I agree with this. If you are moving along in even a 30 km/h zone, never mind at 80 km/h, I’m the first one to admit I wouldn’t be able to say if I’m passing someone at 1m50 or 1m75. The guidance to use judgement to pass safely seems to be the most sensible. Clearly if you clip a cyclist, as a motorist you are the one in trouble even if the cyclist has a wobble or loses concentration. There is provision in the law for incidents and accidents, not near misses where everyone is ok except perhaps a bit pissed off.
Doesn’t London mostly have an average speed of 12 mph, though?
It all depends on the tires. Some years ago there was this idea of super narrow tires for “efficiency”. But, this narrow tires are for racing. If the purpose of the bike is commuting, there are commuter bikes with the appropriate tire width for the job. If worried about drains…it’s not the right bike for the job. That race bike is a practical as Lambo Aventador for daily use.
I know some people has something for vintage bikes. But frame geometries, disc brakes, and wider tires with grippier rubber make modern bikes awesome.
There’s a test for bus drivers where they have to work out whether they can pass through a gap between two posts and then drive through it -with literally 5cm each side.
If you have a problem judging a much greater distance, should you be even on the road?
You shouldn’t be limited to heavy chunky tyres just because someone wants to force you into the gutter. In any case, while some of them are virtually puncture-proof, that’s not the case for all, so is no guarantee.
And of course many bikes’ wheels simply cannot be fitted with wider tyres. Modern bikes may be ‘awesome’ but my 80’s Mercian is still the most comfortable bike I’ve ever owned for anything over a couple of kms journey.
Tyres are much wider on racing bikes too now.
Tour de France bikes have between 28mm and 31mm. It used to be around 22mm. Someone actually worked out the rolling resistance calculations and found that a wider tyre, at lower pressure provided less friction.
But otherwise, you think it’s ok for people to cycle in the gutter (drains are lethal in the winter as the cold metal can be covered in clear ice). OK.
I don’t know where you ride, but around here these lanes are about a meter wide, the roads are of very good quality and there is not much dirt. I don’t ride in winter though.
So you want to ride in the middle of the road then AND have cars keep 1.5m distance? No wonder they want to run you over.
Are the posts moving and wobbling and the driver in the bus moving at 30/50/80 km/h to get through them??
Really, that’s not a great comparison, is it? Mr MAMIL with his tight little botty jerking from side to side as he’s peddling like fury, or Mr Commuter weighed down by his messenger bag and shopping for dinner over the handlebars can be all over the show. How can you pass them at a given and consistent distance? I’d love to see Mr Bus Driver do his 5cm test with them. Of course you give them proper room, probably more than they need in case of a spill but my point was that baking a fixed distance into law is a bit impractical. Yes I know “most of Europe” has the law but I’m guessing it’s another of those laws that are easy people-pleasers.
Last time I was at a bike festival, I saw commuter bikes with tires that looked like 40mm wide. Did not measured with a caliper, but they look wider and tires had smallish grooves. That’s certainly an improvement over racing bikes.
Drains with black ice? Well, we mock drivers who don’t adapt to conditions and crash.If conditions are really challenging, take the bus or walk. Testosterone levels won’t fall by using public transport, promise!
It’s strange than although people may find my ideas strange, they don’t seem to understand that their notions are not only strange, but not in line with current safety thinking either.
Police advise cyclists to cycle out from the gutter - why should they cycle at 30Km/h a few centimetres from a curb when a gust of wind, or a close passing truck could move them those few centimetres into the curb stone?
The idea of these sorts of laws is to change attitudes of motorists to more vulnerable road users.
People’s attitudes can be changed: seat belts, helmets for skiing, drink-driving, and so on. (although people on this forum seem pretty set in their ways!).
Here’s what a UK Police Force has said: (@Komsomolez: Obviously I can post what a Swiss Police Force says as they don’t have that law here).
Motorists who overtake cyclists too closely can “expect prosecution, not education,” says a strongly-worded statement from a UK police force. In the statement the West Midlands Police Traffic Unit leaves no doubt who it believes is normally most at fault in smashes involving cyclists and motorists (hint: it’s not cyclists). The statement also says the force has a “zero tolerance approach for any offence involving a vulnerable road user.”
The West Midlands Police Traffic Unit says it anticipates a “change in driver behaviour” because of its tough new stance especially once “awareness of the tactic spreads.” Non-uniformed police cyclists are to start patrolling close-pass hotspots.
This, says the force, is due to motorists looking out only for other motorists. If motorists do not give cyclists the “time and space necessary, or fail to see them completely [the motorists] should expect to be prosecuted.”
Why are you saying that I said things that I didn’t say at all? Why are you mentioning me in posts about accident numbers when I never even wrote anything about that?
I think I have every right to be pissed off at being targeted unreasonably in posts by you don’t you?
Serious question - what is their methodology for measuring the required distance in cases of dispute? Because, even they go on to say…
> If motorists do not give cyclists the “time and space necessary",…
…which suggests some room for differences.
Clearly, the legal route in the event of a bike vs car collision there would be an appeal for witnesses and nobody would give a damn about the distance the car passed because contact was made, therefore zero centimetres. If a car passes a bike at less than 1.5 m, a) who is going to be able to substantiate that and b) can you rely on witnesses who will likely all give different distances.
Are the police really going to open a case where nobody got hurt (except egos) on the basis that someone might have driven 1.35 m next to a cyclist instead of 1.5m. It’s basically a nonsense.
Here’s an analogy: Police here don’t issue speeding fines for people driving 31Km/h in a 30km/h zone. There is a margin added.
In a similar way (but not the same), Police aren’t issuing fines for some one driving 1.35m close rather than 1.5m close.
It’s pretty clear (to the Police) when someone is driving 0.5m from a cyclist.
Well, back to Switzerland. Pro Velo Suisse was lobbying for 1.5m distance in roads with 50+ kmh speed limit. That means outside urban areas.
PRO VELO Suisse demands that the law sets a minimum overtaking distance of 1.5 meters from a speed of 50 km/h. In other countries, overtaking distance regulations have proven successful. Legal regulations raise awareness and lead to more responsible behavior when overtaking.
The new law did not pass the proposal phase:
Spring 2022: the National Council rejects a proposal from national councilor Matthias Aebischer, president of PRO VELO Switzerland, to introduce a minimum overtaking distance of 1.50 m.
It also provides a nice review of laws around. Please note how it’s safe with 1m in the Netherlands and France, but not in Belgium. Humans must be different…or regulations don’t exist in an abstract world, but in our world.
Belgium 1m until 2021, 1.5m since 2021
France 1m urban, 1.5m outside urban areas.
Netherlands 1m
It would be interesting to measure roads around here. Is there enough space for the 1.5 m distance? I’d say at least 1m for the cyclist, but better 1.2-1.3m . A stereotypical Fiat Ducato like the ones from Swiss Post are 2.48m wide with mirrors. So, 1.3 (cyclist) + 1.5 (min distance) + 2.5 (Fiat Ducato) = 5.3 m.
I don’t know how many streets are 5m wide or more, otherwise it would be illegal to overtake a cyclist.
I guess the only way to make this work in cities is to ban on-street parking to create the necessary space. I’d vote for this. On-street parking is a urban blight. Streets should be people moving, not a subsidy for the people with cars. If you can afford a car, you can afford parking. If not, probably the car is bad financial decision.
If, for example, two car drivers try and pass on a narrow mountain road, they usually manage by one slowing down and letting the on-coming car move over into a passing place, or they both slow down and pass carefully.
This needs the driver to read the road, observe passing places or where the road is a little wider up ahead or just behind and so on. May be it’s easier if they reverse a bit, or stop to let the other car pass. Maybe it’s easier if the other car stops and lets you pass.
They pass slowly, and with consideration for the other vehicle. They can manage this.
What they do not do is carry on at the same speed (or accelerate) and try and squeeze past each other, hoping for the best.
The latter is what commonly happens when passing a cyclist. Why can’t car drivers manage that?
Obviously some drivers are considerate on these roads - some wonderfully so it brings a smile to your face but most aren’t.
A close passing law would give some legal protection to these cycles and hopefully make motorists think a bit about the vulnerability of other road users.
Wait a min…is this about cycling in the city or out in the 80 kmh roads?
If it’s about the 80 kmh roads, it’s possible to use the other lane to overtake a cyclist just as if it were a tractor or any other slow farm machine. To be honest, there are whole weeks where I don’t see a cyclist in 80 kmh roads. So, not an issue at all.
I think conflicts arise in urban areas where those min distances are physically impossible to hold, and some compromises shall be made.
Poster describes BMW drivers as reckless and aggressive drivers.
Forum users up in arms. Many post to disagree with this. Some outraged.
Poster posts video describing BMW drivers with Easter European derogatory term.
…Nothing…
That says something about the forum users here. Did you all get first class honours in your citizenship tests?
Reminds me of a woman I know who used to live here from Easter Europe. She did her PhD at Cambridge University and lived there for many years and was almost native in English.
She turned up at an English-speaking Expat womans event here and was given the cold shoulder. “We meant UK, Australian and American women” was the response she got.
