Government response to 3Feet2Pass epetition

[semislickstick]

Good. I don't deem 3 feet to be an appropriate overtaking distance, especially from HGVs.

I'd much rather that the current rule was slightly reworded "you MUST give cyclists the same space as a car". If you had that there could be no argument over close overtakes.

Minimum was 3 ft, up to 5 ft. The petition could have been worded better, I liked the European laws better.

Thomas, that still sounds ambiguous. You mean the width of a car or the inch I might leave between the end of my mirror and the other car's mirror?

 

[Twenty Inch]

Now imagine my situation.
I'm riding about 3 ft away from the curb in the nearside tyre tracks, or 'normal', or secondary.
There are no parked cars, pedestrian crossings or centre bollard islands, but there are oncoming vehicles in their lane.

The motorist following me knows he can only pass me with a 3 ft airgap. That means on a 12' lane, he will have to put a tyre on the centre catseyes or into the oncoming lane. He's not going to do this, he's going to toot his horn to tell me to move left.

Do I move left?
Do I hold my position?

You move right, slow down, and give him a nice cheery wave. I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

 

[downfader]

..and what size car are we talking here? Mini? Hummer..? One is three times wider than the other

 

[thomas]

Minimum was 3 ft, up to 5 ft. The petition could have been worded better, I liked the European laws better.

Thomas, that still sounds ambiguous. You mean the width of a car or the inch I might leave between the end of my mirror and the other car's mirror?

I'd agree, but not for your reasons. Cars are different sizes so overtaking a car may require different spaces. In reality though, it's not that hard to understand.

I wouldn't be against a change in the law, but I feel the existing law is better than 3 feet. 5 feet or a meter and a half would be more sensible.

The thing is, if you told some people to walk 5 feet or 10 meters down the road, or whatever, they'd have no idea how to judge that. Where as if you overtake a car, you generally are required to go over the white lines in the middle of the road, which is a simple idea.

In reality, the highway code could say you must give flowers and wave when overtaking cyclists with at least 5 feet....it's not going to happen.

It'd be much better to educate drivers to why giving cyclists plenty of space is required as many would not know. Like you said about the distance between cars, many people probably don't realise why doing that with a cyclist isn't safe, rather than doing it because we're just bloody cyclists.

 

[semislickstick]

It'd be much better to educate drivers to why giving cyclists plenty of space is required as many would not know. Like you said about the distance between cars, many people probably don't realise why doing that with a cyclist isn't safe, rather than doing it because we're just bloody cyclists.

You are right, education is better, I'd just have thought most people would understand one inch clearance you might get away with passing a parked car 'as much as you would a car', isn't/can't possibly be confused with 3 feet(which you wouldn't actually get, but one or two feet is better than one inch!).
But without backing up the reasons, it just becomes another Daily Mail rant.

 

[thomas]

You are right, education is better, I'd just have thought most people would understand one inch clearance you might get away with passing a parked car 'as much as you would a car', isn't/can't possibly be confused with 3 feet(which you wouldn't actually get, but one or two feet is better than one inch!).
But without backing up the reasons, it just becomes another Daily Mail rant.

I think (or really, really want to ) you'd really struggle to find someone who'd read the same space as a car as the space between cars, rather than overtaking them as if they're a car.

The problem is a lot of people just aren't away that giving the same space as a car is the law or recommended. I bet a lot of adult drivers (and probably younger ones too - even with the theory test) have a poor understanding on parts of the highway code...other than the main bits.

 

[marinyork]

I think (or really, really want to ) you'd really struggle to find someone who'd read the same space as a car as the space between cars, rather than overtaking them as if they're a car.

Unfortunately not. When we're previously done this debate you discover how many highway code literalists are on this forum, giving the most generous interpretation possible to the motorist in this exact case. When people go on about RLJing and all that nonsense and not helping ourselves, in fact I think this rule is one where we don't help ourselves.

 

[BentMikey]

Foxtrot oscar with 3 feet to pass. It's just not good enough.

 

[jimboalee]

Another scenario regarding 3foot2pass.

Cyclist riding along country A road. Single carriageway with one 12' lane in each direction. Clear road ahead.
Cyclist riding 3ft out at 15 mph in a 40 mph limit. Steady stream of cars in other direction dissallows Audi A8 following the cyclist to overtake.

Hill approaches and cyclist slows to 10 mph. Still a steady stream of vehicles in other direction and Audi is starting to get impatient.

Audi blows his horn.

Cyclist pulls over to the curb and stops to let tailback pass before restarting again to continue his ride.

PS It's the A4141 at Chadwick End any afternoon.
At present, I've got used to cars passing closer than 3ft. If there was a 3ft ruling ( and Audi was a law abiding citizen ) he'd have to wait for about another 2 miles to pass me after the brow of the hill.

I'd be inclined to pull aside into Arbor Tree Lane to let them through.

 

[BentMikey]

Jimbo, stop acting like a mook. It's just good manners to pull over and let a vehicle or queue of vehicles past. Many of us do this regularly.

 

[semislickstick]

Clearly needs a narrower than 3 feet cycle lane then, eh Mickey? Then you would be 'safe' Jim.


But in a practical world, a minimum of 3 feet in law without harassment, give and take with in safety, would protect cyclists, or at least make an accident case easier to prove.

Ideally I'd want more than 3 feet, I'd want my own track and priority as a vulnerable road user, at every junction/crossing. It happens in other countries.

 

[marinyork]

But in a practical world, a minimum of 3 feet in law without harassment, give and take with in safety, would protect cyclists, or at least make an accident case easier to prove.

In a practical world the minimum wouldn't be relevant in an accident case - it is for the other vehicle to overtake safely. If they want to fool around that's fine but if they mess it up it's their fault.

 

[jimboalee]

The 'Powers at be' have weighed up the implications of such a ruling and come to the conclusion it would not benefit the motorist.

It would be nice to have some sideways clearance for a change. Being passed close has become so frequent, it's expected.

Over half of my commute is on 50 mph limit roads. In the afternoon, I get close passes where I can feel the breeze. I ride 3ft out mostly. When I hear something big approaching, I give a backward glance and get prepared for a wash of warm air.

Some of the road has a solid white down the centre. There's somewhere I don't mind them 'bending the rules' a bit if it means they stay away from me.

But alas. I don't think we'll see a 3ft rule.

 

[PBancroft]

In my honest opinion, I'm surprised at the answer but possibly not for the reason you'd expect. I signed the petition, but really it was so badly worded it barely warranted a second glance. It didn't explain the needs or benefits of the rule, only that the Americans are doing it so we should too.

I don't think that the powers that be weighed it up at all - there wasn't really anything to weigh up. They wouldn't see what was to the benefit of the motorist, or to the cyclist. I think a better formatted petition, with appropriate evidence included, might have an impact... it might not, though really this one was a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[jimboalee]

They weighed it up for as long as it takes to say "That will make a lot of motorists angry, Minister".