Minimum Passing Distance Petition
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Vipers said:
Even if it was put in the HC, it wouldn't make much difference, most motorists don't know half of the code as it is.
A non starter really. And yes I am a motorist and cyclist. On the subject of bikes, pity more dont have bells on them so they can indicate their presence when cycling on shared walks with pedestrians.
[shrug] I've got bells on ALL of my bikes. I use those bells to warn A non starter really. And yes I am a motorist and cyclist. On the subject of bikes, pity more dont have bells on them so they can indicate their presence when cycling on shared walks with pedestrians.
On the subject of pedestrians on shared use paths, a pity more of them don't have some form of advanced walking training. Perhaps then they'd recognise the huge pictograms of pedestrians and bicycles painted either side of that solid white line down the middle of the path, and stick to the side which best matches their description. And FFS quit staring at me like I've taken a dump in your handbag when I pass you when YOU are on the WRONG SIDE of the path AND you ignored my frantic ringing of my bell. This is exactly why cyclists choose to ignore these useless white elephant "cycle facilities" and revert to riding on the road...
davepoth said:
In the UK, cycling is a "lifestyle choice"; shaved legs, lycra, nutrition, sportives, holidays to watch the TdF, the lot. That's a bit abnormal. Most of Europe just hops on an old bike in their work clothes and pedals to work.
So the Italians, French, Belgians, Germans, Swiss, Spanish, Dutch and Skandi's don't make this lifestyle choice along with us?
Vipers said:
yellowjack said:
Vipers said:
Even if it was put in the HC, it wouldn't make much difference, most motorists don't know half of the code as it is.
A non starter really. And yes I am a motorist and cyclist. On the subject of bikes, pity more dont have bells on them so they can indicate their presence when cycling on shared walks with pedestrians.
[shrug] I've got bells on ALL of my bikes. I use those bells to warn A non starter really. And yes I am a motorist and cyclist. On the subject of bikes, pity more dont have bells on them so they can indicate their presence when cycling on shared walks with pedestrians.
On the subject of pedestrians on shared use paths, a pity more of them don't have some form of advanced walking training. Perhaps then they'd recognise the huge pictograms of pedestrians and bicycles painted either side of that solid white line down the middle of the path, and stick to the side which best matches their description. And FFS quit staring at me like I've taken a dump in your handbag when I pass you when YOU are on the WRONG SIDE of the path AND you ignored my frantic ringing of my bell. This is exactly why cyclists choose to ignore these useless white elephant "cycle facilities" and revert to riding on the road...
JustinF said:
I don't have a bell, but I'm a conscientious rider so when on shared use paths and coming up behind pedestrians, after slowing, I tend to call out 'two bikes coming by on your right'. half of the time it works, the other half of the time it's someone so ingrained to servile instruction they just hear 'right' and step into my path. You can't win.
Some are just idiots. The only time I don't ring my bell is if I am approaching a horse and rider, in which case I call out "I am coming up behind you".4x4Tyke said:
yellowjack said:
So whilst it might not seem fair (Wah! Wah! It's not faaaaaiiiiir! He's CHEATING!!!!! 
)
You keep thinking that, it will serve you well. )
And FYI - I'm one driving licence short of a 'full house'. The only one I don't have is coach, and I received training up to test standard on that category too. I've been on both sides of the HGV steering wheel so know exactly how to behave around them. Oh, and if I'm passing stationary traffic, I tend to do it on the offside of the queue unless there's a proper cycle lane on the nearside, or a damned good reason not to.
Push another button, sweetheart - the only thing I dispense is wisdom...
And again, I'll ask where you think the relevance is in your reply, given that...
yellowjack said:
If a car clips an elbow or the handlebar of a bicycle while passing it, it's likely that the rider ends up on the floor. Quite possibly UNDER the car. Death is quite a high possibility in this scenario.
If a bicycle rider gets it wrong whilst passing a car too closely and clips the door mirror of that car, the car is likely to remain largely undamaged, and the driver might not even notice if they are paying as much attention as most do during 'rush hour' (
@ 'rush' hour). The car will certainly not move, nor fall over beneath the wheels of the bicycle.
So whilst it might not seem fair (Wah! Wah! It's not faaaaaiiiiir! He's CHEATING!!!!! ), it is entirely proportional AND reasonable to expect a fast moving car to leave plenty of space when passing more vulnerable road users. The definition of what "plenty of space" constitutes varies between vehicle types. Slower moving vehicles having lower mass pose lower risks than heavier, faster moving ones so please, quit being obtuse for once in your life.
Which was posted by way of explanation as to why a cyclist is better able to judge what constitutes "enough room" for him than the driver over six feet away in a big metal box, in response to...If a bicycle rider gets it wrong whilst passing a car too closely and clips the door mirror of that car, the car is likely to remain largely undamaged, and the driver might not even notice if they are paying as much attention as most do during 'rush hour' (
@ 'rush' hour). The car will certainly not move, nor fall over beneath the wheels of the bicycle.So whilst it might not seem fair (Wah! Wah! It's not faaaaaiiiiir! He's CHEATING!!!!!
), it is entirely proportional AND reasonable to expect a fast moving car to leave plenty of space when passing more vulnerable road users. The definition of what "plenty of space" constitutes varies between vehicle types. Slower moving vehicles having lower mass pose lower risks than heavier, faster moving ones so please, quit being obtuse for once in your life.4x4Tyke said:
Will this also apply when cyclists are undertaking ?
Edited by yellowjack on Monday 16th May 21:00
RicharDC5 said:
Totally pointless.
The vast majority of drivers are considerate when passing cyclists to reduce the risk of crashing into them. For those who brush past at 40mph, if the the risk of killing someone isn't enough persuasion to give someone a bit more room then I doubt a small fine will change anything.
Nail on head. People who don't give enough room don't care. Same as people who speed excessively, drink and drive, use heir mobile etc.The vast majority of drivers are considerate when passing cyclists to reduce the risk of crashing into them. For those who brush past at 40mph, if the the risk of killing someone isn't enough persuasion to give someone a bit more room then I doubt a small fine will change anything.
Even if it was easy to enforce, which it isn't and there was a massive push by the police to do so, a fine of few quid wont change the hearts and minds of people who already don't give a flying f
k.My experience is that 20% give you the proper amount of room, 20% try and fail (lots of room, blind corner, car coming other way, quickly swerve), 50% give enough room that you don't feel endangered but given the choice a bit more would have been nice. The final 10% scare the s
t out of you. Some examples of how the issue is dealt with in other countries...
"Respect Cyclists. Maintain 1.5 metres passing distance". From Brazil, I think. My Portuguese is not so good, so Google translated it for me
Local State (not federal govt) signage from the USA.
Definitely Brazil, courtesy of a Strava follower... "Respect The Cyclist In Training" ...whether that means 'racers' on chain gangs or kids learning to ride, I'm not sure. No specified distance with this one though.
More positive, less authoritarian approach here which might get better results? "On A Bicycle Does A Cyclist Not want To Live - Respect Us"
The big drawback to this sort of 'safety campaign' is that it costs in materials, design focus groups, and installation. And all we end up with is yet more largely ignored signs cluttering up the road network. Too many signs means it gets "too busy" to read them all properly and they can be distracting and even downright dangerous when they restrict visibility.
And for the purposes of balance...
"And Cyclists, Respect Me?"
...which is a point already made, I believe, whereby if such a law was passed, or a 'minimum distance' campaign took off, then we'd be on the receiving end of a campaign to require us by law to use cycle facilities where they exist, even if they were of a poor standard, crowded with pedestrians, or taking us the long way round. I'm not defending the riders in that photo, or lambasting them, as for all I know that could have been taken during a bona fide cycle race, but I understand the point being made.
I don't know what the solution is, but I strongly feel that the law sought by the organisers of this petition is most certainly not it. And as I have already said, I don't think that 1 Metre is sufficient space in certain situations at anything more than a crawl. These South american campaigns seem to agree with that, looking instead for 1.5 Metres of passing space.
"Respect Cyclists. Maintain 1.5 metres passing distance". From Brazil, I think. My Portuguese is not so good, so Google translated it for me
Local State (not federal govt) signage from the USA.
Definitely Brazil, courtesy of a Strava follower... "Respect The Cyclist In Training" ...whether that means 'racers' on chain gangs or kids learning to ride, I'm not sure. No specified distance with this one though.
More positive, less authoritarian approach here which might get better results? "On A Bicycle Does A Cyclist Not want To Live - Respect Us"
The big drawback to this sort of 'safety campaign' is that it costs in materials, design focus groups, and installation. And all we end up with is yet more largely ignored signs cluttering up the road network. Too many signs means it gets "too busy" to read them all properly and they can be distracting and even downright dangerous when they restrict visibility.
And for the purposes of balance...
"And Cyclists, Respect Me?"
...which is a point already made, I believe, whereby if such a law was passed, or a 'minimum distance' campaign took off, then we'd be on the receiving end of a campaign to require us by law to use cycle facilities where they exist, even if they were of a poor standard, crowded with pedestrians, or taking us the long way round. I'm not defending the riders in that photo, or lambasting them, as for all I know that could have been taken during a bona fide cycle race, but I understand the point being made.
I don't know what the solution is, but I strongly feel that the law sought by the organisers of this petition is most certainly not it. And as I have already said, I don't think that 1 Metre is sufficient space in certain situations at anything more than a crawl. These South american campaigns seem to agree with that, looking instead for 1.5 Metres of passing space.
Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 19th May 12:14
HardtopManual said:
The thread is about minimum passing distance. Someone popped up to state that someone who is riding a bike shouldn't expect someone who is driving a car to leave a safe passing distance, because riding in cycle lanes isn't compulsory. He claimed authority to say this because he sometimes rides a bicycle, however his example journey did not sound like it was made on a busy road. I didn't say anything about utility cycling (which I do loads of, and love) nor did I mention pelotons or lycra, because it's irrelevant.
I presume you are talking about me. I would be very interested if you could please point out where in my post I said that you should not expect a car to pass safely, I was trying to point out that not using a provided cycle lane is deliberately putting yourself in harms way and extremely annoying for those stuck behind you and is probably one of the reasons that idiots force their way past without leaving sufficient room. Oh and no my little jaunt was not along a busy road BECAUSE WE USED THE CYCLE PATH!HardtopManual said:
You inferred that cyclists who don't use cycle paths should expect to get passed too closely, why else would you even mention cycle paths in a thread about passing distances? Lucky you having usable cycle paths where you ride.
Really, I inferred that you should expect to get passed too closely? Re-read my post, highlight where I stated this and enlighten me, failing that go polish the enormous chip on your shoulder it's getting filthy.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff