UK 'interested' in minimum passing distance law, says government

Part cross the white line.

Spain found minimum distance unenforceable so they added:

1. When overtaking, your driver's-side wheels must cross to the far side of the central white line.

2. If another cyclist is coming towards you from the other direction when you wish to start your manoevre, you must wait for them to pass before you begin.

These rules are based on clear, binary metrics (no tape measure necessary), making them easy to observe and v. enforceable. I cycled on Fuerteventura in sparsely populated areas (i.e. no witnesses) and these rules were meticulously observed, making me feel much safer. Until segregated cycling nirvana arrives in the year 3000 (by then I shall be very old), this seems to me to be a sensible alternative.

'Plenty of room'

That's what ****s say when they pass by within 6 inches 'I gave you plenty of room'.

Why can't these a***holes just sticking their f**king pens on a pice of f**king paper and write a f**king law that says to give us an actual measured amount of space.

> give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”

Does this mean the gap between them or the space taken up on the road? A 50cm gap might be ok between cars, but a cyclist needs more. At least change the Highway Code to make it unambiguous.

This already exists in Spain, but with no enforcement at all.

There are some rumours that undercover police on bicycles will be fining cars for overtaking too close, but this is not going to make any impact.

Speeding, ignoring red lights (by cars and motorcycles) and similar offenses are also not policed.

We've got infra structure, it's called the road.  

Strict Liability is the key to improving road safety but given the power insurers and road haulage companies have over goverments its very unlikely. 

The only effective solution to cycling safety is the provision of safe and convenient segregated infrastructure which results in significant cycling uptake. There is no point in wasting time on legislation which will simply not be enforced such that cycling remains a small minority pursuit. Direct action is the only way to ensure that the authorities provide the funding and expertise to make cycling safe and increase uptake. Everything else is a waste of time which has now been going on for decades.

I can't help but shudder at anything that wants to make the cycling experience more like Australia.

but how interested? - referring to a trial that is only just starting could be seen as just kicking the issue into the long grass - I wrote to the Petitions Committee pointing out that the Dft should really be looking urgently into the outcome of the older and evaluated trial in Queensland – sadly the email was returning saying I should approach the Dft directly or my MP – anyway here is the text of my email (posted in a previous thread so look away now if read before):

--------------------------------------------

 ...........The Queensland Government commenced a similar trial in April 2014 and confirmed in April 2016 that the trial was considered successful and the law has now become permanent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/cyclist-one-metre-rule-to-stay-in-...

Possibly this trial was unique in that there was an evaluation of the law’s impact by The Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Queensland University of Technology, available in full here :

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/94655/1/Final_Report_TMR_170316.pdf

The conclusion section of the Executive Summary is lengthy. This section suggests a generally positive outcome:

“....Despite the problems of practical implementation, drivers reported being more aware of bicycle riders when driving on the road than 12 months ago. Most riders and drivers surveyed had observed motorists giving bicycle riders more room when overtaking than they used to. However, there was no reported change in empathy for bicycle riders or in incidents of harassment between motorists and bicyclists. Thus it appears that drivers have become more aware of cyclists and leave them more room, but their attitudes towards cyclists have not necessarily changed. The level of observed compliance with the new rule was relatively good....”

Of course the big question is does a minimum passing distance law make the roads safer?

From page 69 of the report:

“Analyses of uncleansed preliminary police data showed that during the two years prior to the commencement of the MPD trial, the number of serious (fatal and hospitalisation) bicycle-related crashes per month showed no statistically significant trend but that from the commencement of the trial until October 2015 there has been a statistically significant decreasing trend. This has resulted in an estimated 48.5 fewer serious bicycle crashes in the post-commencement period than would have been expected based on extrapolation from the pre-trial trend.”

The report go on to suggest that other sources of data need to be looked to get a clearer picture of the impact of minimum passing distance road rule on serious bicycle crashes and car on car crashes but that the data is not yet available.

The population of Queensland is less than 5million. 

Obviously there are a lot of differences in terms of road layout, population densities, travel mode, weather etc to the UK but if this level of reduction in serious injurious/deaths  is near correct then for the UK this could  translate to a very significant number of  reductions in deaths and serious injuries .

-----------------------------------

Think enforcement arguments are valid and cyclists in Queensland seem generally disappointed with very limited enforcement but I’d say the success has been in generating public debate about how to deal with safely passing cyclists – ok so some drivers will never learn but if the reduced casualty rate works out then it could be a simple move in the right direction.

Plenty of other non-enforced road rules out there? 20mph zones, Give way and Stop lines – believe since I moved (temporarily) to Aus’ the UK has a tailgating rule? – what these road rules do is change attitudes (for some drivers – the others either haven’t got or shouldn’t have licenses)

PS  in Tasmania (a State not a country) the minimum safe passing distances are only advisable not a points/fine offence – believe what the road rule change did in Tasmania was clarify that drivers can and should if safe cross single or double lines to pass cyclists plus a good ad’ campaign and have added cycling related questions in the driving test.

Not all states have minimum passing laws – I live in Victoria,  it is currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

Strict Liability would be more effective and would have the same effect but would also help motorcyclists, horse riders and even car drivers where they collide with a lorry or bus.

Worst offenders for passing distance on my trip to work are often the slowest. Most of the tear-arses usually give me room, it's the fuckers driving Civics or a Jazz, often wearing flat caps you have to watch out for. Not a clue how near they are most of the time. This sort of law would be pointless against these people as they really don't know what they're doing in the first place. 

Then again, I work with a narcoleptic who falls asleep at his desk all the time. Still allowed his licence though as the doctor thinks his pills work. Frightening who's on the road. 

OK, so that is the carrot (introducing minimum safe passing distance); I wonder what the stick will turn out to be (what price will cyclists have to pay for this?)...

Interested in passing a law, maybe, but they won't be at all interested in enforcing it.