Police force calls for minimum passing distance - but is enforcement of existing law better?

Chief Inspector Adrian Leisk, head of roads policing at Devon & Cornwall, told the Exeter Express & Echo(link is external): "I have been part of a number of conversations recently on Twitter with cyclists, many of them concerned for their safety on the roads due to vehicles and their close and dangerous passes.

"I am hoping that having these discussions will help raise awareness of the increased number of reports we are receiving on motorists putting cyclists lives in danger by overtaking too closely.

What?!  You must be fucking deluded to think that having some conversations with cyclists on twitter will adjust the attitude of other people who in all probability haven't seen these conversations/  

Chief Inspector Leisk told the newspaper that the force is “pushing for a change” in that rule to introduce a minimum safe passing distance, similar to the 1.5 metres that motorists in South Australia now have to give cyclists.

"We police over 22,000 kilometres of road network across Devon and Cornwall meaning we can't be everywhere at once,” he continued.

"We will take police action when suitable, but this is about trying to get a change in mentality and to get people to think about their driving habits.

For the above read "We're not actually going to do anything"

"We are asking 'is that extra few seconds gained worth a cyclist's life?' – We are hoping that asking this will attract debate, and hopefully raise awareness and lead to changes the behaviour of drivers on our roads.

Asking this to whom?  If you asked that to some of the drivers that I've encountered  the response would be "fuck yes!"

THis bloke is a complete waste of fucking space.  Sack him and put someone capable in the position.  

My tuppence ha'penny worth.

1. The current laws are sufficient as long as they are enforced, and prosecuted (which they are not).

2. Rule 163 needs rewriting as a "should" with a suggested minimum of 1.5m and that drivers should also consider the speed of the cyclist, and their speed/vehicle size and road/weather conditions. 

Personally, if I'm coasting and a car passes me doing 5-10mph leaving a 1m gap then I'm okay with that, but a HGV doing 60mph leaving a 1.5m gap is waaay too close - especially in bad weather/spray.

Painted lines are not the answer - I recall a study whereby removing the centre line on single carriageways actually reduces speed and increases passing distances. Believe the theory goes that the driver is conditioned to see the centre line as something that shouldn't be crossed unless changing lanes or overtaking. By removing it drivers give more space and are also less certain about the width of the road, their car, and that of oncoming traffic. The lane (as delineated by the centre line) basically gives the driver reassurance that they can proceed at the speed limit without risk to themselves. 

It's distance and speed that need to be taken into consideration. Someone crawling past at 10mph at 6" distance on a tight lane, is one thing.  12" at 30mph is something else...

Setting a fixed distance in law would be a difficult one, especially on rural roads where there simply isn't enough space to pass and leave a 1.5m gap.  However, where there is a road which is delineated then the road is wide enough for a 1.5m gap and drivers could and should be prosecuted for a close pass in such circumstances.

But that is only part of the solution, and driver education needs to be taken hand in hand with such changes.  Without a change in the "them and us" attiude that some drivers have such a change will be of no use at all.

A typical example of this complete disregard for cyclists that some drivers have is this....I have on my cycle to work is a 200m stretch of road between 2 roundabouts, where there are parked cars on the left of the road.  The road is wide enough for me to pass the parked cars safely and a car to be coming the opposite way, but I normally have at least one or two close passes by impatient motorists each week on this stretch of road, sometimes with the car trying to pass me into oncoming traffic..  

The thing that is so frustrating is that beyond the 2nd roundabout there is a dual carriageway consisting of a Bus/Cycle lane and a normal lane.  Because I cycle during peak times more often than not I can see that the traffic in the normal lane is queued almost onto the roundabout yet these motorists still HAVE to get by me so that they can sit in the queue of traffic, only to find that I cycle by them less than 10 seconds after they pass me.

A fixed distance enshrined in law at least would give a legal datum point.

One of the problems with the existing rules is that the 'safe' distance will be interpreted differently by different people e.g. I don't necessarily take a lot of notice when being passed by a car with say a 600mm clear distance whereas my (adult) daughter cringes at anything less than say 1.2m. Members of a jury would likely be just as undecided about what constitutes a safe distance so having a specific distance enshrined in law would be beneficial.

The other major problem I see when being passed is when the driver does give you safe distance but seems totally oblivious to the traffic coming towards them! Passing slowly seems to make this totally acceptable  to such drivers (whilst the oncoming traffic brakes and tries to swerve out of their way).

Given how many wing mirrors get clipped as cars dont give enough room for each other I think a specified distance is the only option. Maybe for a trial period at certain areas you could paint a line 2.25 metres from the curb and say that if you have to encroach on that to overtake a cyclist you are too close. It would help people visualise distances better and provide a visual deterrent when a driver sees there is no room before they even start to attempt to overtake.

You will always get drivers that dont care but if they can become a declining percentage then we are all safer on the roads. Also on those sections if you have a helmet cam and get a close pass you would have evidence they could use in court as the painted line would stop a weasel lawyer claiming its not as close as it looks.

Ah...love it....'think of a reason not to do anything'

Classic public sector.

My big issue with this is even when the close pass is by a HGV (or 4 of them in a row) and the closest being only 6 inches from me.  And then Devon & Cornwall police do NOTHING, despite being given video evidence of this dangerous driving.

Now a senior police officer wants some publicity and so they get in press by saying this.  How about some action and start to bring charges against those that they should.

By the way one of the reasons given was there is a cycle path that you could have used! (which there isn't for the full duration of the road)

As with mobile phone use at the wheel, inconsiderate driving, tailgating, eyesight offences, ... Enforcement, draconian enforcement, is the only answer. If it done properly (if the law says fine up to £1000 and 6 points, give them that, perhaps crush the car too for good measure - and make sure that the enforcement & consequence is well publicised) it would probably be revenue neutral (that is fines would more than pay for the enforcement & prosecution costs). It would also probably only need to be done "all out" for a short time before the message got across to errant drivers that the risk of being caught & prosecuted is nonzero and they need to buck up their ideas.

Ah excellent, they're asking for "more consideration" and trying to "attract debate" all of which will "raise awareness"

That's been shown to work really well for all road crimes...

Enforcement is the way forward, as the HC is only advice. Judges regularly advise juries of that fact - in fact in the David Irving trial in Southampton a couple of years back the prosecution failed because they were relying on the HC as part of their case.

Much easier for the WMP approach to be taken - no change required to what's a voluntary code and police gather enough evidence to issue points/fines under the RTA.

Spain. I think it's law. Can sometimes get a bit fretful when you look back over your shoulder at the queue of traffic behind you. Often they won't pass even when you wave them on. It's not great everywhere, though. Sorry about the size of the picture.

About time! I've always thought rule 163 was unclear - 

“...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.”

I've always taken this to mean that you should consider cyclists etc. as being the same width as a car and overtake accordingly but it could be interpreted as passing the same distance as you would from a car, which for many drivers is quite close. I don't actually know what the proper interpretation is but if it's the latter then it's useless IMO.

What we need is exactly this a mandatory minimum passing difference that is enforced by law. 1.5m would be great - I've just ridden 50k and I would estimate that close to half the vehicles were closer than that.

Isn't the Highway Code just guidance rather than actual law? How many motorists pay attention to the law let alone simple 'guidance'