Have you seen this sign?

[anothereye]

A friend in Hastings sent me this pic. I've never seen one; has anybody else?
Perhaps we could order several million?

[thirdcrank]

It's rather ironic but we did have a post on here from somebody with a pic of a sign like that in France. (I cannot place who it was or which thread so I've not found it.) At the risk of sounding facetious, perhaps that's why they've apparently arrived first in Hastings. Let's hope they catch on.

[gbnz]

Given that the sign is mounted on the reverse side of the signpost, the sign can presumably only be seen by motorists driving on the wrong side of the road, or conversely motorists looking in the rear view mirror (After knocking the cyclist off a bike)

[anothereye]

Given that the sign is mounted on the reverse side of the signpost, the sign can presumably only be seen by motorists driving on the wrong side of the road, or conversely motorists looking in the rear view mirror (After knocking the cyclist off a bike)

Maybe it's not on the reverse side of the signpost; maybe the ones on the other side are! I'll find out.
Or maybe it was put up by a French person who didn't know which side we drive on!
Gerry

[rbrian]

1.5m is not that much, only half a lane. When I was learning to drive I'm sure I read in the Highway Code you should leave as much space passing a bike as you would passing a car, which I took to mean give them the entire lane. In fact, it still does, look here. So another sign that seems like a good idea, but, like cycle lanes, in fact has the effect of eroding our rights on the road, and making things less safe.

[AndyB]

1.5m is not that much, only half a lane. When I was learning to drive I'm sure I read in the Highway Code you should leave as much space passing a bike as you would passing a car, which I took to mean give them the entire lane. In fact, it still does, look here. So another sign that seems like a good idea, but, like cycle lanes, in fact has the effect of eroding our rights on the road, and making things less safe.

I don't think that's quite right. After all, when cars overtake each other, there is one in each lane, so about a metre and a half between them. You need a three lane road (almost) to get a full lane-width between them. When cycling, I just like the car to fully use the other lane, which, if I'm 1-1.5m from the kerb, will leave me about 2m space.

[anothereye]

If every car gave me 1.5M I would have no complaints. Having said that I think it also depends on the cars speed.

Gerry

[meic]

It is quite common for direction signposts to be on the right hand side of the road, especially if the other side is full of houses.
I have stuck Sustrans signs in an identical manner to that sign.

A photograph of a similar sign was in the CTC mag a few years ago, that was taken in New Zealand.

[downfader]

I used to have members of staff at work ask me about distance and overtaking cyclists. My general rule of thumb before the HC really emphasised the distance was always "If I can touch your wing mirror or side of the car with my hand on an extended arm then you're too close"

Those that "protested" soon understood when I explained where my legs would end up had I slipped on deisel in the rain or ice in the winter.

I experience quite a few close overtakes. Thankfully the majority dont cut back in on my front wheel so I tend to just shake my head or ignore it. Its not worth the arguments.

[661-Pete-oldversion]

This sign looks like a Good Idea™ -- but as with all Good Ideas, it's only of value if people heed it. So often, sadly, signs - especially rectangular 'informatory' or 'advisory' signs like this one ('mandatory' signs have to be circular) get ignored by the person who matters - the person who can do the most harm.

I think the fact that the sign (clearly in Britain) appears attached to the back of another sign is of no significance. Perhaps the other sign is a direction sign placed on the motorist's offside.

I would also like to see a sign prohibiting motorists from overtaking a cyclist and then turning left* across their path within a certain distance - say fifty metres. Certainly if I'm in the car, if I'm about to turn left and there's a cyclist ahead of me, I'll hang behind. Even if the cyclist is signalling left. So do the majority of other motorists, thankfully. Far too many 'left hook' collisions, so often tragically costing the life of the cyclist, happen because of the minority who think they 'know better', those to whom the cyclist is merely street furniture. And time and time again, when I'm the cyclist, I am at risk from this minority. I'm always wary, I've thus far escaped without injury, but why oh why do I have to be so alert to this stupidity?

*obviously, 'right' if talking of a RHD country.

[Coffee]

1.5m is not that much, only half a lane. When I was learning to drive I'm sure I read in the Highway Code you should leave as much space passing a bike as you would passing a car, which I took to mean give them the entire lane. In fact, it still does, look here. So another sign that seems like a good idea, but, like cycle lanes, in fact has the effect of eroding our rights on the road, and making things less safe.

I'd go for 1.5m rather than the 30cm odd that 50% of drivers give me.

[hippocampe]

Although this sign is on the back of another sign, it is on the left-hand side and you see it when you're going up the road. Those coming down don't see it - it's better than nothing I suppose. From the friend in Hastings.

[Pete Owens]

1.5m is not that much, only half a lane. When I was learning to drive I'm sure I read in the Highway Code you should leave as much space passing a bike as you would passing a car, which I took to mean give them the entire lane. In fact, it still does, look here. So another sign that seems like a good idea, but, like cycle lanes, in fact has the effect of eroding our rights on the road, and making things less safe.

1.5m does effectively give you the entire lane.

The closest you should ride to the kerb is 0.5m.
The dynamic width of a cyclist is about 1m.
So that puts your right elbow 1.5m from the kerb.
If you add the 1.5m clearence then puts the left wing mirror of the car 3m from the kerb.

[rbrian]

Yes, but what a car driver will see is stay 1.5m from the curb, reasoning that a bike is narrow and doesn't need more than 1.5m. The sign is probably a good idea, but it will make things worse, because people are stupid. It needs to be completely clear, without any room for interpretation - as it stands, it is completely clear - if you know what the rules are, and you think about it, and you're a cyclist. None of those apply to many drivers.

Anyway, doesn't this go against the "naked streets" idea that is gaining ground at the moment? With no lines, and no signs, and no segregation of vehicles and pedestrians, speeds fall, people drive more carefully, safety increases for everybody.

[anothereye]

I'm thinking of putting it on the back of my jacket.