snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Which is my interpretation of the existing Highway Code advice for drivers overtaking cyclists
.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Why have you done a half-finished drawing of the crucifixion!?
Jesus's half brother?
My 5 year old is half way through one of his. She's using it as a stepping stone before tackling the harder book about a hungry caterpillar.
jefmcg
Guru
Yeah, it's not ideal, but my google fu let me down trying to find an overhead image of a cyclist.
I thought the point of the mat was to show a driver how far 1.5m. Instead of saying to a driver "you have to stay 1.5 metres from a cyclist" which might get an honest, if incorrect "yeah, I did", the police can say "you have to stay THIS far" and show them.
The .75m thing seems like a distraction.
OP
OP
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
Not all roads have another lane. So the passing distance is relevant for drivers on such roads.
And on an urban roads with parked cars, just going into the other lane is likely to be too close. So the passing distance is relevant in some situations on roads with a lane each way as well.
OP
OP
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
I live in an area where there are quite a few roads with no lane markings in the middle. I ride on them a lot and rarely get close passes. But I do get the occasional one and I don't agree that this kind of road is not the issue.
My point was that even if you can get into the other lane properly, you could be too close if the cyclist is cycling past parked cars. If they are allowing enough space to be outside the door zone, they could be cycling almost on the centreline of the road, in which case on many roads a car overtaking could be too close even if completely in the other lane.
I assume the police could invite the car driver to place their car on/near the mat to let them see what that distance looks like from their car? As others have said, though, it would be helpful if there was a bike there.
Presumably up to the coppers to emphasize this is a minimum distance.
jefmcg
Guru
It's going to get funded. Any minute now.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
How about buying a lot of 4x2 the correct size , then getting the driver to kneel how close he thinks is safe or the distance he was judged to be at from a starting point , then swinging the 4x2 from the start point .
That would sort it sharpishi think
That would sort it sharpishi think
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Excellent news. Now they can buy a a quarter of a policeman to go use them
marknotgeorge
Hol den Vorschlaghammer!
- Location
- Derby.
Look, if you're going to borrow the kids' books, leave them where they can reach them when you've finished!
Chris Juden is unamused:
"Fed up with dangerous overtaking that's too close for comfort?" Says Paul Touhy in a recent circular email.
Yes Paul, I am. That's why I voted FOR motion 14 at the last AGM, calling for a legal minimum passing distance. Where were you on that one Paul? Oh I remember, you got your tame Councillors to stamp all over it! First with a disagreeable response in Cycle magazine, secondly at the meeting and thirdly, in spite of having lost the argument not only with those in the room but also 'postal' votes, by dumping all of the unthinking votes vested in the Chair, onto the hitherto almost empty NO side of the balance!
Having been told by your "reluctant to specify" Council that "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don't want to give drivers the idea that it is." I find that picture of you enthusiastically specifying precisely 1.5m, quite ironic. Please explain why this is a terribly bad idea when it comes from the CTC grassroots, the members who pay your wages Paul, in case you forgot, but a terribly good idea when it's yours?
I remember the days when CTC was a bottom-up organisation, when I for one was proud to serve the members. Seems to me that CUK is well and truly top-down, with members mere foot-soldiers in campaigns directed by staff.
But wait, it isn't your idea is it Paul. You got this from Manchester Police. CTC would've and CUK could've led the way, if only staff and council didn't have a knee-jerk response to anything suggested by long-time CTC members. But instead taking the initiative in this and so many recent campaigns, CUK is reduced to the status of a 'waggoner'!
So: you want a tenner from me do you Paul, for this campaign that was such a bad idea only ten months ago? Some cheek! If you'd asked me before the 7th May 2016, you'd have got it. But if you want my money now you're going to have to eat some humble pie, apologise on behalf of Staff and Council for their short-sighted and unnecessarily damning response to Colin Clarke's popular and non-controversial motion, and promise to pay more heed in future to people who've been members of CTC a whole lot longer than you.
Yes Paul, I am. That's why I voted FOR motion 14 at the last AGM, calling for a legal minimum passing distance. Where were you on that one Paul? Oh I remember, you got your tame Councillors to stamp all over it! First with a disagreeable response in Cycle magazine, secondly at the meeting and thirdly, in spite of having lost the argument not only with those in the room but also 'postal' votes, by dumping all of the unthinking votes vested in the Chair, onto the hitherto almost empty NO side of the balance!
Having been told by your "reluctant to specify" Council that "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don't want to give drivers the idea that it is." I find that picture of you enthusiastically specifying precisely 1.5m, quite ironic. Please explain why this is a terribly bad idea when it comes from the CTC grassroots, the members who pay your wages Paul, in case you forgot, but a terribly good idea when it's yours?
I remember the days when CTC was a bottom-up organisation, when I for one was proud to serve the members. Seems to me that CUK is well and truly top-down, with members mere foot-soldiers in campaigns directed by staff.
But wait, it isn't your idea is it Paul. You got this from Manchester Police. CTC would've and CUK could've led the way, if only staff and council didn't have a knee-jerk response to anything suggested by long-time CTC members. But instead taking the initiative in this and so many recent campaigns, CUK is reduced to the status of a 'waggoner'!
So: you want a tenner from me do you Paul, for this campaign that was such a bad idea only ten months ago? Some cheek! If you'd asked me before the 7th May 2016, you'd have got it. But if you want my money now you're going to have to eat some humble pie, apologise on behalf of Staff and Council for their short-sighted and unnecessarily damning response to Colin Clarke's popular and non-controversial motion, and promise to pay more heed in future to people who've been members of CTC a whole lot longer than you.
