3 feet 2 pass campaign

[Karla]

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.

This is why the new HC has a nice picture in it to accompany rule 163, showing a motorist overtaking a cyclist and leaving plenty of room.

[Greenbank]

This is why the new HC has a nice picture in it to accompany rule 163, showing a motorist overtaking a cyclist and leaving plenty of room.

HWC Rule 59, like 163, is also worded with "should" not "must" but I don't want to be bound by what it says, or what the accompanying picture shows.

[nuttycyclist]

Is 3 feet enough space to pass properly?

If drivers gave me a minimum space of 3 feet I'd be happy.

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

Yup, despite the photograph the wording of the highway code is as he says.  You only need to give a cyclist as much room as a car, and that is often only a foot or two.

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"

Not quite certain what car you drive, but I'm struggling to think of any car with a wing mirror a foot wide 



The Wobble room is a valid point though, and already covered by another Highway Code rule.

I'd hope that we had a minimum passing distance (and 3 foot is fine), but a recommended distance that incorporated the wobble space as per that existing rule.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The bus driver is right. One foot is probably enough for a car. A car tends not to wobble, and if you do hit it you're more likely to smash a mirror than an elbow. So a legal minimum would probably be a good idea, even if 3 feet isn't always enough. But heh, it's inefficient use of road space!

[Wendy]

Not quite certain what car you drive, but I'm struggling to think of any car with a wing mirror a foot wide 

That made me go measure my Honda Civic mirror - 23cm, so not that much less than a foot.  Of course that's effectively reduced somewhat as the mirror isn't located at the widest point of the bodywork.

I wouldn't be surprised if many/all vans and buses had mirrors that stick out rather more than a foot.

[rwa.martin]

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.

I am and I do.

I try and teach all my pupils about driving in a way that anticipates the possible actions of other road users, particularly giving cyclists "wobble room" and also going round bends in a manner that will allow them to stop safely if they encounter a hazard ie a cyclist.

In my experience the main problem with drivers, new and old alike is their lack of planning and anticipation. Teaching people to handle a car is easy, what takes time is getting them to think and plan ahead. Sadly, a high proportion of them just don't have the ability to do so.

Personally I think a 3 foot rule would be unenforcable. In many of the places where it has been introduced the word of the police officer is taken as sufficent evidence for prosecution. In the UK the burden of proof would be on the cyclist to show it was less than 3 feet separation and the questioning of a police officer in court would be along the lines of ".... so officer, you are able to accurately judge 3' from 100 metres away? - so how wide is this? Actually it's 2'11 and 3/4 so case dismissed."

[mattc]

<blue sky>

It might not be a bad idea to have a "Reach out and touch" law.

But no doubt the petrolheads would say this encourages cyclists to swerve into them putting their family/NCB at risk ...

[sas]

Personally I think a 3 foot rule would be unenforcable. In many of the places where it has been introduced the word of the police officer is taken as sufficent evidence for prosecution. In the UK the burden of proof would be on the cyclist to show it was less than 3 feet separation and the questioning of a police officer in court would be along the lines of ".... so officer, you are able to accurately judge 3' from 100 metres away? - so how wide is this? Actually it's 2'11 and 3/4 so case dismissed."

I suppose it'd be like 20mph zones. Not generally enforced, but it emphasizes that there are other more vulnerable road users around, and helps to shift some of the responsibility/liability towards the motorist. In a way it's related to that other thread about making motorists liable for any accident with a ped/cyclist but in a more subtle way- shifting the balance so if there is a collision then chances are some other law would've been broken.

[Regulator]

<blue sky>

It might not be a bad idea to have a "Reach out and touch" law.

But no doubt the petrolheads would say this encourages cyclists to swerve into them putting their family/NCB at risk ...

I seem to recall that there is some case law along these lines.  I'm sure I read a summary of a case where a judge held that it the vehicle overtook a cyclist, and you were able to touch it, then they overtook too closely.  However, it may have been a civil case and related to the detrmination of liability.  I shall see if I can find the case.

I must admit that on occasion I have had to place a foot on an overtaking vehicle to 'fend myself off'  and, when challenged by the moton,  I have suggested that a court might find that if I was able to touch them they were too close... 

[drossall]

I suppose it'd be like 20mph zones. Not generally enforced...

That's exactly why I won't sign it. The current (unenforced) position is that motorists should be well across the white lines on many roads (see Highway Code), which is more like four or five feet. If we were talking about prosecution simply for passing closer than three feet, this proposal might make a difference. However, I can't see that happening, and indeed I'm a bit hesitant about whether that's the kind of general regime that I want.

But it won't happen. The most that is likely is that it would be picked up and put into the Highway Code, thus watering down a provision that is admittedly not as widely known as it should be, but stronger than the proposal.

So, as I see it, this campaign is going to give us a new (unenforced) position of three feet - which is trading two feet of clearance for a bit of publicity. After that fades, what do we do? Trade another two feet for some more?

[teethgrinder]

I signed it.
If it does become law, it'll never be enforced.
But I signed it to add weight to the opinion passed on to the law makers that cyclists think they are being treated badly on the roads and it might also change the word in the HC from, "should," to, "must."
I'm not convinced it'll be made law anyway.

[clarion]

<blue sky>

It might not be a bad idea to have a "Reach out and touch" law.
 ...

That seems reasonable.  it's the basis on which I work.  I used to bang/kick on the sides of vehicles.  If I could reach to do that, they're definitely too close.  I'm older now.

Here's an interesting link from The Guardian blog

[Cudzoziemiec]

Closeness has to be linked to speed, though. You might often filter through traffic (lane splitting) at a distance where you're just centimetres away from cars' wing mirrors - or where you have to move your bars to avoid the mirrors - but you're moving slowly and they're stationary. Similarly, three feet might be enough at 20mph but not 50.

[gordon taylor]

I came across this today, on google images, whilst looking for something else.



It seems like three feet is already a law somewhere.

BIKE SAFETY PROGRAM

[woollypigs]

3Feet2Pass - epetition response |  Number10.gov.uk

Read the Government’s response

The Government have no plans to introduce the proposed legislation. All drivers have a duty of care and consideration to other road users.  Rules 163, 211 - 213 of The Highway Code advises drivers to give cyclists at least as much room as a car when overtaking and to give them plenty of room and pay attention to any sudden change they may have to make.

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence.  You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving.  In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison.  Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’.  In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.  An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in ‘The road user and the law’.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see ‘The road user and the law’) to establish liability.  This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

The Code can be purchased from most good bookshops, price £2.50, or viewed online at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm?cids=Google_PPC&cre=Highway_Code.