3ft is not enough says CTC as debate about safe passing distances catches fire

Hi folks.
I launched a 3 month Minimum Safe Passing Distance petition here in Queensland Australia about 5 months ago which finished with over 5000 signatures...

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/ClosedEPetition.asp...

This week, I finally got a response from the State Transport Minister. It was eye opening to say the least...

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/responses/1407%20&%...

Take this extract:
The introduction of a specific rule to restrict vehicles to keeping one metre from cyclists would
be, in many cases, detrimental to cyclists. The safe distance between a cyclist and a vehicle varies
considerably depending on the speed the vehicles are travelling. For example, where a vehicle is
travelling at 100km/h a distance of one metre is dangerously close, but at very low speeds
distances of less than one meter may be safe. To provide a law making a one metre distance
mandatory would make it illegal for cyclists to move slowly and closely past queued vehicles.
This is not a desired outcome for cyclists.

What this means is that a motorist in this state, and by their reasoning any state or territory in Australia, is not compelled to give a cyclist 1m in any direction, whether that be from behind, to the left - which prevents us from riding wide enough so as to avoid obsticles such as car doors or road furnature, and to the right. They actually say in their response that less than a metre is safe when overtaking on any road other than that which has an open posted speed limit.

In citing their reasons for rejecting this petition, they
use a cycling safety campaign from 10! years ago in order to show that they have made efforts to raise driver awareness. this campaign was launched based on a driver survey conducted which canvassed motorists views on cyclists on Queenslands roads. Here are some of the findings...

Queensland Transport market research provided specific data about driver interaction with cyclists. The market research found 20 per cent of motorists surveyed admitted to failing to move over for cyclists, with males aged under 30 years the least likely to move over. In Wave 3 research conducted in September 1998, 21 per cent of motorists said they would not move over for a cyclist if there was lots of traffic in the next lane prohibiting them from moving over. A further 15 per cent of motorists would fail to move over if the road wasn’t wide enough.
Queensland Transport’s SafeST research in July 1999 also surveyed motorists’ attitudes towards cyclists. The survey found one in five motorists did not regard cyclists as legitimate road users. People residing in regional Queensland (82 per cent) were more likely than residents in south-east Queensland (67 per cent) to feel that cyclists have a legitimate right to be on the road. Also, men (43 per cent) were more likely than women (21 per cent) to regard cycling as a legitimate means of transport.
Motorists who do not regard cyclists as legitimate road users (19 per cent) believed that:
It was too dangerous for cyclists to ride on the road (54 per cent).
The road isn’t wide enough (24 per cent).
Cyclists cause traffic congestion (16 per cent).
Share the road public education campaign 1
One in five motorists admitted to not always making room for cyclists on the road and one in four motorists admitted to never checking for cyclists before opening the car door.

I can tell you that much has changed in this state in the last 10 years, not only has congestion on our roads doubled, but the incidence of road rage towards cyclists has increased far beyond that.
That a government can reject such a proposal out-of-hand is bordering on criminal considering the views of Queensland motorists that they themselves admit to being aware of.
The state government has in a press release within the last 2 weeks, commited (apparently) to a 30 year plan for the construction of a comprehensive cycle pathway network. We take this with a grain of salt with a state election looming for a government trying to cover its bases when they are widely tipped to be ousted for various reasons.
Even if they are re-elected, how many more cyclists will be hospitalised or killed over the next three decades.
The action is now set to go national in the next few weeks to target the Federal Road Rules

Thanks John

Hi
My name is John Wood and I have started a petition for a minimum 5ft clearance when motor vehicles overtake cyclists, it is to reinforce the Highway Code's recommendation,I hope you'll sign it here:-

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/5feet-or-more/

Thankyou
John Wood

All I can say, is that some people really don't seem to "get it"!

Iain Mackay - you may leave 6 feet when you pass a cyclist, enough for him to fall off etc. BUT the average motorist does not! And that is the point of the campaign. If cyclist-motorists leave plenty of room, that's great. But the rule is aimed at the motorists who have no understanding of what it is like to be passed with less than 1 foot in distance whilst on your bike.

Each time I cycle to my gym, I regularly experience motorists who pass literally within inches of my handlebars. It freaks you out because you always think "what if the next guy who does it clips me?" And what is frustrating is that I could be as good as Lance Armstrong in my skills but I can't influence how someone else drives. That's why we need the law.

And to all those who don't think that 3 feet is sufficient, sign the petition and we can argue over the distance later! Remember, it is a minimum requirement, NOT a recommendation to drive within 3 feet of a cyclist. If we ever do manage to get a meeting with Lord Adonis, we will ask for 1.5m as a starting point!

All good. Then here is what I would like to suggest. Given the precedents set in other European countries, that UK cyclists agree to pursue the adoption of a law that requires motorists to give cyclists 1.5 metres clearance when passing from the rear. Get everyone on the same page and make it happen. And I would hope that the CTC will lead the charge in securing this protection for UK cyclists.

What do you think?

Joe [at] 3feetplease.com
joe [at] roadguardian.com

I was given less than 3 inches by someone yesterday and he laughed as he did it, until he realised that I could cycle as fast as he could legally drive on that road

Quote:

"leave 6 feet - enough room for the cyclist to fall off".

Thats the best rule yet!

I learned to drive a car in the 60s and an articulated truck in the 70s. My HGV driving instructor set down 4 feet as the minimum passing space to leave a cyclist, but the best advice I ever heard was to "leave 6 feet - enough room for the cyclist to fall off".

3 feet is way too close for a long vehicle passing a cycle with any significant speed differential. Speaking personally, I would always leave the full 6 feet (1.7m) unless the passing speed is low and very close to that of the cyclist. Even then, you only go past when you're sure it's safe.

As a cyclist, I definitely feel uncomfortable if a vehicle passes me at speed with only 3 feet to spare. Congratulations to the instigators for a very eye-catching campaign, but what a shame it's targeted at such an unambitious outcome. How did that happen??

Thanks for the heads up on the 5' petition. I definitely think that, although 3' is better than nothing, if a 1.5 m distance has been legislated for in Germany, Spain, France and other EU countries it should be law here too. The main barrier to effecting such implementation in the UK is that there will be considerable opposition from the largely anti-cyclist motorist lobby in this country. My (and many other cyclists') experiences have convinced me that we desparately need legislation in this country.

Agree about the united front, but I'm with the CTC 3ft is simply not enough, I'd rather have no law than a dumb one.

Surely what we should be pressing for is the UK law to be clarified along the lines of what already exists in Europe - first off it's more generous to cyclists and second it's probably more likely to get done because it should be presented as a simple harmonisation of the rules rather than creating a new rule.

Maybe as the story suggests another petition on the Downing St website.

I lack Mr Mizereck's eloquence, but I find myself agreeing with his sentiments. CTC are simply muddying the waters here. Cyclists should present a united front and hang in for the 3 feet. Once that is passed into law, we can begin to petition for more.

As it stands, there is going to be a fair amount of opposition from motorists, and the wider the passing distance requested, the more ammunition we will give them to counter the proposal.

First, I want to commend Tom Amos for sticking his neck out in initiating the 3 foot law petition and igniting this healthy discussion. It takes a special person to enter the public fray and hang in there for the ride, a ride that is often times unpleasant. With all of the negative contributions being offered a weaker person would have already said "I don't need this", but Tom has a vision and his vision is spot on...to save cyclists' lives by securing a UK law requiring motorists to give cyclists at least 3 feet clearance when passing them from the rear. That's what Tom wants. To save cyclists' lives. And that's what we should all be focused on...saving lives and reducing injuries. Can a law requiring at least 3 feet clearance save lives? Indeed it can and will. Would it be better to have a law requiring more space, 4 or 5 or more? Of course it would. The more space the better...but, here's what we need to keep in mind. Getting those additional feet will not be easy...or likely. And I am reminded of an important lesson from a state leader; "You can try and eat the whole apple and choke or you can eat it one bite at a time". Ben Thomas asks, "Is a legal minimum of three feet better than nothing – or should we be rejecting that and asking for more?" The answer is get the three, and start using it as a tool to educate motorists on the need to give cyclists at least 3 feet (by law) and preferably more when passing from the rear. That uis where the law's greatest value is found...as a law based tool to educate motorists about what is and is not a safe passing distance.

Second, I was a bit shocked when I received an email today from the UK's Debra Rolfe at the CTC, basically saying, our cyclists are covered and they "already have a rule that stipulates at least 3 feet". What? A rule is not a law, plus I couldn't even find where 3 feet was even mentioned. How is it possible that an organization that is suppose to be serving the needs of cyclists can so easy settle for something that doesn't truly protect cyclists? Doesn't help save lives? Why in God's name aren't they out in front leading the charge? Then it dawns on me: this isn't their idea. So, they would oppose it and settle for something less. It was pretty clear from her message that I should keep my focus within the USA and leave UK cyclists in the good hands of the CTC. Sorry Debra...I am on a mission, as is Tom Amos to give cyclists in the USA, the UK and around the world something they desperately need..laws that protect them from harm. I hope you, the CTC and others will see the value in getting such a law passed in the UK. But as for bugging out, ain't going to happen. I am tired of seeing lives lost. Aren't you? Aren't we all?

Do the right thing UK and work to get a 3 foot law passed. There is simply too much at stake.

Thank you,
Joe Mizereck
joe [at] 3feetplease.com
joe [at] roadguardian.com

Ah, but when the campaign gets into the Telegraph and finally, the Daily mail, that's when it'll start to have an effect. I mean the Guardian's read by leftie vegetarian, errr, cyclists isn't it?