Online Petition to debate 1.5m rule for overtaking cyclists

Pokerface

Not something everyone will agree with and don't want to start the actual debate HERE. It's something I DO believe in (although I didn't start the petition).

But would appreciate it those that DO support the idea to surf over to https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190 and sign the online petition to get enough signatures to have Parliament debate the issue.

It's been live for a few days and already approaching the absolute minimum requirement but would love this to get to 100,000 sigs and encourage a debate.

It takes all of a minute to do. And once done, if you could share via your social media outlets, it will help.

Thanks in advance.

SME

When I was learning to drive my instructor insisted on at least a 6 foot gap when overtaking. He said that's how tall we are when we fall over.

I had an incident on Saturday where I couldn't unclip (cleat came loose on shoe). The screech behind me wouldn't have happened if such a distance was in use. But, just like the use of mobile phones while driving, who will enforce this rule?

Pokerface

I don't have all the answers. And there are many questions....

But the important thing at this stage is to at least get the signatures - and get it debated in Parliament.

Don't let all the 'problems' with it stop it from at least getting to the next step!


(P.S. It is law in other countries- they manage to make it work there so it's not exactly breaking new ground).

sniper68

From the highway code.
Rule 163 give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car:





It clearly states and shows that cars should overtake by crossing the white line.They don't and this cannot be Policed.By reducing this to 1.5m/1m you'd be basically bringing them closer...legally :?: :?:

lincolndave

Signed and shared on Facebook, lets face it driving standards are getting no better

mamba80

Lincolndave wrote:

Signed and shared on Facebook, lets face it driving standards are getting no better

Driving standards are no doubt getting worse because peoples behaviour in general, is getting worse, with congested roads, little road policing, many motorists hatred toward cyclists and a justice system that treats road deaths as inevitable, even when drink/drugs are involved, this petition is a waste of time....sorry.

but i ll sign anyhow!

tangled_metal

Signed but it won't get anywhere near the 100,000 needed for a debate. The limit it is within 20% of reaching is that which gets a response from government. Basically a letter saying they've acknowledged the 10,000 signatures but have no plans to take the matter further. Even at 100,000 signatures you'll probably only get a 10 minute debate at a late hour with about 5 MPs already with an interest in it.

Waste of time but I agree with it on principle so would be hypocritical not to sign.

BTW a few years ago we spotted the Welsh constabulary around the north Wales area we were visiting had bought advertising for the back of parking tickets at the local carparks. The sticker back had the 1.5m cyclist overtake symbol on it. I think there were other notices or ads about it too.

Frank Wilson

Tangled Metal wrote:

Signed but it won't get anywhere near the 100,000 needed for a debate. The limit it is within 20% of reaching is that which gets a response from government. Basically a letter saying they've acknowledged the 10,000 signatures but have no plans to take the matter further. Even at 100,000 signatures you'll probably only get a 10 minute debate at a late hour with about 5 MPs already with an interest in it.

Waste of time but I agree with it on principle so would be hypocritical not to sign.

BTW a few years ago we spotted the Welsh constabulary around the north Wales area we were visiting had bought advertising for the back of parking tickets at the local carparks. The sticker back had the 1.5m cyclist overtake symbol on it. I think there were other notices or ads about it too.

We always have been ground breakers in Wales, see the laws of Hywel Dda (Hywel The Good)

diplodicus

Signed

Pokerface

ibbo68 wrote:

From the highway code.
Rule 163 give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car:





It clearly states and shows that cars should overtake by crossing the white line.They don't and this cannot be Policed.By reducing this to 1.5m/1m you'd be basically bringing them closer...legally :?: :?:

The issues with this are:

A. It's only a guideline
B. It's a wonderful photo, but does not clearly define an actual MINIMUM passing distance. It just shows how you SHOULD pass.
C. Who has actually read the Highway Code recently and seen the photo?
D. It's not a legal requirement and carries no actual weight. There is no penalty or legal protection for cyclists should a car pass you closer, brush against you, etc.
E. Do all cars pass each other this widely?
F. I get passed by cars on a regular basis who don't even come close to crossing the white line.


Anyway - it's not for everyone but if you think the current *GUIDELINE* is enough protection, then don't sign. But don't complain the next time a car speeds past you 2 inches off your side

fat_cat

I've signed it - but I think that there are a lot of people who have no idea how to pass a cyclist.

Not passing when it's clear to do so is as bad as a close pass because it simply winds up the drivers in the queue of cars following, who then blame the cyclist, and then pass too close.

Pituophis

I've signed it, but I think a lot of drivers think they have given you plenty of room based on where they are sitting - " I was nowhere bloody near you mate!"
Can't do any harm to try though.

sniper68

Pokerface wrote:

The issues with this are:

A. It's only a guideline
B. It's a wonderful photo, but does not clearly define an actual MINIMUM passing distance. It just shows how you SHOULD pass.
C. Who has actually read the Highway Code recently and seen the photo?
D. It's not a legal requirement and carries no actual weight. There is no penalty or legal protection for cyclists should a car pass you closer, brush against you, etc.
E. Do all cars pass each other this widely?
F. I get passed by cars on a regular basis who don't even come close to crossing the white line.


Anyway - it's not for everyone but if you think the current *GUIDELINE* is enough protection, then don't sign. But don't complain the next time a car speeds past you 2 inches off your side

So a big Red X in the left hand image isn't an indication of how close too close is and a big Green tick isn't an indication of minimum distance.Looks pretty simple to me but as you say it's just a guideline and no one reads the HC anyway.
So do you actually think passing a law will make drivers pass at 1.5m?Really?
The Law states you must not exceed 70mph on Motorways and everyone obeys that one There are dozens of Motoring Laws broken every day by millions of motorists :roll:
It won't make any difference is it's 1.5m or 15m it will be impossible to Police.This is probably why the UK didn't adopt this when the EU/Australia did etc.
I've signed the Petition just to see if it gets a debate in Parliament but as it's already been discussed and knocked back i doubt it.

rick_chasey

I can think of plenty of instances in London and Cambridge where the rule would be impossible to enforce and it would cause big problems.

It's alright if you're in the sticks.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can think of plenty of instances in London and Cambridge where the rule would be impossible to enforce and it would cause big problems.

It's alright if you're in the sticks.

If you're in the sticks then the roads are most often not wide enough for the 1.5mtrs. I've often been passed by cars in the New Forest where if I reached out I could touch the vehicle.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can think of plenty of instances in London and Cambridge where the rule would be impossible to enforce and it would cause big problems.

It's alright if you're in the sticks.

If you're in the sticks then the roads are most often not wide enough for the 1.5mtrs. I've often been passed by cars in the New Forest where if I reached out I could touch the vehicle.

tbh its not the distance thats the real issue, its the speed, vast majority of cars do not slow at all, combined with overtaking into bends, crest of hills and passing too close (many cars give soooo much room that they are completely on the wrong side of the road, on a pray nothing is coming the other way)
i sometimes wonder whether road cycling is worth the risk anymore.

lakesluddite

Well even if it is mostly unenforceable (it'll be as low on police priorities as riding on the pavement is), but at least it might raise awareness of what the correct way to overtake is. I suspect there are thousands of drivers out there have no idea of what the recommended distance is - I bet if you did a straw poll only about 10-20% of people would be able to tell you. Those that don't give a toss will always not give a toss, but lets target the ignorant rather than the arrogant.
Whatever happened to Public Information Films eh? Think once, Think twice, Think Bike? We could do with one of those for the 'other' type of bike!

Signed. Tweeted.

DeVlaeminck

mamba80 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can think of plenty of instances in London and Cambridge where the rule would be impossible to enforce and it would cause big problems.

It's alright if you're in the sticks.

If you're in the sticks then the roads are most often not wide enough for the 1.5mtrs. I've often been passed by cars in the New Forest where if I reached out I could touch the vehicle.

tbh its not the distance thats the real issue, its the speed, vast majority of cars do not slow at all, combined with overtaking into bends, crest of hills and passing too close (many cars give soooo much room that they are completely on the wrong side of the road, on a pray nothing is coming the other way)
i sometimes wonder whether road cycling is worth the risk anymore.

Combination of both isn't it - I don't mind a car overtaking me at +30mph if it's 3 metres away - if it's one metre away that's a bit different. I'd back the 1.5metre rule - I can't think of many instances where a car should be squeezing past a bike - yes for experienced riders like us it may not always be too much of an issue but when you have kids your perspective changes. I'm sure we've all had overtakes which would have caused an inexperienced rider to crash.

verylonglegs

Made me think of this. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/drive ... _1_4503873

1.5m enough? :?

awavey

Pokerface wrote:

Anyway - it's not for everyone but if you think the current *GUIDELINE* is enough protection, then don't sign. But don't complain the next time a car speeds past you 2 inches off your side

I dont agree that not signing the petition, is in anyway saying you support the current setup at all,

the reason I wont sign it is because how would it magically stop cars speeding past you 2 inches off your side, its not measurable, its not enforceable, it will be treated by motorists in the same way no parking rules, 20mph speed rules, mobile phone rules,tailgaiting rules and any of the other rules they routinely ignore.

so whats the point, ah but the supporters, say if a car hits you then theyll have clearly broken the rule then, great so well just ignore the dont drive into people rules we already have

I wont sign it and Ill carry on complaining about close passes.

Lookyhere

the issue is nt education or any such censored , for some reason when rational normal people get behind a wheel, all common sense goes out the window!
until we have proper sanction for vulnerable road users killed by car drivers and a return to more robust road policing, then nothing will change.
Personally, i d like to see a euro version of any car driver involved in a collision with a cyclist etc the law would say that the driver is at fault, unless they can prove different, aint going happen but it would focus drivers minds on over taking cyclists or how fast they drive past a school etc.

MB phone use whilst driving is illegal but its un enforceable because there are no police out an about and drivers know it, so ignore it, would be the same with a 1.5m rule, no matter how well meaning.

sniper68

The Government has responded and it's as I thought:

You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition.

To unsubscribe: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatur ... Ewg4fB6HZw

Dear **** Ibbo68 ,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “To introduce a permanent, minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists.”.

Government responded:

This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.

This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.

Department for Transport

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... sponse=yes

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition.

To unsubscribe: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatur ... Ewg4fB6HZw

rick_chasey

I tend to agree.

I can think of dozens of roads off the top of my head where it just wouldn't work.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

I tend to agree.

I can think of dozens of roads off the top of my head where it just wouldn't work.

Conclusion.
There are dozens of roads where drivers are passing when it is dangerous to do so, or cyclists are using roads that are dangerous to do so.
And the status quo is a good thing?

rick_chasey

Didn't say that. I'm saying this particular solution isn't workable.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Didn't say that. I'm saying this particular solution isn't workable.

Fair enough.
Propose a better one.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Didn't say that. I'm saying this particular solution isn't workable.

Fair enough.
Propose a better one.

Enforce the existing rules around dangerous driving more rigorously with respect to inappropriate passing distances and speeds?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Didn't say that. I'm saying this particular solution isn't workable.

Fair enough.
Propose a better one.

Enforce the existing rules around dangerous driving more rigorously with respect to inappropriate passing distances and speeds?

I agree.

There is no set appropriate passing distance though, making enforcing it tricky. (Nor anyone to enforce it).
Kind of the point of the OP.

tangled_metal

I'm surprised there's no way to set up a camera based system on problem roads. A mate over 20 years ago wrote algorithms to use existing cctv cameras to live track and monitor containers in a container yard / docks. This was all conditions and times, even nights. If a container number was partially obscured it even extrapolated to fill the blanks. This was at uni 20+ years ago at the very beginning of digital cameras so I'd expect the tech is a lot better now.

Simple camera to record digitally all vehicles passing a certain pinch point on a problem road. Then algorithms determine presence of a bike and gap between bike and vehicle. This gets recorded on the image like a speed camera image for later prosecution.

I might be over simplifying it but surely that's possible.