Department for Transport to review Highway Code with aim of providing clearer guidance on how to safely overtake cyclists

You could make any law you wanted, but there’s like three traffic cops in the whole country, so it’s basicslly toothless.

It won't matter a jot what's written in the highway code on close passes,it's just a sop to get cycling organisations to accept introducing a bunch of new laws on cycling without grumbling too much,and so a politician can make the claim 'we've made the roads safer for you...' If they go down the route of recommended distances as you can't measure the distance reliably of a close pass how do you prosecute someone if they claimed they were actually 1.51metres from you, or you were 76cms from the kerb instead? And It can't be anything like you must give room,because how much space is room ? the whole purpose of these new dangerous cycling laws is apparently prosecutors don't like using laws that aren't specific enough. So it's a waste of time because nothing will change on drivers behaviour as there won't be flurry of prosecutions on it as it will be totally unenforceable anyway,even before accounting for the fact like with the using a mobile phone whilst driving law,there is no one around to enforce it anyway

It’s the wording in the Highway Code that is too vague. “As much room as 'you' would give a car” makes it sound like a personal choice! Not many seem to understand the significance of the accompanying photo.

As there's no definition of what constitutes 'close', the police are not interested unless there's injury or at least avoiding action taken by the cyclist.

The other problem is that much of what is taught in Bikeability is not in the Highway Code, such as appropriate use of primary/secondary position. So some motorists will see perfectly legitimate cycling as an illegal and dangerous manoeuvre, leading sometimes to a “punishment pass”.

Clearer wording in the Highway Code and a way of making prosecution feasible for close passes would be welcome. But the real problem is the lack of visible road policing, it feels like the Wild West out there sometimes. If they are not going to up the numbers of police, then they need to find a way of making dashcam/bikecam evidence carry more weight for prosecutions. At least that would be some deterrent. 

The HC is so fucked up and disgustingly bias toward the tin canners as to be one of the reasons why people are dying/seriously injured and not feeling safe whilst simply going from A-B.

It is used as an absolute against people on bikes yet rules like travel at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear is totally ignored not just by the motorists but by police, by CPS and by judges, yet it's one, if not the most important statements in the HC, it should be a 'must' and backed by law, because by not doing so you are actually braking the law because you put fear of harm in the minds of others and pose a very real threat (to motorists as well as the more vulnerable) as we see by the numbers being killed/SI due far too often because people failed to abide by that rule.

But you know, bells and hi-vis, 'dangerous cycling' and making out people riding bikes should only be 75cm from the kerb.

I was overtaken a few months ago by two police motorcyclists far too close for the speed they were going (60mph), they stayed well within the lane  and were (just) within the border of 1.5m from the centre of my wheel (which I don't agree with anyway), they had all of the opposite lane to use, it would have been so easy for them to move into the opposite lane yet highly trained police thought it was okay to buzz a vulnerable road user at high speed. If that was 30mph then that wouldn't have had the same effect on how it made me feel but it wasn't.

That to me is were the 1.5m rule is bullshit, if I come past an old granny who is doing 10mph and give her 3-4 feet from the outside of her far right part of her body whilst I do 20mph in a car then that is one, it however is not fine when you're in a much bigger vehicle travelling 30mph. It os not fone when that same granny is cycling on a road and someone comes past at 40, 50, 60mph and gives that same space.

This is the crux f the problem, the politicians are utterly fucking clueless as to what the problems are or if they are aware then they are deliberately ignoring it and/or diverting away and pushing the blame elsewhere.

Not just reprehensible bit complicit in death and harm to society as a whole.

Local authorities should be liable for corporate manslaughter if they design fatally flawed cycling infrastructure.

Of course, this all might horribly backfire: I don’t have to imagine too hard to see local authorities and the dft saying “the road isn’t wide enough for motor vehicles to give 1.5 metres of space when passing a cyclist- well, not without inconveniencing a motorist! - so we’d better just ban cycling on this road, hadn’t we?”

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that "provide new design guidance for local authorities for cycling infrastructure" is a complete waste of time as local authorities never bother following the guidance.