This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-3-foot-buffer-zone-c...
Will it work? Should we have it in the UK?
Will it work? Should we have it in the UK?
In reply to The New NickB:
It won't work with the way our town and city roads are laid out IMO. Best we can probably do is make cycle lanes and paths as usable as possible (with equal priority to roads at side junctions etc)
It won't work with the way our town and city roads are laid out IMO. Best we can probably do is make cycle lanes and paths as usable as possible (with equal priority to roads at side junctions etc)
In reply to GrahamD:
You could equally say that a lot of out roads don't have room for cycle lanes. The other problem is the aggression you sometimes get from drivers if you don't use cycle lanes, even though a) you are under no obligation to use them, and b) you are not using them because they are overgrown and full of glass.
You could equally say that a lot of out roads don't have room for cycle lanes. The other problem is the aggression you sometimes get from drivers if you don't use cycle lanes, even though a) you are under no obligation to use them, and b) you are not using them because they are overgrown and full of glass.
In reply to The New NickB:
Whilst not a law we already have a similar recommendation - https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 see the photo for rule 163
Whilst not a law we already have a similar recommendation - https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 see the photo for rule 163
In reply to The New NickB:
I've seen items about it on US based cycling sites, the interesting bit is the restriction on crossing a solid yellow (white for UK) line. Other states have the 3ft rule but not this bit.
I've seen items about it on US based cycling sites, the interesting bit is the restriction on crossing a solid yellow (white for UK) line. Other states have the 3ft rule but not this bit.
In reply to GrahamD:
Yep, very difficult for it to work in urban areas in the UK, but might be better in more rural areas.
Big issue will be enforcement - as with cycle lanes and 20mph limits, they are routinely ignored. Here's a photo I took last week - https://twitter.com/chris_the_tall/status/507130791533748224/photo/1
Yep, very difficult for it to work in urban areas in the UK, but might be better in more rural areas.
Big issue will be enforcement - as with cycle lanes and 20mph limits, they are routinely ignored. Here's a photo I took last week - https://twitter.com/chris_the_tall/status/507130791533748224/photo/1
In reply to The New NickB:
We don't really have room for cycle lanes as the Dutch do but we do have them and where we have them we just have to make them useable - make them an attractive option for cyclists
We don't really have room for cycle lanes as the Dutch do but we do have them and where we have them we just have to make them useable - make them an attractive option for cyclists
In reply to Bob:
A one word change to the highway code is all that is needed.
Rule 163 starts 'Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ...... give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215).'
Simply changing the 'should' to 'must' would do the job - though a public awareness campaign and road signage similar to the Californian model would not go amiss.
A one word change to the highway code is all that is needed.
Rule 163 starts 'Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ...... give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215).'
Simply changing the 'should' to 'must' would do the job - though a public awareness campaign and road signage similar to the Californian model would not go amiss.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Er, no. "MUST" means that there is a legal requirement ie there is a law that says you have to do it, and if you don't you can be penalised. The Highway Code reflects the law, is doesn't make it.
Er, no. "MUST" means that there is a legal requirement ie there is a law that says you have to do it, and if you don't you can be penalised. The Highway Code reflects the law, is doesn't make it.
In reply to Martin W:
I'm no legal expert - but would certainly be happy to see a change to Must in the relevant bit of legislation.
As with most things, enforcement will be the big issue - how many people do you see still using hand held mobile phones - however it would leave a sharp lawyer little 'wriggle room' in the event of a motorist clipping a cyclist - or even a cyclist clipping a parked car!
I'm no legal expert - but would certainly be happy to see a change to Must in the relevant bit of legislation.
As with most things, enforcement will be the big issue - how many people do you see still using hand held mobile phones - however it would leave a sharp lawyer little 'wriggle room' in the event of a motorist clipping a cyclist - or even a cyclist clipping a parked car!
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
One thing that really ought to happen is that they should clarify what "as much room as you would when overtaking a car" means - ie does it mean you should behave as if the cylist was the same width as a car, or that you should leave as much room between you and the cyclist as you would between you and a car? A lot of cyclists interpret it as meaning the former, and the picture seems to bear that out, but presumably it's the wording that's important, and that's currently ambiguous...
> A one word change to the highway code is all that is needed.
> Rule 163 starts 'Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ...... give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215).'
> Simply changing the 'should' to 'must' would do the job - though a public awareness campaign and road signage similar to the Californian model would not go amiss.
One thing that really ought to happen is that they should clarify what "as much room as you would when overtaking a car" means - ie does it mean you should behave as if the cylist was the same width as a car, or that you should leave as much room between you and the cyclist as you would between you and a car? A lot of cyclists interpret it as meaning the former, and the picture seems to bear that out, but presumably it's the wording that's important, and that's currently ambiguous...
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I seem to remember the HC being contradictory regarding this with one rule stating "A car width" and another "half a car width". I think a car width should be the default since it more than accounts for windy conditions and the cyclist having to swerve to avoid potholes and the like.
Of course it does depend on the relative speed of both vehicles: passing a cyclist who is moving at 15mph at half a car width when you are driving at 60mph is simply stupid but might be OK if you were doing 25mph and the road wasn't wide enough to leave a car width gap.
I seem to remember the HC being contradictory regarding this with one rule stating "A car width" and another "half a car width". I think a car width should be the default since it more than accounts for windy conditions and the cyclist having to swerve to avoid potholes and the like.
Of course it does depend on the relative speed of both vehicles: passing a cyclist who is moving at 15mph at half a car width when you are driving at 60mph is simply stupid but might be OK if you were doing 25mph and the road wasn't wide enough to leave a car width gap.
In reply to The New NickB:
The Americans have a pretty hard rule about passing school buses that are taking on or setting down passengers, if it has it's hazards on you must not pass and wait until the lights go off
The Americans have a pretty hard rule about passing school buses that are taking on or setting down passengers, if it has it's hazards on you must not pass and wait until the lights go off
In reply to Ramblin dave:
So many bits of legislation are ambiguous.
The fact that most are written after the politicians ( many of whom have trained as lawyers) have taken further advice from lawyers is no coincidence.
So many bits of legislation are ambiguous.
The fact that most are written after the politicians ( many of whom have trained as lawyers) have taken further advice from lawyers is no coincidence.
In reply to woolsack:
Not just America. Canada and much of Europe have similar rules regarding overtaking buses that are setting down or picking up passengers.
Not just America. Canada and much of Europe have similar rules regarding overtaking buses that are setting down or picking up passengers.
In reply to GrahamD:
Don't entirely agree with this. Decent rebuttal here:
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/our-roads-are-too-narrow-cycle-paths
Long story short, it's not like Amsterdam, Groningen and Utrecht were built from scratch in the seventies.
Also, a lot of the time it'd be fairly easy but we can't be bothered - a lot of the new developments South of Cambridge are being built completely from scratch and the access roads have a narrow bike lane on the road and a shared use pavement in the middle of a four meter wide grass verge, for instance. It's just that there was presumably no-one who know or cares about safe cycling involved in the planning process.
Agree with that. Although again, the fact that where we do have cycle lanes we still frequently fail to design them sensibly or maintain them properly suggests that "generally don't care" is more important than "don't have space".
Sorry, the "no space" argument is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I'm not saying that we should never prioritise motor vehicle capacity over cycle facilities, but when we do we should be clear that that's what we're doing, rather than treating the motor vehicle capacity as a given and declaring anything that can't work around that to be a physical impossibility.
</rant>
> We don't really have room for cycle lanes as the Dutch do
Don't entirely agree with this. Decent rebuttal here:
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/our-roads-are-too-narrow-cycle-paths
Long story short, it's not like Amsterdam, Groningen and Utrecht were built from scratch in the seventies.
Also, a lot of the time it'd be fairly easy but we can't be bothered - a lot of the new developments South of Cambridge are being built completely from scratch and the access roads have a narrow bike lane on the road and a shared use pavement in the middle of a four meter wide grass verge, for instance. It's just that there was presumably no-one who know or cares about safe cycling involved in the planning process.
> do but we do have them and where we have them we just have to make them useable - make them an attractive option for cyclists
Agree with that. Although again, the fact that where we do have cycle lanes we still frequently fail to design them sensibly or maintain them properly suggests that "generally don't care" is more important than "don't have space".
Sorry, the "no space" argument is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I'm not saying that we should never prioritise motor vehicle capacity over cycle facilities, but when we do we should be clear that that's what we're doing, rather than treating the motor vehicle capacity as a given and declaring anything that can't work around that to be a physical impossibility.
</rant>
In reply to Ramblin dave:
and declaring anything that can't work around that to be a physical impossibility.
I agree entirely, Motorists assume that all roads were built for cars, some have been, but in the countryside most roads were built for carts. The CTC were instrumental in getting roads upgraded in the 1880s, 20 years later motorists got the benefit of that.
and declaring anything that can't work around that to be a physical impossibility.
> </rant>
I agree entirely, Motorists assume that all roads were built for cars, some have been, but in the countryside most roads were built for carts. The CTC were instrumental in getting roads upgraded in the 1880s, 20 years later motorists got the benefit of that.
In reply to blurty:
It's not even about when or why they were originally built, it's about remembering that "we can't reduce the vehicle throughput at the junction" or "we can't remove a lane of traffic" or "we can't make the street one way" is a statement about policy (right or wrong), not physics.
> I agree entirely, Motorists assume that all roads were built for cars, some have been, but in the countryside most roads were built for carts. The CTC were instrumental in getting roads upgraded in the 1880s, 20 years later motorists got the benefit of that.
It's not even about when or why they were originally built, it's about remembering that "we can't reduce the vehicle throughput at the junction" or "we can't remove a lane of traffic" or "we can't make the street one way" is a statement about policy (right or wrong), not physics.
Post edited at 14:15
In reply to woolsack:
Both directions have to stop for a school bus even if they're picking passengers up off their side and you're going in the opposite direction. It's really annoying.
Both directions have to stop for a school bus even if they're picking passengers up off their side and you're going in the opposite direction. It's really annoying.
Post edited at 14:24
In reply to The New NickB:
Give a cyclist as much room as I can but there's roads they just shouldn't be on, the local council spent use and money building a dedicated cycle path beside the dual carriageway but there's always someone on the roads.
End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
Give a cyclist as much room as I can but there's roads they just shouldn't be on, the local council spent use and money building a dedicated cycle path beside the dual carriageway but there's always someone on the roads.
End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
In reply to The New NickB:
But they paid for them out of their own pocket, so be a bit more grateful
> You could equally say that a lot of out roads don't have room for cycle lanes. The other problem is the aggression you sometimes get from drivers if you don't use cycle lanes, even though a) you are under no obligation to use them, and b) you are not using them because they are overgrown and full of glass.
But they paid for them out of their own pocket, so be a bit more grateful
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
I'm sure that statement makes sense under your bridge, but in the real world its beyond ludicrous. Nice try though. I almost got angry!
> End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
I'm sure that statement makes sense under your bridge, but in the real world its beyond ludicrous. Nice try though. I almost got angry!
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
In some cases the "cure" is worse than the disease - the cycle paths get built but not maintained so they don't get used as they are full of broken glass, etc.
As for cyclists squeezing past you at a close distance, that makes it sound like you are at a standstill and the cyclist is moving at a slow pace. That's a lot different from a tonne and a half moving past a cyclist at 30mph plus. It's like comparing you overtaking a 40 tonne truck on the motorway with that same truck going past you a foot or two away.
Also a cyclist may have to swerve to avoid potholes in the council approved road surface so you should allow for that.
In some cases the "cure" is worse than the disease - the cycle paths get built but not maintained so they don't get used as they are full of broken glass, etc.
As for cyclists squeezing past you at a close distance, that makes it sound like you are at a standstill and the cyclist is moving at a slow pace. That's a lot different from a tonne and a half moving past a cyclist at 30mph plus. It's like comparing you overtaking a 40 tonne truck on the motorway with that same truck going past you a foot or two away.
Also a cyclist may have to swerve to avoid potholes in the council approved road surface so you should allow for that.
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
Probably because the cycle lane is fll of twigs, gravel etc etc as most of them are as well as being unuseable if you are travelling over about 15mph.
As for cyclists squeezing past when you're stationary. If you can't see the difference between that and a motorist passing a cyclist close at speed then you probably need to hand in your driving licence.
> Give a cyclist as much room as I can but there's roads they just shouldn't be on, the local council spent use and money building a dedicated cycle path beside the dual carriageway but there's always someone on the roads.
> End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
Probably because the cycle lane is fll of twigs, gravel etc etc as most of them are as well as being unuseable if you are travelling over about 15mph.
As for cyclists squeezing past when you're stationary. If you can't see the difference between that and a motorist passing a cyclist close at speed then you probably need to hand in your driving licence.
In reply to Bob:
Leith Walk in Edinburgh. Even the cars are struggling down there these days.
> Also a cyclist may have to swerve to avoid potholes in the council approved road surface so you should allow for that.
Leith Walk in Edinburgh. Even the cars are struggling down there these days.
In reply to Bob:
So it's okay for cyclists to be precious over there bikes but not car owners? You don't want me to pass you at close distance then follow the same rules as cars.
Not sure where you guys live that people spend time smashing glass into cycle lanes.
So it's okay for cyclists to be precious over there bikes but not car owners? You don't want me to pass you at close distance then follow the same rules as cars.
Not sure where you guys live that people spend time smashing glass into cycle lanes.
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
Are you serious?
> End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
Are you serious?
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
So it's ok for you to clog the roads and pollute the air, but it's not ok for others to worry about that?
So it's ok for you to clog the roads and pollute the air, but it's not ok for others to worry about that?
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
There's a big difference between a cyclist riding close when overtaking very slow moving traffic and a bloody great artic or SUV doing 40mph in a 30mph zone passing so close that a cyclist can almost be blown over by the draught!
The 3 ft / 1 metre rule is just as appropriate for cyclists passing a line of parked cars. A number of our club members have been hospitalised following f*ckwitts opening thier car doors without checking their mirror first!
> End of the day when traffic is backed up in areas without cycle lanes a lot of cyclist with squeeze past my car speaking less than a foot distance if that's okay for them then why all the complaints.
There's a big difference between a cyclist riding close when overtaking very slow moving traffic and a bloody great artic or SUV doing 40mph in a 30mph zone passing so close that a cyclist can almost be blown over by the draught!
The 3 ft / 1 metre rule is just as appropriate for cyclists passing a line of parked cars. A number of our club members have been hospitalised following f*ckwitts opening thier car doors without checking their mirror first!
In reply to Paul Kinnaird:
I think you'll find that the cyclists are being precious over their lives, or their limbs, rather than scratches on paintwork
> So it's okay for cyclists to be precious over there bikes but not car owners?
I think you'll find that the cyclists are being precious over their lives, or their limbs, rather than scratches on paintwork
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Who is going to enforce it in California?
Who would enforce it in the UK?
Drivers are already supposed to give cyclists a decent space, but they don't. And they don't, because they get away with it, because it's largely unenforceable.
> Will it work? Should we have it in the UK?
Who is going to enforce it in California?
Who would enforce it in the UK?
Drivers are already supposed to give cyclists a decent space, but they don't. And they don't, because they get away with it, because it's largely unenforceable.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Is t the current case that the police would have to make a case for driving without due care or dangerous driving, ie driving close isn't illegal, it could only argued to be illegal in a specific set of circumstances. Would a simpler offence be more enforceable?
> Who is going to enforce it in California?
> Who would enforce it in the UK?
> Drivers are already supposed to give cyclists a decent space, but they don't. And they don't, because they get away with it, because it's largely unenforceable.
Is t the current case that the police would have to make a case for driving without due care or dangerous driving, ie driving close isn't illegal, it could only argued to be illegal in a specific set of circumstances. Would a simpler offence be more enforceable?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...