Join our mailing list!
Enter your email address to receive updates from road.cc...
road.cc is made by
Farrelly Atkinson Ltd
Editor: Tony Farrelly
Web guy: Dave Atkinson
Commercial: Elaine Curtin
News editors: Simon MacMichael, Sarah Barth
Technical editors: Mat Brett, David Arthur
Contributors: Oli Pendrey, Stuart Kerton, Leonie Jennings, Shaun Audane, VecchioJo, TR McGowran, Rob Simmonds, Adam Loretz, John Whittington, Liam Glen, Sam Shaw, Dan Joyce, David Else, Gavin Bell, Iwein Dekoninck, Mike Stenning, Trev Allen, Jimmy the Cuckoo, Andy Howe, Ben Lang, Dan Kenyon, Phil Gale, Ben Colchester-Hall
© all content 2008-2012 Farrelly Atkinson Ltd. All rights reserved.
Today's top stories
- Islington accused of "wasting" £40k on Cyclehoops - bike security firm hits back at critics
- Giro d'Italia Stage 20: Nibali wins in the Dolomites, Uran moves second
- Edinburgh councillors to agree £1.2m funding for outdoor velodrome
- Cyclist saves child from drowning in river Thames
- Pro bikes: Star riders' TT bikes and set ups including Tom Boonen, Philippe Gilbert, Fabian Cancellara, Luis Leon Sanchez & more from the Tour of Belgium
- Giro - Stage 20
- Emma Way update: She says it was cyclist's fault + videos
- White Lightning Crystal Clear Grease
- Driver jailed over hit and run that killed teenage cyclist
- Best entry-level road bikes under £500
Calendar
-
May 25, 2013 (All day)
-
May 25, 2013 - 09:30
-
May 25, 2013 - 09:30
-
May 26, 2013 - 07:00
-
May 26, 2013 - 08:00
QT forum/comments
QT blogs
- Campagnolo throw an 80th anniversary party....
- Starting a race team
- Cycling and the law: what is your experience? asks Jenny Jones
- Oakleys - are they worth it?
- Enigma clearance sale*
- HOY Bikes: the journey so far
- Sempre con noi: Remembering the day Wouter Weylandt died
- How much is a tatty Brompton worth?
- Lies, lies, Lies.
- Video: My Brevet Cymru
Musings, web wanderings and news snippets from the disparate voices of road.cc...
- VecchioJo
- Jimmy the cuckoo
- Dr Ian Walker
- Martin Thomas
- Shaun Audane
- Tony Farrelly
- Dave Atkinson
- TR's Blurb n Blog
- Flo_K


road.cc on YouTube
I can't see what harm having a 1.5m minimum would do - it would introduce some much needed clarity and I don't see that it contradicts what the CTC is trying to do either
Spinning on a wheel
posted by Hammy [97 posts] 16th November 2009 - 15:50
First it was 3 feet, then it was 5.
Why did this change overnight?
There seems to be understanding how laws are made and enforced in this country. Why should CTC campaign for primary legislation on such a narrow and specific area? There are other areas which cry out for legislation before this tiny and arbitrary rule.
Furthermore do people really think that having a specific law insisting on a certain distance will actually stop the people who hit cyclists when overtaking?
It seems to me that the American practice of 3ft passing laws is more about window dressing than actually trying to deal with the issues of road safety: speed and dangerous behaviour. 75% of cyclists injuries occur at junctions. That's where you need to target driver behaviour.
posted by pickles [27 posts] 16th November 2009 - 17:51
no. but it will make them liable.
posted by Barry Fry-up [179 posts] 16th November 2009 - 18:32
how is the 3/5ft rule enforcable? will drivers care if it is passed as a law? how many roads allow 5ft??
let's get behind the CTC's SMIDSY focus, that could make a real difference by making drivers more accountable and careful. A get-out for poor driving or a dangerous lack of attention isn't acceptable and addressing that would make the roads safer than 3/5ft distance. imo distance is a bit meaningless without taking speed into account anyway.
posted by james-o [121 posts] 17th November 2009 - 18:30
It'll be enforceable if a cyclist is 'clipped' by a motorist because there can't be any argument about who is in the wrong. Plus it will make motorists think more about the distance they are giving cyclists when they pass.
The mobile phone law isn't strictly enforceable either, but motorists know it is wrong to use one and a lot of them don't. They also know that if they are involved in a serious incident the police will check the driver's phone records and they will be in real trouble if it turns out they were using their mobile at the time.
SMIDSY is a laudable aim, but it's too unclear and unfocused + how likely is it that the police will start enforcing traffic law more rigourously without a large increase in policing budgets which is unlikely to be forthcoming in the current economic climate. Even if they did at the moment it's more likely that they would clamp down on anti-social cyclists because that's what public sentiment wants.
Better to focus on a simple, achievable objective, that will have an impact on driver awareness of the need to give cyclists more space.
posted by Denzil Dexter [135 posts] 17th November 2009 - 18:49
I nearly got clipped by white van man today while I was in a bus lane - he got fed up pootling along behind a truck and overtook it on the inside, nearly taking me out.
OldRidgeback
posted by OldRidgeback [1639 posts] 17th November 2009 - 19:04
"It'll be enforceable if a cyclist is 'clipped' by a motorist" it already is in that case - that would be classed as a collision and / or failing to stop.
what i'm getting at is that i believe that very few drivers will change their passing habits, new rule or not. it's different to the phone rule as it's far less enforcable or reportable. drivers shouldn't undertake, overtake bikes with no room when there's a solid white line, etc etc, but they do generally. SMIDSY does focus on the need to treat other road users with respect in all situations, not just overtaking. ie look more carefully and pay attention!
SMIDSY is a get-out clause that avoids responsibility and removing this ability to use it as an excuse for 'not giving a monkeys / driving like a prat' would be a step in the right direction, especially for injured riders seeking redress. the thing about the passing law is we all think 'yeah good idea' so it gets support but in reality it will not make a jot of difference. like the phone example in event of an accident, SMIDSY would mean if you do hit a rider you can't just claim not to have seen them, so it's more likely to result in more care taken.
I'm 100% with the CTC on this one. you have more faith in peoples willing to follow laws than i do
tbh, 5ft, 3ft, 2ft, i don't care as long as people drive with more consideration and less haste.. if the cyclist and driver is careful and aware in all situations then we're all safer.
posted by james-o [121 posts] 18th November 2009 - 15:08