration of why it should apply - do people drive "slowly" in a housing estate because of a concern about the presence of kids, or simply because they don't want penalty points if caught? I suspect the latter all too often. It could be argued that motivation doesn't make a difference if the end result is cars being driven slower past houses, but unless concern for others is a factor then drivers will ignore the speed limit if they think they won't be caught (which is most of the time).

So I think the driver education can, and absolutely should, happen in the absence of such a law and it may even be more effective without the law.

Such a law certainly could help with determining liability though in the aftermath of an incident, so it would have that in its favour. For me though I'm not sure that's enough reason to justify the law.

RandomAccess

Solely focusing on drivers would just draw the ire of those who feel they are unjustly tarred with the blame brush.
There are a hardcore of reckless people out there.. Not drivers or cyclists.
It's staggering to encounter them.

Case in point, I was horrified to see two cases on separate days of cyclists overtaking traffic on the right hand side while the traffic was queued in a right turn lane with a green signal.

No driver or biker or cyclist would (or should) expect this, it's Darwin Award territory. It might be an idea to run a campaign showing someone in a clown outfit driving suicidally and then getting on a bicycle and showing the same kind of behaviour.. It gets the point across.

traprunner

RandomAccess wrote: »

Solely focusing on drivers would just draw the ire of those who feel they are unjustly tarred with the blame brush.
There are a hardcore of reckless people out there.. Not drivers or cyclists.
It's staggering to encounter them.

Case in point, I was horrified to see two cases on separate days of cyclists overtaking traffic on the right hand side while the traffic was queued in a right turn lane with a green signal.

No driver or biker or cyclist would (or should) expect this, it's Darwin Award territory. It might be an idea to run a campaign showing someone in a clown outfit driving suicidally and then getting on a bicycle and showing the same kind of behaviour.. It gets the point across.

While crazy for the cyclist to go up the right in the example given there is also a responsibility for the drivers to carry out safety checks and to manoeuvre safetly. Mirror signal manoeuvre comes to the fore of my mind when executing a turn in any direction and that is due to education when learning to drive.

Kaisr Sose

Passing too close is one thing, but the speed of the overtake is just as critical. Too many times vehicles have come past me too fast and too close.

As per proposed UK law, the min space should be related to the speed. I know it's even harder to enforce/police a speed and distance law, but it's definitely the way to go.

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Passing too close is one thing, but the speed of the overtake is just as critical. Too many times vehicles have come past me too fast and too close.

As per proposed UK law, the min space should be related to the speed. I know it's even harder to enforce/police a speed and distance law, but it's definitely the way to go.

I dunno. In general, a fast overtake is probably safer for everybody, provided it gives enough room. You really don't want to have the overtaker on the wrong side of the road for too long. If I'm in the car doing an overtake, it is generally safer to break the speed limit, and get out and get back in as soon as possible.

Beasty

I agree a "quick" overtake is better than a slow one. However that's assuming reasonable space is given

I find in the UK motorists often overtake closely at speed and that's where I see a particular problem.

Kaisr Sose

For example,
a car overtakes a cyclist too close and too fast, the cyclist falls into the dirty air behind the car , normally resulting in a pull towards the right. This is not ideal where there may be other cars coming behind. If it's a truck, lorry or car it's even more of a pull to the right.

If a motorist cannot see that it's safe to overtake and pull in without inconveniencing other road users, then it's not the time to overtake at any speed. Gunning it to make a fast overtake is ok if it's safe, you are well right of the cyclist, but wrong/ill advised if you are not.