# Petition "To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance



## steve50 (1 May 2016)

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

it has been passed in other parts of the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/new-nsw-laws-for-drivers-and-cyclists/7208934


----------



## mickle (1 May 2016)

I'd hate to be a cyclist an Aus.


----------



## JtB (1 May 2016)

Not sure how feasible a minimum distance would be to enforce, but I've signed the petition.


----------



## classic33 (1 May 2016)

JtB said:


> Not sure how feasible a minimum distance would be to enforce, but I've signed the petition.


They've similar in Ireland, a 1.5m minimum called for.


----------



## mustang1 (1 May 2016)

I thought drivers have to pass from a safe distance anyway?


----------



## jefmcg (1 May 2016)

JtB said:


> Not sure how feasible a minimum distance would be to enforce, but I've signed the petition.


Even if it's only ever enforced after a collision, it would have some force, reminding people to stay well clear, and making fault very clear after a collision.


----------



## Milkfloat (1 May 2016)

Signed, could do with a few million signatures to really get it noticed.


----------



## classic33 (1 May 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/stayinaliveat1.5

Quebec looks set to become the third Canadian province to introduce Minimum Passing Distance Law (MPDL). In doing so it would join Ontario and Nova Scotia.


----------



## Roadrider48 (1 May 2016)

Enforcing it and offending drivers being fined/prosecuted is a big stumbling block.
Trying to enforce it after a collision goes some way towards good, but some poor sod is already maimed or dead.
Then on top of that you get the driver who can NEVER see what they've done wrong.
In principal it is an excellent idea, but reality....


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 May 2016)

I think this might benefit by being moved to the 'general discussions' section, to give it greater visibility to the whole CC community.

But specifying a distance ie in law, however difficult to enforce in practice, rather than leaving the courts if not the driver to interpret what "plenty of room" MEANS, is probably better. Let's face it we/I would be content with a metre: that's noit a close pass and on a narrow road I'm content with closer, on my terms (ie primary position, look for a wider bit and indicate to the car behind that you are expecting, indeed keen that they pass. More in this context is not reasonable in practice and it (ie legal specification) should be achievable. Could be extended to passing distance for pedestrians, btw, including cyclists passing pedestrians.

* "Petition To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists. *
"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)."


----------



## Roadrider48 (1 May 2016)

To me it looks like a minimum passing distance is not really enforceable. Unless you have a copper behind every bike or have the ability to photograph the incident with exact measurements?
Just seems an impossible thing to do. Also most drivers don't see anything wrong with close passing cyclists.


----------



## Dave 123 (1 May 2016)

Signed.


----------



## Roadrider48 (1 May 2016)

User said:


> Which is why setting a figure they can understand might help.


Hello Adrian, how are you?
I agree completely. But I just think that enforcing such a law is virtually impossible.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 May 2016)

Heres hoping it gets somewhere. Though If police cant/wont enforce mobile use while driving then I doubt this law will actually mean anything until an accident has happened in which case video footage would be required.


----------



## PeteXXX (1 May 2016)

If nothing else, it might raise awareness.


----------



## Roadrider48 (1 May 2016)

PeteXXX said:


> If nothing else, it might raise awareness.


Yes, you are quite right as @User previously mentioned.


----------



## dave r (1 May 2016)

This is on my local clubs facebook page and on my facebook page. I've signed the petition but like others I've got my doubts as to how it will be enforced.


----------



## classic33 (1 May 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> Heres hoping it gets somewhere. Though If police cant/wont enforce mobile use while driving then I doubt this law will actually mean anything until an accident has happened in which case video footage would be required.


Check the stayinaliveat1.5 link above. If you're on there, you'll see what one person managed. With backing from County Councils, County Mayo being the first to get behind him.


----------



## steveindenmark (2 May 2016)

Passing this type of legislation is totally pointless unless an effective way of enforcing it can be found.

Personally, I would like to sign a petition which gives drivers using mobile phones in cars the same sentence as drink drivers. In Denmark, more traffic accidents are caused by phone users than drink drivers.


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2016)

Signed and shared.... If nothing else maybe my friends will think about how close they pass a cyclist.


----------



## Lpoolck (2 May 2016)

Signed.


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 May 2016)

Roadrider48 said:


> To me it looks like a minimum passing distance is not really enforceable. Unless you have a copper behind every bike or have the ability to photograph the incident with exact measurements?


I agree 'enforcement' would be very difficult, but there are lots of perfectly reasonable laws that are not enforced as such. However the law does influence a large proportion of the population. As technologies roll out, I can foresee vehicles with sensors feeding data into a black box which record proximity (as well as phone use btw) which may be used post hoc (with apologies to this 1984 vision). And this would encourage good behaviour. Such data need a metric/threshold and "plenty of room" doesn't provide that.


----------



## Roadrider48 (2 May 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> I agree 'enforcement' would be very difficult, but there are lots of perfectly reasonable laws that are not enforced as such. However the law does influence a large proportion of the population. As technologies roll out, I can foresee vehicles with sensors feeding data into a black box which record proximity (as well as phone use btw) which may be used post hoc (with apologies to this 1984 vision). And this would encourage good behaviour. Such data need a metric/threshold and "plenty of room" doesn't provide that.


Yup, good point!


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2016)

It may also help in court cases where the jury currently seem to accept close passes as acceptable.


----------



## Roadrider48 (2 May 2016)

summerdays said:


> It may also help in court cases where the jury currently seem to accept close passes as acceptable.


It would help, if it can be proven that the driver was too close.


----------



## psmiffy (2 May 2016)

I would suggest in the first instance that if a car hits a cyclist when passing it was too close - in the second instance it should be at the least careless driving


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2016)

psmiffy said:


> I would suggest in the first instance that if a car hits a cyclist when passing it was too close - in the second instance it should be at the least careless driving


I agree but in the minds of some that was just an unfortunate accident and don't connect it with the fact the car was too close in the first place.... It's about being able to plant in their minds that they shouldn't have been that close in the first place. It won't happen overnight, but if it brings a change in the long term it will be brilliant.

Every week I'm passed by cars to close to the point when I mutter rude comments, lots of less seasoned cyclists have that close encounter and give up.


----------



## Mo1959 (2 May 2016)

Agree that it would be hard to enforce, but as others have said, if drivers at least know there is a law in place, if it even makes a percentage make more of an effort to pass widely and safely it would be a start. Signed anyway. Got to start somewhere.


----------



## Lonestar (2 May 2016)

mustang1 said:


> I thought drivers have to pass from a safe distance anyway?



Yeah but they are stupid enough not to.


----------



## Origamist (2 May 2016)

I'd rather efforts were made to define more clearly the offences of careless and dangerous driving which are opaque and open to (mis)interpretation, than add a law that is clear, but will hardly ever be enforced. That said, I can see how a minimum passing law would help to clarify for a jury/magistrate what constitutes a poor pass if they were faced with a careless or dangerous driving case.


----------



## mustang1 (2 May 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Yeah but they are stupid enough not to.


So what will the petition do that's different to what drivers are supposed to do anyway?


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2016)

mustang1 said:


> So what will the petition do that's different to what drivers are supposed to do anyway?


The existing guidelines are open to interpretation at least this would be clearer.


----------



## Hacienda71 (2 May 2016)

I have signed it. If it clarifies things and helps to raise awareness for some motorists, then it can only be beneficial.


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2016)

Well at least one of my FB friends has shared it already.... so I'm hoping that means they signed it too! (She's a cyclist so I expect she doesn't need to be told how much space to give).


----------



## Lonestar (2 May 2016)

mustang1 said:


> So what will the petition do that's different to what drivers are supposed to do anyway?



Use up paper?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 May 2016)

Not only enforcement, and let's be frank, enforcement of speeding, parking, any other antisocial behaviour on the roads and antipathy towards more vulnerable road users is on a sliding scale of hardly a deterrent down to just not done at all.

To play the defence lawyer for a moment:
But say you do get an official interest, 1) How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was too close without verified measurement of the closest point, it is A's word against B's.

2) How does the cyclist prove that their line was consistently, unwaveringly straight and they didn't accidentally wobble or veer towards the vehicle, making the pass illegal even though the driver didn't change course and was legal when they started the manouvre, even the HC warns drivers the roads are not perfect and bikes etc may make unexpected course changes to accommodate this problem. Bikes are also inherently less stable and more prone to a good gust of wind or the turbulent air a bigger faster vehicle creates.
3) Yes bikes are advsed (not legally obliged) to primary and secondary position etc and HC say ride at least 1m from the kerb (measurement again) but my client is adamant that the cyclist was deliberately riding too far into the carriageway and seeking to cause an obstruction or impede other traffic by their actions.

As a deterrent it'll be not even ignored, it'll simply not impinge on peoples consciousness, police will give it less credence than ASLs, and as a provable prosecution with a legitimate chance of conviction & VFM & in the public interest, the CPS won't even take the time to laugh at it. 

It is a nice and laudable and morally correct idea but untenable in practice in the realities we have right now.

A law that would prove a far more effective deterrent to close passes would be one absolving cyclists from any legal liability or financial penalty for damage caused to motor vehicle if they fixed a diamond tipped glass scribe on a 4 foot long pole sticking out of the right hand side of their bike.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 May 2016)

User said:


> It will do the same as specific prohibitions on using a phone whilst driving, something that didn't need a law but it didn't hurt.


That is far more provable by even my unreliable witnesses and electronic records of calls texts.


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 May 2016)

Photo credit to @jay clock


----------



## classic33 (2 May 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Photo credit to @jay clock
> View attachment 126931


And the Irish version, now on some County Council vehicles


----------



## Dayvo (2 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> And the Irish version, now on some County Council vehicles
> 
> View attachment 126938



To be sure, to be sure!


----------



## classic33 (2 May 2016)

Dayvo said:


> To be sure, to be sure!


One for each rear door of the smaller vehicles.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 May 2016)

User said:


> You miss the point, I introduced that as as example of something not requiring specific legislation.


Fair do's, apologies for misinterpreting. but even on that metric, with the level of distraction wilfully entered into by the driver, I (may well get flamed to pieces) am far more concerned by a prick deliberately and knowingly on their phone when I'm on my bike than I am by some knob that gets closer than I would like, mostly out of naivety and them never referring to the HC since the night before passing their driving test.

I know many report suffering them and I don't for a moment doubt it, but I can't honestly say I've ever been the victim of a deliberate punishment pass.

Not trying to start an argument or be perverse, just my feelings on the two wrongs & accepting I'm experienced enough to cope with a stupid close pass better than many infrequent riders are, but also know that if someone is more into their call or text than my whereabouts on the road then I'm in big trouble however experienced I may be.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 May 2016)

User said:


> We don't have to start with the worst wrong in the world and work from there.


No we shouldn't, there's room to fix all in theory & it's not right we should be having a conversation about the potential of picking and choosing, but in the real world of today and the difficulties of any meaningful enforcement in cycling's favour, I'd rather efforts concentrated onto those where there may be engagement and interest in pursuing from the police and prosecution authorities.

I just don't think close passing will merit that buy in needed to make legislation work.


----------



## ACS (2 May 2016)

Signed


----------



## classic33 (2 May 2016)

steve50 said:


> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190
> 
> it has been passed in other parts of the world.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/new-nsw-laws-for-drivers-and-cyclists/7208934


3,800 "signed it" since this thread started.


----------



## steve50 (2 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> 3,800 "signed it" since this thread started.


Thats great, just goes to show how popular cycling is, would be better if it was double that number though.


----------



## classic33 (2 May 2016)

It's up elsewhere as well.


----------



## JtB (2 May 2016)

Still only 5,500 signatures.


----------



## steve50 (2 May 2016)

Share share and share, social media is a great tool for sharing.


----------



## bozmandb9 (3 May 2016)

Whilst it may be, in practical terms, unenforceable, I think it's introduction would be great, in that it would call attention to the need to allow a safe passing distance.

I have encountered motorists who seem to think that if passing in a double white line zone, they need to pass without crossing the white lines! Clearly they need to brush up on their highway code. In my view educating road users is the primary issue (I know that some drivers being irresponsible, stupid, or just not caring is a secondary one, but these I feel are in the minority).


----------



## rugby bloke (3 May 2016)

Signed. As much a gesture as has been stated its probably unenforceable. However if it can prompt a conversation on the subject at a national level then all the better.


----------



## jonny jeez (3 May 2016)

Signed and shared


----------



## jonny jeez (3 May 2016)

6,666...spooky


----------



## si_c (3 May 2016)

User said:


> I don't think it calls for sufficient distance. 1m at 30mph and 1.5m at 70mph are not going to make enough people comfortable on our roads.



Signed. I generally agree, 1m is a bit close at 30mph, and 1.5 too close at NSL, my wife certainly isn't comfortable with that sort of margin, but it's a good starting point.


----------



## jefmcg (3 May 2016)

steve50 said:


> it has been passed in other parts of the world.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/new-nsw-laws-for-drivers-and-cyclists/7208934


Let's not use NSW as an example. The passing distance rule was bought in as a sop to hide a raft** of anticycling laws, enforced by public order police. Queensland has done it, too, without requiring cyclists to carry id.

http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/other/cyclists/ 


**mixing a lot of metaphors in 6 words!


----------



## Spinney (3 May 2016)

signed and shared


----------



## postman (3 May 2016)

+1.


----------



## marknotgeorge (3 May 2016)

Origamist said:


> I'd rather efforts were made to define more clearly the offences of careless and dangerous driving which are opaque and open to (mis)interpretation, than add a law that is clear, but will hardly ever be enforced. That said, I can see how a minimum passing law would help to clarify for a jury/magistrate what constitutes a poor pass if they were faced with a careless or dangerous driving case.



I think what's needed is a neutral witness. A sufficiently qualified person who looks at all the available evidence and describes to the court exactly what a 'careful and competent' motorist should have done, so the jury has a yardstick to compare against.

I've signed and shared the petition.


----------



## mjr (3 May 2016)

Roadrider48 said:


> To me it looks like a minimum passing distance is not really enforceable. Unless you have a copper behind every bike or have the ability to photograph the incident with exact measurements?
> Just seems an impossible thing to do. Also most drivers don't see anything wrong with close passing cyclists.


Photos with horizontal calibration markings is certainly one possibility and it doesn't need every incident to be prosecuted to help to change driver attitudes.

Its biggest challenge is that most cyclists are motorists too and many want to keep the freedom to punishment pass lesser cyclists who get in their way while driving, isn't it? They've suffered this for years, don't see why "newbs" should escape and not have to HTFU, and want to dole it out.


----------



## Roadrider48 (4 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Photos with horizontal calibration markings is certainly one possibility and it doesn't need every incident to be prosecuted to help to change driver attitudes.
> 
> Its biggest challenge is that most cyclists are motorists too and many want to keep the freedom to punishment pass lesser cyclists who get in their way while driving, isn't it? They've suffered this for years, don't see why "newbs" should escape and not have to HTFU, and want to dole it out.


I don't think many motorists deliberately close pass cyclists as some sort of punishment pass. They just do it as a Matter of fact.
Me personally here in London it happens all the time. Infact it's rare for anyone to give adequate clearance when passing. Is that ok? No, of course not. But if I got upset every time I would never ride anywhere.
It is real problem!


----------



## Origamist (4 May 2016)

marknotgeorge said:


> I think what's needed is a neutral witness. A sufficiently qualified person who looks at all the available evidence and describes to the court exactly what a 'careful and competent' motorist should have done, so the jury has a yardstick to compare against.
> 
> I've signed and shared the petition.



That's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit well with our current adversarial judicial system (expert witnesses on both sides) and it's hard to imagine that the concept of a "neutral witness" would even be considered for motoring offences.


----------



## Origamist (4 May 2016)

User said:


> I think you misunderstand the role of expert witnesses. Their responsibility is not to the party instructing them - but to the court. In fact, in many civil and criminal cases you will now find expert witnesses instructed on a join basis, either voluntarily or by order of the court.
> 
> Traffic police officers are supposed to be expert witnesses... but we have seen that some have an innate bias that doesn't get challenged or they stray into areas outside their expertise (e.g. the efficacy of helmets).



Yes, I should have been clearer in my parentheses: expert witness testimony is used, exploited, challenged and contradicted by both the prosecution and defence.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 May 2016)

Found elsewhere on t'internet:





I'd like that as a car sticker.

GC


----------



## Milkfloat (4 May 2016)

I would replace the word 'selfish' with 'dangerous'


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 May 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I would replace the word 'selfish' with 'dangerous'



I'd settle for either with the addition of daffodil.

GC


----------



## marknotgeorge (4 May 2016)

User said:


> I think you misunderstand the role of expert witnesses. Their responsibility is not to the party instructing them - but to the court. In fact, in many civil and criminal cases you will now find expert witnesses instructed on a join basis, either voluntarily or by order of the court.
> 
> Traffic police officers are supposed to be expert witnesses... but we have seen that some have an innate bias that doesn't get challenged or they stray into areas outside their expertise (e.g. the efficacy of helmets).



I would say that serving traffic police officers cannot be neutral witnesses, in this definition of neutral witness. They are officers of the Crown, and as Crown does the vast majority of the prosecuting, there's an automatic bias there.


----------



## marknotgeorge (4 May 2016)

User said:


> You may think that but the law doesn't. Expert witnesses are not necessarily 'neutral' witnesses - their overriding obligation is to provide their opinion based on the facts that are available but that doesn't mean that they are neutral.


But my neutral witness is a subtly different thing from the legal expert witness. They're appointed by the court (not the defence or prosecution or both), and their purpose is to assist the jury in reaching a verdict, not to assist the legal counsel in making their case.


----------



## marknotgeorge (4 May 2016)

User said:


> What you're describing is an expert witness. Although they may be appointed by one of the parties (or these days it is common for a joint expert to be instructed) their obligation is to assist the court (whether this be a jury or a judge) in reaching a verdict - it is not to help counsel in making their case.
> 
> 
> 
> _I should, for balance and transparency, point out that I have appeared as an expert witness on a number of occasions in both criminal and civil cases._


I understand what you're saying, although I would prefer the witness to be nothing to do with either side.


----------



## Fnaar (4 May 2016)

http://road.cc/content/news/188516-...distance-when-overtaking-cyclists-nears-10000


----------



## Milkfloat (4 May 2016)

And linked from road.cc is this column, which I think I can pick a few holes in to say the least.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 May 2016)

User said:


> Who is Bez? Sounds like some CTC hack to me, who has conflated all sorts of junk to try and make an argument against the motion.



With was written, I figured it was the 'dancer' from the Happy Mondays


----------



## Hacienda71 (4 May 2016)

Now over 10000 signatures.


----------



## mjr (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Who is Bez? Sounds like some CTC hack to me, who has conflated all sorts of junk to try and make an argument against the motion.


A cycling columnist. IIRC he's a member of CUK (the organisation formerly known as CTC) but not particularly close to them. A discussion of his views begins at http://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?p=1000874#p1000874


----------



## mjr (9 May 2016)

User said:


> There are minimum passing distance in other jurisdictions which are enforced - including by bike mounted tech for measuring the distance of an overtaking vehicle.


Can you find much evidence on the effects, though? Most countries seem as crap at England at measuring the effects of their interventions. ☹


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Can you find much evidence on the effects, though? Most countries seem as crap at England at measuring the effects of their interventions. ☹


There's one force using a handlebar mounted device(Boston, USA?) which has had some luck in catching close passers.


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2016)

> *Government responded*
> 
> This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.
> 
> ...


----------



## slowmotion (10 May 2016)

I sometimes get passed by cars so close that I could stick out my little finger and touch their bodywork without taking my thumb off the brake hood. There's absolutely no point in passing a law that is completely and absolutely unenforcable. It just makes a laughing-stock of the legal process.

Driving and mobile phones anyone?


----------



## summerdays (10 May 2016)

Yes I got one of those too! 

What does it matter if they can't enforce a new rule.... They don't enforce it currently but at least it would be clearer than the vague wording they have as to how far they should pass a cyclist.


----------



## growingvegetables (10 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> There's absolutely no point in passing a law that is completely and absolutely unenforcable. It just makes a laughing-stock of the legal process.


Sadly - that applies to huge sections of the Highway Code . It's not that the law is unenforcable - but that it is not enforced.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 May 2016)

User said:


> And yet it is enforceable in Australia and elsewhere. What suddenly makes it unenforceable here then?



I'm interested, do we have evidence of anybody being fined for breaking this yet?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Sadly - that applies to huge sections of the Highway Code . It's not that the law is unenforcable - but that it is not enforced.



The majority of the highway code is simply advice on good driving. NOT law.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'm interested, do we have evidence of anybody being fined for breaking this yet?


Safer Cycling Australia showed what happenned to one driver who failed to give the room required. Looking for alternate employment as a result.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> Safer Cycling Australia showed what happenned to one driver who failed to give the room required. Looking for alternate employment as a result.


Link?

I've had a brief look on their website but can't see it.

Although I did like their information video for Queensland.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Link?
> 
> I've had a brief look on their website but can't see it.
> 
> Although I did like their information video for Queensland.


It'd be an early video on the stayinaliveat1.5 on fb(safercyclingireland.org?)


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> Safer Cycling Australia





classic33 said:


> safercyclingireland.org


----------



## jonny jeez (10 May 2016)

User said:


> And yet it is enforceable in Australia and elsewhere. What suddenly makes it unenforceable here then?


Money


----------



## jonny jeez (10 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> - but that it is not enforced.


Its just not economical to enforce


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2016)

I heard a driver who's mirror had knocked down a cyclist say "she wobbled into me". He believed, even after the collision that he had given her "enough room". He wasn't claiming he was anywhere close to a metre away from her. He seemed like a competent driver, who kept within the law. This particular collision would probably not have occurred if 1 metre (or 1 yard) were in the statutes.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


>


The Irish site copied the Australian one. Both sites acknowledge the fact.

I'm thinking if they'd to remove it from the Australian site, it may still be elsewhere.


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'm interested, do we have evidence of anybody being fined for breaking this yet?


Thank you, google.com.au ....

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/05a2c8f42848f66182a0d51d3eab94ac

Edit: and this one ...

*More cyclists than motorists have been fined after new road rules came into effect last year*



> Figures from Traffic and Main Roads (TMR) state over the nine month period stretching from the introduction of the new laws to the end of last year, 32 motorists were fined to going too close to a person on a bike.
> [..]
> In contrast 101 cyclists were fined $94 — by police — for riding in the middle of the road, over the same period.



Ugh! maybe no action is a good outcome


----------



## steve50 (10 May 2016)

Many of us will have received this email reply to the petition ,
*Government responded to the petition you signed*




You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition.



Dear S ########

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists.”.

Government responded:

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”. W…
Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190?reveal_response=yes

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament


----------



## derrick (13 May 2016)

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


----------



## ianrauk (13 May 2016)

Already *HERE*


----------



## martint235 (13 May 2016)

I have but I'm a pessimist that works in Govt. If it did pass, they'd set the distance at 20cm


----------



## foot_loose (13 May 2016)

No.


----------



## ianrauk (13 May 2016)

btw also a no.

for the simple fact is that what the petition is proposing is completely unworkable.


----------



## Vantage (13 May 2016)

As above, unworkable. Most road traffic laws are routinely broken already, this would be on that list too.


----------



## ianrauk (13 May 2016)

This, as some Sates in the US have. And it works quite well


----------



## bozmandb9 (13 May 2016)

I was wondering why so few signatures. It appears too many cyclists worry too much about practicalities of implementation, rather than highlighting the issue, which seems to be the main point of legislation nowadays.

So the government will conclude there's no problem with motorists passing cyclists too close. Hey ho.


----------



## lazybloke (13 May 2016)

I signed it.
Seems a good idea to me. Yes I absolutely agree there's little chance of 'preventative enforcement'. But if a car does hit a bike, then (almost) by default it can be said that the cyclists' space has been illegally encroached upon, and that's one more step towards a successful prosecution.
Is that just wishful thinking?


----------



## EnPassant (13 May 2016)

ianrauk said:


> This, as some Sates in the US have. And it works quite well


I rather like that. But does it mean that they may not use the full lane where such signs do not exist? Or might it be argued as such whether true or not? That would bother me.


----------



## classic33 (13 May 2016)

Wexford County Council, Following on from Mayo's lead


----------



## Vantage (13 May 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> I was wondering why so few signatures. It appears too many cyclists worry too much about practicalities of implementation, rather than highlighting the issue, which seems to be the main point of legislation nowadays.
> 
> So the government will conclude there's no problem with motorists passing cyclists too close. Hey ho.



Too many petitions I think. There's loads out there all trying for individual goals on road safety. All with a few signatures.
If there was maybe one petition that enclosed all concerns with lots of signatures then we might get somewhere. We can thank the tinterweb and multiple bike forums for that.


----------



## Crandoggler (13 May 2016)

Absolutely not.


----------



## jamma (13 May 2016)

Signed and had email back saying this: 

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist. 

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users. 

Department for Transport


----------



## mjr (14 May 2016)

ianrauk said:


> This, as some Sates in the US have. And it works quite well


Ah, the "nice way code" made into road signs?


----------



## GuyBoden (27 Oct 2016)

Not enough petitioners.
If we got 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

*Government responded*
"This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist."


*Current Highway code (UK)*

*Rule 163*
Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).

*Rule 212*
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

*Rule 213*
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.





*Rule 163:* Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car. (Yeah, that would be nice.)


----------



## Hacienda71 (27 Oct 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> Not enough petitioners.
> If we got 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament
> 
> *Government responded*
> ...


Bloody Audi drivers.


----------



## mjr (27 Oct 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> "This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space


This Nero-esque Government currently does not have plans for much bigger problems, as far as I can see, so that's not really a shock.


----------



## cyberknight (27 Oct 2016)

I think in general the passing distance has got better recently , could be down to the much publicized police schemes .


----------



## Shut Up Legs (27 Oct 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> Not enough petitioners.
> If we got 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament
> 
> *Government responded*
> ...


I hope not too many of your cyclists take that picture literally. In that situation, I'd be riding in the centre of the lane.


----------



## dim (27 Oct 2016)

I'd prefer to see a petition demanding that anyone over 65 years old needs to have a driving test done every year. (like a MOT for driving to make sure that you are capable of driving safe)

too many old farts on the road who cannot drive anymore.... these are the real hazards on the road .... they don't even realize that they are dangerous


----------



## dim (28 Oct 2016)

User said:


> So why are insurance premiums so much higher for young drivers?



not sure .... what I can however say is that younger people have to do many hours with driving instructors before they get their licence, and have to learn the road signs etc. My daughter just got her licence and spend loads of money every weekend paying her AA driving instructor. She has only been driving her new car for 3 weeks so far, but drives well and is very confident. It's also not easy to get the licence, as if you make mistakes, you fail

But saying that, many youngsters show off and end up crashing, hence the higher premiums? (I'm guessing)

Some old people cannot even reverse park anymore and are a hazard on the roads. My mom was in her 80's and still drove, but I would never get into her car as a passenger. My brother eventually convinced her to stop driving


----------



## Drago (28 Oct 2016)

Unfortunately, the act of obtaining a licence, and the act of driving safely and confidently in a live situation do not entirely overlap. One is about your ability to pass written and practical test, the other is about interacting with millions of other people, most of whom don't obey the regulations terribly well, and some of whom are so bad they become unpredictable for other road users.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Oct 2016)

dim said:


> not sure .... what I can however say is that younger people have to do many hours with driving instructors before they get their licence, and have to learn the road signs etc. My daughter just got her licence and spend loads of money every weekend paying her AA driving instructor. She has only been driving her new car for 3 weeks so far, but drives well and is very confident. It's also not easy to get the licence, as if you make mistakes, you fail
> 
> But saying that, many youngsters show off and end up crashing, hence the higher premiums? (I'm guessing)
> 
> Some old people cannot even reverse park anymore and are a hazard on the roads. My mom was in her 80's and still drove, but I would never get into her car as a passenger. My brother eventually convinced her to stop driving


I'd rather be on the roads with doddering old people who can't reverse and dent cars in car parks than over confident young people who could drive well, but don't , having high speed collisions .


----------



## Stinboy (29 Oct 2016)

cyberknight said:


> I think in general the passing distance has got better recently, could be down to the much publicized police schemes .



That's interesting. Obviously this is all anecdotal, but I've noticed the opposite recently. I've had more close passes and confrontational drivers in the last few weeks than I've had all year. Perhaps it's the nights drawing in, who knows? But it's pissing me right off.



dim said:


> not sure ....* what I can however say is that younger people have to do many hours with driving instructors* before they get their licence, and have to learn the road signs etc. My daughter just got her licence and spend loads of money every weekend paying her AA driving instructor. She has only been driving her new car for 3 weeks so far, but drives well and is very confident. It's also not easy to get the licence, as if you make mistakes, you fail
> 
> But saying that, many youngsters show off and end up crashing, hence the higher premiums? (I'm guessing)
> 
> Some old people cannot even reverse park anymore and are a hazard on the roads. My mom was in her 80's and still drove, but I would never get into her car as a passenger. My brother eventually convinced her to stop driving



When I was learning to drive (which is 20 years ago to be fair) the only instruction I received about dealing with cyclists on the road was 'they have a tendency to wobble'.


----------



## Phaeton (29 Oct 2016)

How will cycle lanes work then?


----------

