Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

parliament.uk petition on minimum overtaking distance

Saw this and thought other readers might be interested. Not started by me.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
Portex | 7 years ago
0 likes

Waste of time raising a petition, it's already dealt with adequately in the Highway Code - see http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/overtaking-cyclists.html

How the hell would it be enforced?

Avatar
kamoshika | 7 years ago
1 like

@beztweets makes a very good case for why a passing law would be bad for cyclists: http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2016/04/passing-laws/

Avatar
L.Willo | 7 years ago
1 like

At present if the police decide that they think an overtake was unsafe they can issue a ticket. It is a judgement call. But as soon as you set a specific distance, you move the argument on to territory where the police will have to be able to provide a specific measurement to prove that a driver was not compliant. For example, the police cannot issue a ticket because they guess you were doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, they have to prove it with evidence from a speed gun. 

The same will be true of passing distances, motorists will decline tickets and say take me to court and prove that I was less than a metre because I reckon I was 1.1 metres, you are just guessing officer. Without hard evidence drivers will be acquitted en masse for punishment passes making it much more unsafe for cyclists. As long as you don't actually hit a cyclist, as a driver you will be able to drive as close as you like until technology is deployed, similar to speed cameras that can  prove otherwise. 

Furthermore, there are occasions where 1 metre would be woefully inadequate. What about on extremely windy days or in slippery conditions? None of that will matter once you specify a distance. As long as I am 1.01 metres away you cannot touch me, skip drivers will argue as they blast past terrified cyclists battling blustery crosswinds. Police will be powerless to use their judgement about what is and isn't safe.

Just my opinion and rationale for not signing, although I clearly sympathise with the intention, I believe that leaving this as a judgement call for the police is the better option.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:

At present if the police decide that they think an overtake was unsafe they can issue a ticket. It is a judgement call. But as soon as you set a specific distance, you move the argument on to territory where the police will have to be able to provide a specific measurement to prove that a driver was not compliant. For example, the police cannot issue a ticket because they guess you were doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, they have to prove it with evidence from a speed gun. 

The same will be true of passing distances, motorists will decline tickets and say take me to court and prove that I was less than a metre because I reckon I was 1.1 metres, you are just guessing officer. Without hard evidence drivers will be acquitted en masse for punishment passes making it much more unsafe for cyclists. As long as you don't actually hit a cyclist, as a driver you will be able to drive as close as you like until technology is deployed, similar to speed cameras that can  prove otherwise. 

Furthermore, there are occasions where 1 metre would be woefully inadequate. What about on extremely windy days or in slippery conditions? None of that will matter once you specify a distance. As long as I am 1.01 metres away you cannot touch me, skip drivers will argue as they blast past terrified cyclists battling blustery crosswinds. Police will be powerless to use their judgement about what is and isn't safe.

Just my opinion and rationale for not signing, although I clearly sympathise with the intention, I believe that leaving this as a judgement call for the police is the better option.

It would only need a photo, after all in most civilised countries the law requires 1.5m. And I am not personally concerned about 1.4m or even 0.9m it's those that pass within 0.5m I have a problem with. So far below the 1.5m or even 1.0m that a some photo would be clear evidence.

And it should put a stop to those drivers that say "it's up to the driver to decide what a safe passing distance is, and as long as there is no impact they must have been right." Then they argue that "if there is an impact because the cyclist deviated it's not the drivers fault."

Avatar
oldstrath replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes

L.Willo wrote:

At present if the police decide that they think an overtake was unsafe they can issue a ticket. It is a judgement call. But as soon as you set a specific distance, you move the argument on to territory where the police will have to be able to provide a specific measurement to prove that a driver was not compliant. For example, the police cannot issue a ticket because they guess you were doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, they have to prove it with evidence from a speed gun. 

The same will be true of passing distances, motorists will decline tickets and say take me to court and prove that I was less than a metre because I reckon I was 1.1 metres, you are just guessing officer. Without hard evidence drivers will be acquitted en masse for punishment passes making it much more unsafe for cyclists. As long as you don't actually hit a cyclist, as a driver you will be able to drive as close as you like until technology is deployed, similar to speed cameras that can  prove otherwise. 

Furthermore, there are occasions where 1 metre would be woefully inadequate. What about on extremely windy days or in slippery conditions? None of that will matter once you specify a distance. As long as I am 1.01 metres away you cannot touch me, skip drivers will argue as they blast past terrified cyclists battling blustery crosswinds. Police will be powerless to use their judgement about what is and isn't safe.

Just my opinion and rationale for not signing, although I clearly sympathise with the intention, I believe that leaving this as a judgement call for the police is the better option.

You make it seem as though the police actually prosecute drivers for danger is and stupid overtaking. Ha ha.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:

You make it seem as though the police actually prosecute drivers for danger is and stupid overtaking. Ha ha.

No they do! They really do prosecute motorists for careless and dangerous driving!

It is a shame that the drivers are nearly always acquitted though, because a generation of cyclists with attitudes like yours have managed to reduce us all to pariah status in a decade.

Finding a jury of 12 adults in the UK in 2016, where two or fewer members hate our guts ... not good odds.

You can hardly blame the police for that, but you are welcome to your share.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
3 likes

I decided to sign it anyway as I think a discussion on safe passing is worthwhile.

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I decided to sign it anyway as I think a discussion on safe passing is worthwhile.

 

This is SO my point!!!  Anything that makes even one driver NOT pass when it is dangerous, NOT pass when it is too close, NOT pass when it makes someone else more vulnerable is worth bringing to the attention of as big an audience as possible.

I risk getting into "discussions" with motorists because I NEVER let a close pass go, I always shout and gesticulate.  It might just be seen as some lycra-clad middle aged man getting angry, but I don't care. If we never say anthing about it, nothing will ever change.  I have seen cars after the one that close passed me giving me more room, almost every time.  There was one time when the second car got even closer, I think they thought they were putting me in my place, or something...

Avatar
kamoshika replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

I decided to sign it anyway as I think a discussion on safe passing is worthwhile.

A discussion on safe passing is worthwhile, but a petition calling for a mandatory distance to be set isn't a discussion, it's presenting that as the solution. I don't think it is, so I'm not signing. Happy to discuss though ;o)

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to kamoshika | 7 years ago
0 likes

graham_f wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I decided to sign it anyway as I think a discussion on safe passing is worthwhile.

A discussion on safe passing is worthwhile, but a petition calling for a mandatory distance to be set isn't a discussion, it's presenting that as the solution. I don't think it is, so I'm not signing. Happy to discuss though ;o)

It's a useful tool to trigger a discussion - a means to an end. The precise wording may not be to your taste but the subject is clearly of interest and the merits of one measure versus another is worth airing. Have you a better alternative?

Avatar
L.Willo | 7 years ago
0 likes

Not signed. Nice idea but totally unenforceable and actually counterproductive. The onus would now be on the prosecution to ascertain the exact passing distance i.e. 99cm rather than 102cm ... so who is going to bring the tape measure?

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes

L.Willo wrote:

Not signed. Nice idea but totally unenforceable and actually counterproductive. The onus would now be on the prosecution to ascertain the exact passing distance i.e. 99cm rather than 102cm ... so who is going to bring the tape measure?

I've signed and shared.

I don't care whether someone gives me 99cm or 102cm. But I care when someone thinks 15cm or 30cm  is enough. There will always be arseholes who don't care (or do it on purpose) but there are also lots of people who've just never given it any thought. With some legal definition and publicity they might pay a little more heed.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
0 likes
L.Willo wrote:

Not signed. Nice idea but totally unenforceable and actually counterproductive. The onus would now be on the prosecution to ascertain the exact passing distance i.e. 99cm rather than 102cm ... so who is going to bring the tape measure?

it's something else that can be thrown at the motorist after the incident... if they've hit you, then logically there were too close...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
0 likes

L.Willo wrote:

Not signed. Nice idea but totally unenforceable and actually counterproductive. The onus would now be on the prosecution to ascertain the exact passing distance i.e. 99cm rather than 102cm ... so who is going to bring the tape measure?

I agree (which surprises me - it is L.Willo after all).

I'd rather have presumed liability introduced. That would shift the onus onto the less vulnerable road users to prove that it was the cyclist/pedestrian that was to blame. It makes sense as it's easier to install a dashcam in a car (there's a power supply and it wouldn't need to be waterproof or shockproof) than on a helmet. As for the cost, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for insurance companies to reduce premiums for people who use a dashcam all the time - it would save them money if liability can be determined by watching a video rather than heading to court.

Avatar
giff77 replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
1 like

L.Willo wrote:

Not signed. Nice idea but totally unenforceable and actually counterproductive. The onus would now be on the prosecution to ascertain the exact passing distance i.e. 99cm rather than 102cm ... so who is going to bring the tape measure?

It may, as you say be unenforceable and counterproductive. It will though mean, that if the polis are directly behind the offending motorist they will be more likely to pull that motorist over and hopefully ticket/caution them.  All to often I've been subject to punishment passes, and on catching up with the squad car who on the rare  occasion was fortunately following to challenge the constable driving if they were going to do something about it. I've been told they weren't breaking the law and it would be very difficult to prove careless driving unless they had actually hit me. Also if a cyclists is hit the sheer fact they've been side swiped is sufficient evidence that the motorist has not allowed enough room or time to pass safely. 

Avatar
stevenagesteve | 7 years ago
3 likes

I like it, so long as we're reasonable. Today I was cycling down a 1.5 track country lane. Once or twice cars followed me, and as is not always the case, waited until it was safe to pass. But there is no way they gave me, or could have given me, 1.5m though it was a 60 limit.

So maybe it is about the speed a car is travelling rather than the limit of the road.

Avatar
grumpyoldcyclist | 7 years ago
2 likes

Me too, I've signed it

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey | 7 years ago
2 likes

I'm in! I've shared it on Facebook, the more people who see it the better

Latest Comments