US 3ft passing guru backs 1.5m rule for UK and challenges CTC to do likewise

Exactly! and thats why we need a 5ft overtaking distance the recommendation is there in the HC but because of the inconsideration of some drivers cyclists need the protection and backing of the law.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/5feet-or-more/

The problem with the wording in the Highway Code, it seems to me, is that it assumes that motorists are considerate of other cars ("give as much room as you would a car").

They aren't.

As I see it if the cycling fraternity ask for 3ft, that is what we're in danger of getting,3ft could mean being overtaken at 60mph with only 3ft to spare.
I too agree with 3ft in towns at a maximum of 30mph.
But if we start at the width of a car(around 5ft,the Highway Code minimum and the French/German standard)3ft in town(the French system)can be negociated which,would be seen as giving something back.
With the 3ft petition we start from an already weak position and it will be a stuggle to get more than that.

I don't doubt Tom Amos's intentions but feel that cyclists will be on a loser with a 3ft petition as it sends out the wrong messages out to government, it shows people are satisfied with 3ft because thats what we are asking for,whereas 5ft is asking for what the government already recommends in the Highway Code,we have to be very careful we don't give away what we already have albeit recommended,but simply seeking it to be reinforced in law and, at the same time being brought into line with the EEC.

John Wood

I don't wonder why you started the petition.

@OldRidgeBack : And people wonder why I started the petition......

3' would certainly have been better than the 6" that the guy roaring past in his hopped up Mini gave me yesterday morning as I cycled to work.

I have no problem with the French system. The way to get it is to campaign for the 5ft law. 5ft is at least the distance for overtaking a car and this is what the Highway Code recommends, so that’s what we go for. There are circumstances where this is not possible or practical, but there is scope to make exceptions for such cases. This would be done by proving that it is not possible or not necessary to have 5ft in those circumstances. This is a much more workable alternative to having a 3ft law and trying to prove that circumstances exist where more room is required, i.e. it is the responsibility of authorities and motorists to justify when less is needed. My ideal would be: 5ft is the law except when overtaking at less than 30mph where 3ft would be minimum. If it is not possible to give 5ft then the traffic conditions demand slower speed. The law is not such a black and white thing, there are always mitigation circumstances. For example, some HGVs cannot go round some roundabouts in one lane, in congested traffic motorists recognise the need to cooperate in ignoring priority at Give Way signs, speeding in emergencies etc. The point is; where there is dispute, 5ft is the law and motorists have to justify why this would not be required if it were not already obvious.

I have disagreed with Joe Mizereck’s campaign in the UK, but have never questioned his motives. I welcome his comments in this article and hope that the CTC will rise to the challenge. And thanks John Wood for the 5ft petition.

Sorry to throw another variable into the debate.... but as important, or perhaps more, is the speed at which a car passes. On my 8 mile commute to work I ride on a variety of roads (and even a bit of cyclepath) by far the worst experiences I have had, have been on a single carriageway rural A-road, where the national speed limit applies. Every day I will be passed by cars taking this stretch of road at 60-70mph and also by more considerate drivers who will slow to 35-45mph. It's a lot less unnerving to be passed at the slower speeds even if the cars pass at the same distance.
I would like to see a practical passing distance (I like the 1m town, 1.5m rural idea) and also a maximum speed limit of 40mph (Is there a similar law already in place for horses maybe?)

Quote:

Why would anyone one want less clearance when overtaking than what the Highway Code recommends?

the highway code doesn't recommend any particular distance, that's one of the problems. There's a nice picture of a car giving a cyclist lots of room but that doesn't constitute any legal minimum.

I'm personally against a blanket five foot ban because i think in city traffic it's not workable. There's plenty of places on my commute (not aparticularly busy one, but a city one) where it's not practical for a car to give me five feet of room, and i wouldn't expect them to - i'd rather they passed me with three feet to spare than sat behind me getting angry, no-one's going very fast anyway. out on the open road there's generally no excuse for not giving a cyclist five feet of space. that's why i think the french statutes are the most sensible. where's the petition i sign for that option? or do i just sign both?

Why would anyone one want less clearance when overtaking than what the Highway Code recommends?
My name is John Wood and I'm the organiser of the 5ft(1.5m)clearance petition,Can I urge you to sign it,Tom Amos(organiser of the 3ft petition) says 3ft is a starting point and we could extend it to 5ft,we won't stand a cat in hells chance of getting legislation changed from 3ft to 5ft if a petition is lodged that has more signitures than a 5ft petition.

Thanks for you support.
John

of all the laws that i've seen discussed on the various threads about this on here, the french law - 1m in town and 1.5m in the country - seems by far the most sensible. five feet in town isn't going to get passed, and it's out on the open roads you need the most space.