The 1.5 Metre Gap is Silly

[grldtnr]

Everyone has the right to use the roads. Motor vehicles, however, are only allowed under license which can be revoked.

The relevant act is the 1888 local authority act , section75, which stipulated the rights of cyclist, horse riders & carriages , and animals to have a staotury right to the highways, the councils of the day had to provide for traffic on the roads.
Cars didn't really come in untill around 1900,

 

[Gwylan]

The only silly thing here is your post!




It’s dead simple: KE = ½ mv²

That's a bit technical for some car drivers.

Recently I've experienced an increasing number of close encounters of the worst kind.

That is cars approaching at speed and then being brushed by the wing mirror - or far closer that I feel comfortable with.

A real time video camera might be pushing up the list.
Might have more effect than the bellowed obscenity.

 

[Mike_P]

I do have an issue with the not riding on a pavement especially when its school kids whose only alternatives are either a busy A road or not to cycle. If a cyclist passes a pedestrian using a foot on the floor to propell strictly they are not cycling and actually taking up less space than if they were walking wheeling the bike.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That is cars approaching at speed and then being brushed by the wing mirror - or far closer that I feel comfortable with.

A real time video camera might be pushing up the list.
Might have more effect than the bellowed obscenity.

You could always use one of the many Pass Pixi products to warn drivers you are filming, even ifyou aren’t. Cheaper than a camera.

That's a bit technical for some car drivers.

Fair enough.

For the OP, I’ll give an example of each, so s/he can see the reason that the car driver has to give more space:

1st, my car travelling at 30mph has 180,000 J of kinetic energy.

2nd, a cyclist filtering at 15mph has just 2,020 J of kinetic energy.

 

[Littgull]

I'm both a driver and a cyclist, and I find the law requiring cars to leave a 1.5-meter gap when overtaking cyclists is silly.

Many roads in the UK are small, making it difficult to maintain that distance without putting other drivers in unsafe positions. Additionally, I think it's a bit unfair that this rule doesn't apply the other way. Often, when cyclists overtake or undertake cars, they only leave a few inches of space.

In my opinion, cyclists should ride on the path as I do, (when clear) rather than sharing the road with cars as it is safer for everybody.

What do you all think?

Surely this is some kind of wind up by the OP?

With 'friends' like @Lightning CycleQueen, who needs enemies!

Excellent responses from fellow outraged CCers though 👍

 

[boydj]

I'm both a driver and a cyclist, and I find the law requiring cars to leave a 1.5-meter gap when overtaking cyclists is silly.

Many roads in the UK are small, making it difficult to maintain that distance without putting other drivers in unsafe positions. Additionally, I think it's a bit unfair that this rule doesn't apply the other way. Often, when cyclists overtake or undertake cars, they only leave a few inches of space.

In my opinion, cyclists should ride on the path as I do, (when clear) rather than sharing the road with cars as it is safer for everybody.

What do you all think?

I think you're more of a driver than a cyclist - if you cycle at all.

Drivers should never put other drivers in unsafe positions, especially when overtaking cyclists since it will also endanger the cyclist.

You shouldn't be cycling at all if you don't have the skill and knowledge to cycle safely on the road.

 

[mjr]

It is no more "legal now" than it has ever been.

The highway code is NOT law, it is guidance. Sometimes it refers to actual laws, but in those places it says you MUST or MUST NOT. There is no such text regarding the 1.5m gap, just that as a guideline you should leave tat much (more at speeds above 30mph).

But there is a law against careless driving, and close passing cyclists is careless. The distance was added to the Highway Code to stop idiots claiming there was any doubt if 1m was "close".

 

[oxoman]

I'd hate to think how close they think they can get if the law said less than 1.5m. Personally I'm happy with a metre when the car isn't going stupid speeds, what i hate is when they overtake and cut in close due to oncoming vehicles. Luckily only had 2 occasions when I've been clipped, usually by wing mirrors.

 

[Jenkins]

In my opinion, cyclists should ride on the path as I do, (when clear) rather than sharing the road with cars as it is safer for everybody.

just where are all these clear paths that we should be cycling on then? Round here they've all got cars parked on and blocking them.

 

[classic33]

I'd hate to think how close they think they can get if the law said less than 1.5m. Personally I'm happy with a metre when the car isn't going stupid speeds, what i hate is when they overtake and cut in close due to oncoming vehicles. Luckily only had 2 occasions when I've been clipped, usually by wing mirrors.

Close enough for a handslap on the centre of the roof at 25mph plus.

The chain coming off the opposite shoulder when he dropped back, to put him off trying it again.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Many roads in the UK are small, making it difficult to maintain that distance without putting other drivers in unsafe positions.

Better to put other drivers in unsafe positions as they have steel cages, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones protecting them. Put a vulnerable road user in an unsafe position (by not giving them 1.5 m) and they have no such protection.

Even better don’t try and overtake into oncoming traffic when it is unsafe to do so.

 

[grldtnr]

Seems to e , most respondents to this thread don't think we are given enough room.
Time for a public information film of the old days, also it proves the deteriorating standard of driving , even if many quote the statistics that show that's not the case

Really ? Not what I think.

 

[Gwylan]

You could always use one of the many Pass Pixi products to warn drivers you are filming, even ifyou aren’t. Cheaper than a camera.



Fair enough.

For the OP, I’ll give an example of each, so s/he can see the reason that the car driver has to give more space:

1st, my car travelling at 30mph has 180,000 J of kinetic energy.

2nd, a cyclist filtering at 15mph has just 2,020 J of kinetic energy.

Units are like spelling, quite important to the result communicated.
Joule is an SI unit so we have to use that foreign units stuff.

So, mass in kg and speed in mps.

My bike 20 kg, my speed 20 kph. 20 kph is 5,5 mps
Formula is 1/2mv² , NRF result 250J

My small car weighs, conveniently 1000 kg.
I'm travelling at 30 mph, that 50 kph. Translates into 15 mps.

NRF result is 112,000J

The car has 450 times more KE than the bike.

For the numerically challenged that's 42 football fields of popcorn more. That's the unsalted variety.

 

[cyberknight]

 

[Moderators]

Thread closed for review.