Petition to No. 10 - please do read and sign if you can!

glenncampbell

Hi all,

This was posted up on xcracer.com by Roy - it's a petition to make 3 feet the minimum overtaking distance for drivers overtaking cyclists, as oppossed to 3cm if we're lucky in London.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/3feet2Pass/

Please do sign it if you get a chance - every little helps. . . . .

beverick

Enact that law as it's written and the next time a cyclist is struck by someone opening a car door the police would prosecute the cyclist.

It would also define "too close" for cycists with regards to rule 163 in the HC:

"Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should...not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake."

So if you want the law to safeguard the driver of a 44 tonne truck when, travelling at 70mph, they pass 36.1 inches from a cyclist go for it.......

Bob

spen666

beverick wrote:

Enact that law as it's written and the next time a cyclist is struck by someone opening a car door the police would prosecute the cyclist.

It would also define "too close" for cycists with regards to rule 163 in the HC:

"Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should...not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake."

So if you want the law to safeguard the driver of a 44 tonne truck when, travelling at 70mph, they pass 36.1 inches from a cyclist go for it.......

Bob

I'm not sure how you go to your first line. Have I missed something?

shouldbeinbed

Beverick, you don't say whether you signed it or not

I can't open the link at work for some reason but I guess it details the onus of blame onto the overtaking object whatever it is, so a cyclist taken out 2 and a half feet from a randomly opened car door would automatically be considered to be at fault as the overtaker.

if thats right, it'd be interesting to see how that squared with the assertions on the recent 'bike hits opened passenger door whilst riding on the pavement' thread that the responsibility is on the vehicle driver to ensure it is safe to open their door prior to doing so.

theres only one way to sort it out, fiiiiiggggghhhhtttttttttt...............

serious question tho , probably to Spen, if there are contrasting laws on both sides of the same incident how is priority and culpability sorted? case by case consideration or is there a poker hand hierachy of laws?

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

Enact that law as it's written and the next time a cyclist is struck by someone opening a car door the police would prosecute the cyclist.

......

Bob

I'm not sure how you go to your first line. Have I missed something?

It's hypothetical and tenuous (so I won't be entering into further debate) but my line of thought was that, by assuming that the cyclist wasn't present when the vehicle was parked the motorist will by definition have left the distance required by law. Therefore, and given that this is a fair assumption, if a cyclist is then knocked off by a door being opened they must have entered into the space left by the motorist. Hence the proposed legislation could be used to provide prima facie evidence that the cycist was riding carelessly at the point of impact.

Bob

ps By the way, I won't be signing the petition as I belive the legislation would weaken the legal position of the cyclist.

spen666

beverick wrote:

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

Enact that law as it's written and the next time a cyclist is struck by someone opening a car door the police would prosecute the cyclist.

......

Bob

I'm not sure how you go to your first line. Have I missed something?

It's hypothetical and tenuous (so I won't be entering into further debate) but my line of thought was that, by assuming that the cyclist wasn't present when the vehicle was parked the motorist will by definition have left the distance required by law. Therefore, and given that this is a fair assumption, if a cyclist is then knocked off by a door being opened they must have entered into the space left by the motorist. Hence the proposed legislation could be used to provide prima facie evidence that the cycist was riding carelessly at the point of impact.

Bob

ps By the way, I won't be signing the petition as I belive the legislation would weaken the legal position of the cyclist.

I find your interpretation of the wording of the petition strange. I don't see the negativity in it that you do and am puzzled whee you find the negativity.

The wording could not mean the cyclist is committing an offence.

It is worded clearly to cover mororists passing cyclists. It does not cover the reverse situation.

how do you come to theconclusion it will weaken the cyclists position?

Paulie W

Isnt it advised in the HC to pass by much more than 3ft? There are also clearly circumstances when 3 ft would not be enough room e.g, the lorry passing at high speed mentioned above. The danger is that 3ft doesnt become the minimum but becomes the norm give or take a foot or two either way. Just as most drivers will happily do high 30s in a 30 zone, 85-90 on a motorway, etc, I can easily see drivers testing that limit. Of course some will already pass closely but enshrining this distance in law seems to me to be a mistake.

singlespeedexplosif

3ft not nearly enough.

spen666

3 feet is better than the 3 inches you get at present if lucky

simple_salmon

Imagine the scenario:

You are cycling along in one lane with empty road ahead of you; on the other side is a long line of gridlocked traffic.

You have a car behind who has waited patiently but who wants to overtake; a queue is starting to form behind them.

Unfortunately it's going to be a long time before the car can overtake with 3 feet of room because of the gridlock on the other side so, would you rather the cars come past you slowly but closer than 3 feet or have a queue of (possibly) impatient drivers forming behind?

Personally I'd rather the first option because I'd rather someone passed me slowly and carefully BEFORE they've got to the point of impatience but they wouldn't get the option if this OP was law.

If you prefer the second option how long would you be prepared to have a queue forming before you felt awkward (if ever) and would you pull over?

1892

done

twowheelthrill

The Gov'ner's response is thus:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22257

gabriel959

twowheelthrill wrote:

The Gov'ner's response is thus:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22257

A good pile of sh1te - that they take all those months in order to write that tripe really makes me feel angry.

downfader

gabriel959 wrote:

twowheelthrill wrote:

The Gov'ner's response is thus:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22257

A good pile of sh1te - that they take all those months in order to write that tripe really makes me feel angry.

I agree, and as I said on another cycling forum earlier the last paragraph is simply a f***ing salespitch. :evil:

iRider

Nice work!

bexley5200

unfortunetly most car truck drivers are not cyclists and some do not give room to bikes thats life