3 feet 2 pass campaign

[Gandalf]

Has anyone heard of this?  There's even a petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/3feet2Pass/sign

It would be interesting if the required 500 signatures was reached and the the DOT had to respond.  I'm sure our mate David Curry would have something to say.

[Wendy]

Is 3 feet enough space to pass properly?

[Gandalf]

Is 3 feet enough space to pass properly?

That's debatable, but it has to be better than the usual six inches.

[JohnP]

Is 3 feet enough space to pass properly?

as Gandalf - it's debatable.  IMO it can vary based on speed, location, road type and traffic conditions. Also may vary from driver to driver and cyclist to cyclist. 

[Tewdric]

This will simply legitimise drivers passing too close on faster roads and is contrary to current Highway Code guidance.  In any case these No. 10 polls are meaningless unless they get hundreds of thousands of signatures, which this one won't.

[Oaky]

This will simply legitimise drivers passing too close on faster roads and is contrary to current Highway Code guidance.  In any case these No. 10 polls are meaningless unless they get hundreds of thousands of signatures, which this one won't.

I'm not sure about that.

As you not above, the relevant part of the highway code (rule 163) is guidance, not law (i.e. uses "should" language rather than "must").

A "you must allow a minimum of 3 feet" law would set out a minimum standard of overtaking below which action could be taken against a driver.  It is stated in unambiguous terms (a distance) that all motorists should be able to understand and interpret correctly (rather than phrased as a comparison with a measure of variable width: "as much space as you would a car" which could, i'm sure be (mis?)-interpreted as less than 3 feet on any case ... how much space do drivers leave on average between their passenger wing mirror and the driver side wing mirror of a car they're overtaking?).

Personally, I'd prefer to see the law changed such that language in rule 163 became "must", but that isn't going to happen any time soon, I think.

I think the proposal in the petition is meant in addition to the current guidance in the HC, and doesn't stop those drives who currently obey that guidance from continuing to do so, but also makes the behaviour of a proportion of those drivers who don't obey the guidance an actionable offence.

I'm not sure I see how that can be counter-productive.

The "three feet" rule would be a bit of a blunt instrument, that really should be refined to take into account road conditions, speeds etc. but sometimes a blunt instrument is better than nothing: if you don't mind picking through the bits afterwards, you can open a walnut with a sledgehammer.

[teethgrinder]

3 foot isn't that much. It's about twice the width of my handlebars on my road bikes.
I think that most drivers give at least 3 foot anyway.
How would it be enforced and how can it be proven in a court of law?

[Oaky]

[...]
How would it be enforced and how can it be proven in a court of law?

In practice, not much, if at all, much like the law on mobile phone handset usage whilst driving (i.e. probably only if a police officer witnesses it whilst under temporary orders to crack down on that sort of thing as part of the high profile campaign du jour). 

Nevertheless, I think that the mobile phone usage law has had some positive effects despite seldon being enforced.   The publicity around it, coupled with a fear of being caught, has probably deterred some people from using them.  Not many, but some at least.

In fact, the associated publicity campaign would probably do more good than the legislation itself, but I suspect that a publicity campaign, based on Rule 163 alone, without mention of laws and penalties, would be widely ignored / scoffed at. 

[mark]

ISTR that Germany had a 1 meter minimum passing distance in the early '70s, I'm a little surprised that the rest of Europe hasn't adopted the same standard.

Colorado recently passed a law requiring motorists to give cyclists 3 feet of clearance when passing, along with other provisions about how cyclists can ride on the roads. The new laws also specifically prohibit motorists from harassing cyclists (yelling, throwing things, etc.). Three feet is pretty minimal, but it's nice to have a number to cite when complaining to a company about their driver's behavior.

Here's a summary of Colorado's new law:
Bicycle Safety Law Tips - bicyclecolo.org

[Panoramix]

I have just signed up. Even if it is a bit blunt, it makes sense to give a minimum distance.

I wish it was 6 feet for HGV doing more than 40mph

[sas]

I can't see in any harm in having a minimum distance. Breaking the rule on its own won't be enforced, but it's something that could be used to strengthen a case of harassment or as additional evidence in a disputed insurance claim e.g. If you're hit by an overtaking vehicle and it's physically impossible for there to have been a 3ft gap (narrow road, parked vehicles, stream of traffic coming the other way).

[teethgrinder]

I can't see in any harm in having a minimum distance. Breaking the rule on its own won't be enforced, but it's something that could be used to strengthen a case of harassment or as additional evidence in a disputed insurance claim e.g. If you're hit by an overtaking vehicle and it's physically impossible for there to have been a 3ft gap (narrow road, parked vehicles, stream of traffic coming the other way).

They swerved into me, 'onest guv.

[clarion]

It's a damn sight better than what we have.  Although Rule 163 does have an unambiguous picture to go with it demonstrating for those illiterates on the road who are clearly unable to understand teh words.

And a MUST would be a damn fine thing.

[clarion]

btw, this is the site for the campaign itself:

3feet2pass

[PaulF]

By coincidence I was reading the US magazine Cycling. Some states have recently adopted a 3 feet law and others are considering. Sadly one state (Texas?) had it vetoed by it's Governor despite being passed by something like 170 - 0 on the basis that "existing laws already provided enough protection"

[SlowCoach]

Just signed up. 3 feet minimum is better than what we have at the moment.

I had a "discussion" once with a bus driver who was clued up on the Higway Code. When I suggested that a foot of clearance was rather tight his response was that the HC only required him to give me as much room as he would a car. As far as he was concerned there wasn't a problem - a foot was all he would give a car

[thing1]

Just signed up. 3 feet minimum is better than what we have at the moment.

I had a "discussion" once with a bus driver who was clued up on the Higway Code. When I suggested that a foot of clearance was rather tight his response was that the HC only required him to give me as much room as he would a car. As far as he was concerned there wasn't a problem - a foot was all he would give a car

 

I always thought the "allow as much space" was intended to include the width of the car too? Y don't get many cars that could fit through a gap a foot wide.

And anyway it's "at least as much room as..." (although the diagram and the text on this page don't seem to agree on the exact wording...  )

And anyway again, how much space would he allow when overtaking a moving car? That's what we're talking about here.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. Certainly seems it regarding HWC!

[Wendy]

Slowcoach is right - a foot is a valid although stupid and shocking interpretation of that phrase in the highway code.

It's just bad advice - it doesn't take into account the fact that two-wheelers proceed via a series of swerves, or that we might need to get around potholes and other road features, and so need much more room than a car would.  Established in court, I believe.

[mattc]

Leaving a foot overtaking a car is crap anyway. Wing mirrors are nearly a foot wide - rarely do cars pass less than 3 wing mirror lengths apart. And if they do, they shouldn't!

Watch an F1 race - if the cars get to within a foot of each other, it's a heart-stopping moment (and that can be at 40mph, not just 140).

(I think this misconception is partly caused by scale.)

...It's just bad advice - it doesn't take into account the fact that two-wheelers proceed via a series of swerves, or that we might need to get around potholes and other road features, and so need much more room than a car would.  Established in court, I believe.

Yup - something like:
"A cyclist is entitled to some wobble room"

[Jaded]

Slowcoach is right - a foot is a valid although stupid and shocking interpretation of that phrase in the highway code.

The Highway Code here is very badly worded, given its audience. Putting something that can be interpreted in two different ways like this into an official advice giving document is rubbish. The bus driver is quite within his rights to interpret the advice in the way he has.

It's the same sloppy use of language as allowing the use of 'accident' to report 'crash'.

[Frenchie]

Is 3 feet enough space to pass properly?

One the continent it is 1.5 m or over 5 ft! (I think)

[drossall]

I'd be worried about publicising 3 feet because it's not enough. It would legitimise poor driving and give an excuse to drivers who squeeze past.

[gordon taylor]

There was some official "passing too close to a cyclist will become and offence" stuff around in April this year. But I've searched the BBC site and the DfT consultations without finding it.

The proposal was wrapped up with other ideas about more 20mph zones and random breath tests:

Government plans to reduce speed limits

(paragraph four)

[Pedaldog.]

I signed it. 3 Feet isn't enough but the mere fact of having "Cyclist" in a law gives us some Proof of legitimate road use and that can  only be a positive thing. Maybe DRIVING INSTRUCTORS would actually teach people that Bikes are allowed on the road too.

[vorsprung]

Signed it