Safe Pass, a good idea - ?

[simongt]

One of the apparent drawbacks I've recently noticed with the Safe Pass campaign that's being rolled out in various parts of the country; allow a minimum of 1.5 metres when passing a cyclist, that there are now some drivers so worried that even when they could pass perfectly safely, albeit in less that the 1.5 metres, they tend to hang back, thus sitting behind you for some distance.
Personally, I find this somewhat irritating having a car so close when they could pass perfectly well.
You just can't win eh - ? !

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

This 1.5 metre stuff is a complete load of old cobblers. How close is safe depends entirely on the speed of the vehicles and how much wind turbulence they generate. A couple of feet is plenty of room in slow urban traffic. 50 or 60 mph overtakes on a fast country road is a different matter entirely. It's all a matter of common sense.

 

[jefmcg]

pass [..] in less that the 1.5 metres, they tend to hang back

 

[sheddy]

Yes

 

[Ian H]

This 1.5 metre stuff is a complete load of old cobblers. How close is safe depends entirely on the speed of the vehicles and how much wind turbulence they generate. A couple of feet is plenty of room in slow urban traffic. 50 or 60 mph overtakes on a fast country road is a different matter entirely. It's all a matter of common sense.

Where common-sense is lacking you need rules. See also speed-limits, drink-driving laws, etc.

 

[mjr]

This 1.5 metre stuff is a complete load of old cobblers. How close is safe depends entirely on the speed of the vehicles and how much wind turbulence they generate. A couple of feet is plenty of room in slow urban traffic. 50 or 60 mph overtakes on a fast country road is a different matter entirely. It's all a matter of common sense.

The trouble with common sense is it's rarely both sense and common!

A couple of feet in urban traffic is basically leaving no margin for error by either driver or rider, as one foot is mostly taken up by handlebars. One sudden violent sneeze by either party and the cyclist could be seriously injured. Don't risk it: gimme five - feet, that is.

 

[Milzy]

One of the apparent drawbacks I've recently noticed with the Safe Pass campaign that's being rolled out in various parts of the country; allow a minimum of 1.5 metres when passing a cyclist, that there are now some drivers so worried that even when they could pass perfectly safely, albeit in less that the 1.5 metres, they tend to hang back, thus sitting behind you for some distance.
Personally, I find this somewhat irritating having a car so close when they could pass perfectly well.
You just can't win eh - ? !

I’ve been saying this for years. Better safe than sorry though. It’s the old people who brush past. I find a few young girls do the hanging back thing.
It doesn’t matter about any safe pass campaign, when they’re on their phones they’ll just hit you.

 

[Drago]

I'm not against the close pass initiative per se, but I do inject to some of the slightly prejudiced advice that the project patronisingly dishes out along with it.

 

[jefmcg]

I'm not against the close pass initiative per se, but I do inject to some of the slightly prejudiced advice that the project patronisingly dishes out along with it.

Even assuming by "inject" you mean "object" it still makes little sense.

For me, many drivers are so bad around cyclists, that I am ok with authorities talking to them as if they were toddlers. They drive like toddlers walk.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Many drivers are unable to drive their machines safely around vulnerable road users. So laws or police advice to help them is needed. The drivers are not being patronised, they need to be told / enforce to make it safer for other users.

 

[Drago]

Many drivers are unable to drive their machines safely around vulnerable road users. So laws or police advice to help them is needed. The drivers are not being patronised, they need to be told / enforce to make it safer for other users.

I meant some of the advice to cyclists with the standard "close pass" kit was a bit patronising.

 

[mikeymustard]

It may not be perfect (for many reasons) but it's the first positive step towards cycling safety - and possibly even a step along the way to the "holy grail" of assumed responsibility. Most "safety" advice usually involves demonising cyclists for not dressing up like a hiviz CBeebies presenter, yet we all know that you can be visible from space and some feckwit will still claim they didnt see you!
Most of the money allocated to cycle safety seems to've been spent on either segregating us or lumping us with pedestrians. Apart from the close pass initiatives all education seems to reinforce the view that cycling is dangerous, which is all arse backwards.
Close pass seems to be the first thing to nudge attitudes the right way.
The two forces that have properly bought into this initiative i.e. West mids & Surrey, spend time and effort educating not just drivers but other police forces, which I think potentially shows the sociological importance of this

 

[Drago]

The safety advice in the Close Pass literature does demonise cyclists, even if only a little, with its advice to cyclists not to jump red lights. On it's own I would quite agree with that advice. However, in the context of a project intended to promote safe motor vehicle use around cyclists it's an utterly irelevant distraction at best and, as the same advice is not given to car drivers, the very group at which the project is aimed, insulting at worst.

I am supportive of the project. It's a good solid step in the right direction, and hopefully the beginnings of a cultural change towards road safety in general and behaviour towards cyclists in particular. It's just a little distasteful that whoever developed the leaflets couldn't help slipping in a little bit of irrelevant Daily Mail level victim blaming narrative.

Even assuming by "inject" you mean "object" it still makes little sense.

For me, many drivers are so bad around cyclists, that I am ok with authorities talking to them as if they were toddlers. They drive like toddlers walk.

It makes great sense if you'd bothered to ask instead of simply presuming. Mr Mustard made the same presumption, but had the good grace to do so in a civil and polite manner.

As for my typing, well I apologise for having a disability and no feeling in 2 fingers. I'm faced with a choice of going without autocorrect and making things unintelligible, or using autocorrect hand having the odd incorrect word slipped in. I've mentioned this slight handicap many times on this forum and most members are, thankfully, very understanding about it. I do hope my disability doesn't make my posts too onerous for you to read.

 

[Salty seadog]

There's no excuse for a close pass is brainless idiots who either are ignorant or just don't care about the consequences of it going wrong.

A different sort of close pass last night, I was going through Hackney Wick fully lit up with good lights when the second car in the queue of oncoming traffic thought 30mph wasn't good enough so roared around the car in front straight at me, I had to bail sharply to the left scraping the kerb. I stayed on but that tunics have done for me and didn't look like caring. Missed me by about a foot.

Hang backers, well I wave them through if I'm happy for it. No need to be held up unnecessarily and always wave a thank you or a thumbs up.

 

[mikeymustard]

@Drago I absolutely agree that it's patronising (and I did say it wasn't perfect), but I'd like to think that this red light advice might've been a deliberate attempt to derail the "but cyclists are a danger to themselves" argument. I've read enough of the comments on YouTube and the hate mailonline sites to know that there's some proper sick puppies out there