# Motorists could face £100 fine for driving too close to cyclists



## classic33 (18 Sep 2018)

Drivers in Britain could soon face a £100 fine for driving too close to cyclists on the road, following plans to introduce a new law.

The new law will require motorists to be at least 1.5 metres away from cyclists when passing or overtaking, with penalties incurred if drivers fail to comply.

*Stricter regulations*
If a motorist is found to be driving closer than the minimum passing distance, they could be hit with a £100 fine and three penalty points.

Calls for the new law to be introduced come as a means to offer more protection for cyclists and reduce the number of cycling-related accidents.

Recent figures released by the Department for Transport showed there were 18,450 pedal cyclist casualties in the year ending September 2017, of which 3,750 (20 per cent) were killed or seriously injured. Around 100 cyclists are killed in the UK every year.

The Highway Code has previously stated drivers should give cyclists “plenty of room” when passing, and “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”, but with the now clearer defined rules, it means motorists are more liable to facing punishment for dangerous driving.

*Making the roads safer*
It is hoped by making the law less ambiguous and enforcing a stricter and safer passing distance will encourage more people to take to two wheels.

Cycling Minister Jesse Norman said: “We need to become a nation of cyclists, and this government wants to make cycling the natural choice of transport for people of all ages and backgrounds.

“We are determined to make cycling safer and easier across the country and we are continuing to invest.

“We shouldn’t only concentrate on catching and punishing drivers when they make a mistake, but try to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge to drive safely alongside cyclists in all conditions.”

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...clists/ar-BBNuDbk?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Sep 2018)

How will this new law work?

Maybe some of our resident police can advise? But if somebody challenges the distance they passed at, what acceptable methods of evidence will the Police be able to present to allow for a prosecution of a driver?


----------



## dave r (18 Sep 2018)

How will it be enforced? There's hardly any coppers about.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (18 Sep 2018)

1. When it hits the BBC they'll have a cyclist bashing HYS.
2. 'Plans to introduce' - how many times do we hear that.
3. Who's going to enforce it if it ever sees the light of day?


----------



## winjim (18 Sep 2018)

Let's enforce the laws we've already got, then we can talk about making some new ones.


----------



## lazyfatgit (18 Sep 2018)

My experience of similar laws here in NSW is that the average driver now takes a bit more care whilst passing. The dangerous nobbers who squeeze by with their foot on the floor haven’t changed.

If anything the haters have something more to bitch about.

There’s been a few prosecutions but in the same time since the trial was put in place and they also drastically increased fines for pavement cycling, no helmet etc, cyclists have been hammered.

Hopefully in time better education and regulation may improve driver behaviour.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Sep 2018)

[QUOTE 5385205, member: 9609"] (as _much room_ as _you would_ when overtaking a _car_) which is little to no meaning.[/QUOTE]

Even worse. As much room as I'd leave a car, is actually far less than I would leave a cyclist.

I know that it means to put your car in the same place when you overtake a cyclist as you would a car. But that's not what the sentence says.


----------



## screenman (18 Sep 2018)

I have driven about a 100 miles this morning and not seen a marked police car.


----------



## byegad (18 Sep 2018)

It will go the way of no smoking with children onboard and no handset use. On the books but ignored as there will be near zero enforcement.


----------



## Smudge (18 Sep 2018)

I'd rather have this law than not have it, but everyone knows it wont make any difference.
Just like when they made it an offence to hog the middle lane on motorways... That came in years ago, but i haven't seen any reduction in middle lane hogging at all.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Sep 2018)

Smudge said:


> I'd rather have this law than not have it, but everyone knows it wont make any difference.
> Just like when they made it an offence to hog the middle lane on motorways... That came in years ago, but i haven't seen any reduction in middle lane hogging at all.



I'd rather they spent money on policing the laws we have, rather than spending the money on making feel good laws that can't be enforced.


----------



## Smudge (18 Sep 2018)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'd rather they spent money on policing the laws we have, rather than spending the money on making feel good laws that can't be enforced.



Indeed.... Many of the incidents that these new laws would cover, are already covered as driving without due care and attention. But if they cant/dont enforce those, whats the point in new laws.


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2018)

Smudge said:


> Indeed.... Many of the incidents that these new laws would cover, are already covered as driving without due care and attention. But if they cant/dont enforce those, whats the point in new laws.


The point is to change the courts' interpretation of the law when it doesn't match what legislators want. Isn't that what many new laws do?


----------



## Phaeton (18 Sep 2018)

What about a vehicle coming in the other direction will that have to give 1.5m many of the road I ride on that would be impossible.


----------



## numbnuts (18 Sep 2018)

"Could"..soon face a £100 fine


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (18 Sep 2018)

I'll be thinking about this new law when I'm driving home among all the mobile users, speeders, and red light jumpers. Or maybe next week when I go up the M1 and see the loonies emergency braking when they see the gantry speed camera signs.


----------



## Fonze (18 Sep 2018)

In essence it sounds good, but unworkable and can be filed along with dog fouling, mobile phone while driving and in a lot of cases I see speeding ..
There's a need for police to start being visible on the streets .. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a bobby on the beat where I live ..
But can guarantee next time my dog poops and I forget my poop bag one will appear from nowhere ..


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2018)

Fonze said:


> In essence it sounds good, but unworkable and can be filed along with dog fouling, mobile phone while driving and in a lot of cases I see speeding ..
> There's a need for police to start being visible on the streets .. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a bobby on the beat where I live ..
> But can guarantee next time my dog poops and I forget my poop bag one will appear from nowhere ..


Dog shoot has been decriminalised in most places, so it'll be a dog warden (often a parking officer, street cleaner, beach warden, ranger or orderly doing double-duty) that fines you.


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2018)

Phaeton said:


> What about a vehicle coming in the other direction will that have to give 1.5m many of the road I ride on that would be impossible.


Probably not, but maybe they should have to pull in.


----------



## Phaeton (18 Sep 2018)

mjr said:


> Probably not, but maybe they should have to pull in.


Why when it's perfectly save for them to pass


----------



## gavroche (18 Sep 2018)

Another law that will be wasted due to insufficient police vehicles on the roads. I still see loads of drivers texting and phoning despite the new penalty.


----------



## Phaeton (18 Sep 2018)

But does society want to pay for extra Police?


----------



## Slick (18 Sep 2018)

Would be nice if they did bring this in even if it was just something to point at if you did catch a close passer.


----------



## Lonestar (18 Sep 2018)

About as useful as a chocolate teapot...At the moment.


----------



## Fonze (19 Sep 2018)

mjr said:


> Dog shoot has been decriminalised in most places, so it'll be a dog warden (often a parking officer, street cleaner, beach warden, ranger or orderly doing double-duty) that fines you.



Really ?
I honestly can't say I've ever seen such a person .. unless they are dressed undercover ..


----------



## mustang1 (19 Sep 2018)

Cyclists could soon face £100 fine for riding two abreast on busy roads as deemed by the traffic enforcer.


----------



## Smudge (19 Sep 2018)

Fonze said:


> Really ?
> I honestly can't say I've ever seen such a person .. unless they are dressed undercover ..



We have a dog warden that visits the local parks in my town. If she sees anyone not picking up their dogs crap, she'll hand out a £100 fine. But her visits to my local park are so few & far between, that its rare for anyone to get caught.
I'm always seeing piles of dog shoot left, when walking my dog.


----------



## classic33 (19 Sep 2018)

Fonze said:


> Really ?
> I honestly can't say I've ever seen such a person .. unless they are dressed undercover ..


Shortly after the councils took over the fining, the local one got rid of the person responsible for handing out the fines.


----------



## Milzy (19 Sep 2018)

I’m afraid this will never happen sadly.


----------



## Fonze (19 Sep 2018)

Yeah seeing all the dog doo lying around is just plain ignorant, we buy bags like nappy waste bags cost a pound for hundred, it's nothing to just pick up, but kids playing then stand all in it .. mine used to over the main field and it's just disgusting ..
I suppose they get untold abuse as well so for some probably not worth the hassle ..


----------



## Mr Celine (22 Sep 2018)

If the car and cycle are in different lanes, eg bike in the usual gutter width cycle farcility and car in lane one would it still apply?


----------



## mjr (22 Sep 2018)

Mr Celine said:


> If the car and cycle are in different lanes, eg bike in the usual gutter width cycle farcility and car in lane one would it still apply?


I don't think there's a draft yet, so who knows? Maybe they'll ban narrow cycle lanes too. And give us all guard unicorns.


----------



## podsquad (23 Sep 2018)

If this law was ever passed it would never be enforced as many of you say, if it was it would probably only be useful in highly built up areas like cities where no “cyclist” goes for a proper ride anyhow.

Those nice scenic rides we all go on would have 0 change and probably would frustrate drivers more. Our roads or too busy, and we all have different agendas so it will never be conflict free. You can’t even go to the petrol station without people getting into fights over a pump.

Several routes I ride regulary have 1.5m signs up now, the drivers who used to pass wide still do, the drivers that like to leave paint on your shoulder still do.. 

There will never be a solution, but perhaps educating new drivers, and drivers in general about the bigger picture and get more people on bikes to understand how vulnerable we are.

Some drivers seem to forget that the bike is powered by a person, who is someone’s son, daughter, husband, wife, has kids and supports many people. And this may come full circle one day as the ride may be their kid, dad, Mam or whoever, they then wouldn’t want their family member be n treated like that.

And if they were to seriously injur or kill the rider their own lives would also change dramatically, they wouldn’t be laughing then.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2018)

podsquad said:


> And if they were to seriously injur or kill the rider their own lives would also change dramatically, they wouldn’t be laughing then.


But that's never going to happen to them though is it, it will always be somebody else it happens to. By I agree with everything you put.


----------



## Drago (23 Sep 2018)

If someone argues the toss, how will the police prove that the minimum distance was encroached upon?

Its a bit like the old child seat laws, requiring children under 135cm to be in a child seat - the police had no powers to measure children, and had not been given calibrated tape measures anyway.

I'm all for the idea in principle, i just fail to see how it will get enforced if someone kicks back against it.


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2018)

Drago said:


> If someone argues the toss, how will the police prove that the minimum distance was encroached upon?
> 
> Its a bit like the old child seat laws, requiring children under 135cm to be in a child seat - the police had no powers to measure children, and had not been given calibrated tape measures anyway.
> 
> I'm all for the idea in principle, i just fail to see how it will get enforced if someone kicks back against it.


If I can touch the passing vehicle, it's at 27" or closer. Caught on camera they'd not need much calibration.


----------



## Drago (23 Sep 2018)

classic33 said:


> If I can touch the passing vehicle, it's at 27" or closer. Caught on camera they'd not need much calibration.



If you do touch it, then great. A vehicle could pass 4 inches away, and a defence solicitor will argue that black is white and say that it's 4 feet. They'll blame the time of day, shadows, perspective, lighting, the Rand Corporation, Ley Lines, whatever, it doesn't matter, a defence of a technical aspect of the evidence has been raised. So long as it's not utterly outlandish, the Court will accept that and it will require rebuttal.

It's then up to the police to _prove_ beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. Without physical measurements (which won't happen, because coppers can't run alongside cyclists with calibrated tape measures), or expensive photoanalysis (which won't happen because of cost and therefore proportionality now the Forensic Science Service has closed) then there is no means of proving the case. Proof, proof, proof - opinion, no matter how seemingly obvious, won't cut it the moment someone chooses to go to Court over it.


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2018)

Rebuttal! I'll not be cutting my arm off for anyone. They can measure it in court.

Which is what was said to the owner of a freight company(Red trucks, N.T.).


----------



## Fenrider (23 Sep 2018)

Phaeton said:


> What about a vehicle coming in the other direction will that have to give 1.5m many of the road I ride on that would be impossible.


I regularly get close passes from vehicles travelling too fast towards me on narrow rural roads. Better drivers slow right down when approaching and pull over. That behaviour would be encouraged if a 1.5m gap became the expected norm. A close pass is a close pass whichever direction it comes from.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2018)

Fenrider said:


> I regularly get close passes from vehicles travelling too fast towards me on narrow rural roads. Better drivers slow right down when approaching and pull over.


Yes, but there are still roads where even if they stop for me to pass there would never be 1.5M between us. I do agree it would be good to bring in but I think it's unenforceable.


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes, but there are still roads where even if they stop for me to pass there would never be 1.5M between us. I do agree it would be good to bring in but I think it's unenforceable.


One man managed to get County Councils to back his 1·5 passing scheme.

http://www.safecyclingireland.org/stayin-alive-at-1-5/

Link added in edit.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2018)

classic33 said:


> One man managed to get County Councils to back his 1·5 passing scheme.


Just come back from the South Lakes, all around there were signs about 1.5M


----------



## DaveReading (23 Sep 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes, but there are still roads where even if they stop for me to pass there would never be 1.5M between us.



Is there a requirement for a cyclist to leave a 1.5 m gap when passing a stationary car?


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2018)

DaveReading said:


> Is there a requirement for a cyclist to leave a 1.5 m gap when passing a stationary car?


I have no idea is there? is it relevant?


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2018)

DaveReading said:


> Is there a requirement for a cyclist to leave a 1.5 m gap when passing a stationary car?


Both rider and car would usually be moving. When a car passes a cyclist.


----------



## DaveReading (23 Sep 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I have no idea is there? is it relevant?



You refer to a vehicle stopping for you to pass it. So yes.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2018)

DaveReading said:


> You refer to a vehicle stopping for you to pass it. So yes.


There's always one


----------



## DaveReading (23 Sep 2018)

You're right there.


----------



## Vantage (23 Sep 2018)

mjr said:


> I don't think there's a draft yet, so who knows? Maybe they'll ban narrow cycle lanes too. And give us all guard unicorns.



I want mine to have a pink glittery sparkly horn!


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2018)

DaveReading said:


> You refer to a vehicle stopping for you to pass it. So yes.


On a narrow road. Which would mean that we as cyclists receive equal treatment.


----------



## Drago (23 Sep 2018)

How about some laser detection distance sensing car tasers attached to bikes?


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Sep 2018)

If anything like this ever got passed it would be relatively easy to enforce (not everywhere, but with a focus on known 'bad' places) using CCTV, just as London eradicated people driving in bus lanes. You offend, you get a £80 fixed penalty thru' the post. Once drivers know, behaviour changes. As ever, the issue is whether the will is there.


----------



## DaveReading (24 Sep 2018)

classic33 said:


> On a narrow road. Which would mean that we as cyclists receive equal treatment.



If a car stops to allow you to pass it on a bike, then not hitting it becomes your responsibility. No different from you passing a parked car.

My point was that you can do that perfectly safely, given the small speed differential compared to that between you and an overtaking car, without needing to leave 1.5 m clearance. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Sep 2018)

DaveReading said:


> without needing to leave 1.5 m clearance. It's not rocket science.


But still leaving the car driver open to prosecution if they are moving


----------

