Idea: 20mph when passing child cyclists

[Richard Mann]

If our MPs really want to protect child cyclists, why not address the problem at source: make it obligatory to slow to 20mph when passing child cyclists. Is there ever any reason to drive past children on the road at greater speed?

 

[HLaB]

If our MPs really want to protect child cyclists, why not address the problem at source: make it obligatory to slow to 20mph when passing child cyclists. Is there ever any reason to drive past children on the road at greater speed?

Good idea in theory but the practicalities would rule it out.

 

[Bman]

The practicalities being: Most car drivers wont slow down for speed limits let alone children?

 

[Klaus]

The practicalities being: Most car drivers wont slow down for speed limits let alone children?

I sometimes slow down to 20 or less for adult cyclists ...... I see very few children on bicycles ....

 

[Mad at urage]

Practicalities being: Policeman seeing/suspecting the alleged offence would need to whip a speed camera out of his pocket, be fully trained in it's use, instantly assess the background/other vehicles present and conclude that they would not interfere with the measurement .... all needing to stand up in court (in case the alleged offender refused the FPN) - oh, and catch the alleged offender.

Of course a traffic car wouldn't need a speed camera, they would need to be present, not tasked with other duties (on the way to a reported burglary e.g.), spot the cyclist, spot the offence give chase (past the child at speed) ...

Practicalities. Another unenforceable law.

 

[Richard Mann]

Practicalities. Another unenforceable law.

Exactly - ideal for a private members bill. I wouldn't want it enforced with any more than an informal warning, generally - the point is to change culture, not to fine people.

 

[GrasB]

Just a thought... what's safer for a child (or anyone) a 20mph with 2-3ft between them or a 30mph pass with the motor vehicle in the opposite lane? Also which is going to be more enforceable?

 

[funnymummy]

Exactly - ideal for a private members bill. I wouldn't want it enforced with any more than an informal warning, generally - the point is to change culture, not to fine people.

There are numerous things that I believe included in the Highway Code, I appreciate they would be for the most unenforacable, but if they were taught from the word go.
Instilled into new drivers from the very first driving lesson & a more in depth knowlegde of the HC included as part of passing your test/getting a license, then I believe we would be able to create a better culture.

 

[MontyVeda]

Most drivers seem to treat the overtaking of horses and riders with far more respect than overtaking cyclists. However not being a horse rider I could be completely wrong here.

In my ignorance, never having driven, I assume that drivers are taught best practice when passing horses from the outset... so the same should go for cyclists and mobility scooters.

Not sure about having to slow down to 20mph though as in built up areas, this would only add to congestion further back down the road, but cars can usually do a safe over take at speed.

 

[Richard Mann]

Not sure about having to slow down to 20mph though as in built up areas, this would only add to congestion further back down the road, but cars can usually do a safe over take at speed.

Kids almost always use roads that should be 20mph anyway, in built-up areas. So it doesn't really change anything, except formalise one reason _why_ they should be slowing down. Because there are like, other road users, that they are supposed to see and behave appropriately around.

 

[mcr]

Also, how do you define a child, when the driver's decision can only be based on appearance? Plenty of 'boy racers' (and girls) around here in their mid-teens who are technically children, but under helmet and glasses could be anything from 12 to 25.

Wouldn't it be better (and arguably more inforceable) to make it obligatory to pass any cyclist/pedestrian/horse allowing at least a specified gap (as, I believe, is the case in France) of, say, 1.5m? And better still for the HC to say something like you 'should only overtake when it is safe to use the opposite carriageway (on standard A, B & lesser roads) when the speed limit is more than 30'?

Overtaking distance is as much an issue as speed, and personally I'd hope drivers would be trained to slow down to pass any 'obstacle' (worst round here are drivers coming towards you on single-lane roads who barely slow down and expect you to leap into the verge/gravel for them).