D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Agreed, unless you are in Australia (I think)
1.5 metres ?
- Thread starter gavroche
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Not really I'm all for making cycling safer, but I just don't think a mandatory 1.5M is the answer, as people have already said, a 2ft pass at 15 mph is completely different to a 60MPH at 1.5MI hope the Devil is paying you well for your advocacy, @Phaeton
classic33
Leg End Member
Parts of Ireland.
stayinaliveat1.5 case in question.
Ok we get it @classic33 
jefmcg
Guru
classic33
Leg End Member
Same post number.Ok we get it @classic33
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Okay Okay I heard you the first time 
jefmcg
Guru
When my friend was knocked down by a close pass, I heard the driver say to the police "I gave her plenty of room", which is of course nonsense, or she wouldn't have been in an ambulance while he was saying this. But if there was a clear law saying what "enough" was, then at least law abiding drivers would start giving us enough room.
And even if they only ever booked drivers who actually hit cyclists, I think the law would still have good effect.
And even if they only ever booked drivers who actually hit cyclists, I think the law would still have good effect.
jefmcg
Guru
You seem to have drafted a bad law in your head, and are now complaining about it.
This is what is known as a strawman argument.
It would be easy to draft a law that would get around the problems you have invented: like speeding, it would only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles (maybe specifically excluding electrical bikes speed limited to 25kph); you only have to give way to bicycles in the same carriageway.
The law, if it's ever enacted will be carefully worded and done with public and/or cycling organisation consultation.
We need to be wary, though. As far as I can tell, the close passing laws in Australia were introduced as a token to appease cyclists who were the real targets of the new laws.
D
Deleted member 1258
Guest
We were taught both imperial and metric, and I'm still confused by metric measurements, in imperial I have an idea of what the measurements are, but with metric I need to convert it to imperial to understand it.
jefmcg
Guru
relative speed? While I might not mind a car passing me closely at 1mph when I am not moving, I would not be happy with a car giving me only a couple of centimetres passing me at 26mph when I am going at 25mph, especially considering I would be going down hill, with a tailwind
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
I will bow to your far better knowledge than me. I shall not offer any other comments, please in future indicate which debates I am allowed to post in.
jefmcg
Guru
It's a subset of the metric system. It doesn't include stuff like decametre (10 metres) and decimetre (1/10 of metre, ie 100 millimetres)
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Ah another of the bullies rears it's head, not enough victims in current affairsNone
HTH
For me it's a kind of weird 50/50, probably thanks to the UK's botched semi-metrication happening over the period of my education.
For weight, it's kgs - I really don't grok stones and pounds, and I have to convert to have any idea what it means. Similarly, for fluids I think in litres - unless it's draft beer, when it's pints (but bottled beer obviously comes in 500ml bottles).
For distance it's miles. My wife is from a country that uses km, and I spend a lot of time there - but in terms of how long a ride feels, I can only do it in miles.
And as for landed herring, well, obviously I only use the cran.