You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
tjagain1.5 m passing is possible and right everywhere
Nonsense. You've got this stuck in your head as right and just won't deviate, bonkers. TJ, you're bonkers.
Filtering is a completely different case AS THE CARS ARE STATIONARY
Always??
Bez's Newton's Law thing is interesting, but really it's irrelevant - the reason we don't like close passes is because it's dangerous and can be frightening.
The only reason drivers don't like "close passes" (ie. filtering) is because they don't like something without an engine making better progress than them. (Or they just irrationally "don't like cyclists" when in their car)
Just for Steve: two articles to help explain why someone making their own decision to come relatively close to a steel cage is not the same as the person in the steel cage making the unilateral decision to come close to someone without a steel cage: not only are the vehicles massively (in every sense) different, but the owner of the decision is, too.
The difference is mass merely poses the question of the latter ...
What I decide to do as risk on the road is not simply down to me. The fact the driver is in a 1.5Tonne steel cage just makes it more important that I don't run into them.
The passing difference doesn't really change because if I'm cycling through traffic at low speeds and get knocked off the real danger is being knocked under another vehicle rather than the collision (or backdraft) itself.
The reasons to pass a car safely on a bike are because you are the vulnerable one. Just as you may need to swerve on a bike so a driver may have to swerve in a car or bus to avoid hitting something or someone the cyclist hasn't seen.
I used to race cars down big hills on roads when I was young... now i race my bike down trails that are specifically for riding a bike down as fast as possible. That myself or friends weren't killed is a miracle as we would pass cars as fast as possible on blind bends... our favourites being Pendle Hill and Black Hill (being super local) and the drop into Malham. I remember the drop into Malham specifically because I nearly died... going round a blind bend with a car coming up the hill.
In non of these was I remotely able to stop ... even a sheep running out would have been serious and possibly fatal. Hitting a car going up the hill would have been very nasty and doesn't just affect me.
I'm a big boy, and I don't want anyone legislating I'm not allowed to take my bike off the road as fast as possible.
If I want to jump across a 10' gap on foot then again I don't want that legislating against but if that 10' gap is a railway then it's completely different.
What we do on roads (or railways) is an area that affects everyone. If someone wants to jump off a cliff or side a bike down a trail then that's one thing... if someone wants to jump in front of a train that's entirely another.
I never filter past moving cars and I would like to know it what cicumstances you think less than 1.5 m passing is safe.
The newton's law thing is stupid. Very big difference in the force carried by a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60mph, and that of a 60 kg cyclist travelling at 12mph.
I'm genuinely shocked at the ignorance displayed in the original clip. It surely shows a high degree of incompetence and would warrant a complaint?
If they were to say they didn't have the resources to pursue such claims, that wouldn't surprise me. But the police officer is suggesting that the cyclist must not veer off their line, in order to survive. And because the car did not directly cause the cyclist to move the few inches required for them to be killed, no crime is being committed.
The whole conversation completely ignores the fact, that the move was unnecessarily dangerous, and takes no consideration to the fact that something as simple as a pothole in the road, or a gust of wind could make a pass like that fatal.
The highway code used to encourage drivers to give cyclists enough room to 'fall in the road'.
The precedence being set here, is that any deviation from your line is your own fault.
That's without even mentioning the very real scenario of drivers misjudging these small distances.
Bez’s Newton’s Law thing is interesting, but really it’s irrelevant – the reason we don’t like close passes is because it’s dangerous and can be frightening.
The only reason drivers don’t like “close passes” (ie. filtering) is because they don’t like something without an engine making better progress than them. (Or they just irrationally “don’t like cyclists” when in their car)
The reason I don't like class passes is because it's frightening ...
Much as it seems some people don't want to see it I don't want to kill or seriously injure another road user.... what I don't like is them cutting me up and removing options to drive safely for other road users. If I have to swerve or jump on my brakes for ANY road user I get annoyed because it forces me to make unplanned moves. Regardless of if the car behind runs into the back of me and it's their fault... or not I just don't want to be in an accident when driving.
Whether they are making better progress or not really doesn't concern me.
I’m a big boy, and I don’t want anyone legislating I’m not allowed to take my bike off the road as fast as possible.
If I want to jump across a 10′ gap on foot then again I don’t want that legislating against but if that 10′ gap is a railway then it’s completely different.
I have no idea where you are heading now....
If you cause an accident by going faster than is safe then you will have to face the chance of prosecution.
The police could issue a ticket or raise a case using any of the laws they have now - same as mobiles you don't need a specific law to say somebody is not paying attention by using a phone, it just reinforces to drivers that it is bad. the 1.5m is there to give drivers a reference point that getting close to cyclists is bad.
Bez’s Newton’s Law thing is interesting, but really it’s irrelevant – the reason we don’t like close passes is because it’s dangerous and can be frightening.
It's simplistic rather than irrelevant: it explains the basis of why close passes are dangerous and frightening, which is that there's too small a margin between you and something which is heavy and fast enough to maim or kill you.
Without the mass or speed—say if someone gently wafts a feather six inches from your face—there is neither danger nor fear.
Equally there isn't when someone cycles past a steel cage that can be crashed into a wall at 40mph without even any injury to the occupants: the mild apprehension of a scratch in the paint or the selfish anger about someone else not having committed themselves to having to wait in a traffic queue are not the same 🙂
tjagain
I never filter past moving cars and I would like to know it what cicumstances you think less than 1.5 m passing is safe.
I'll find a video of me filtering past moving cars.
Less than 1.5m is safe when the circumstances dictate that it is safe.
I'd get annoyed about that close pass in the original video (just like I got annoyed when close passed by a tractor - "When big things close pass" in my history), but I wouldn't report it to the cops. Just no point.
Very big difference in the force carried by a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60mph, and that of a 60 kg cyclist travelling at 12mph.
It's nothing to do with the force unless the two actually collide.... the far more real danger is the backdraft or changes in sidewinds.
Passing a truck doing 20 mph at 30 mph still exposes the same side winds...pulling out from behind it the same back drafts.
The 2 tons becomes relevant if the next car you swerve into crushes your head like a pineapple.
The whole conversation completely ignores the fact, that the move was unnecessarily dangerous, and takes no consideration to the fact that something as simple as a pothole in the road, or a gust of wind could make a pass like that fatal.
I completely agree ... more to the point neither the driver nor the cyclist could predict any of these.
In this case I'm astounded by the police conversation .... but then I'm not because the whole thing is left open to judgement. I personally can't see how the passing would have been OK with ANY road user including another car... hence why I think there need to be clear and reciprocal proper rules.
1.5m on THAT road is an absolute minimum... whether you are overtaking a car or a bike.
1.5m in traffic at 10mph seems too much
I have no idea where you are heading now….
If you cause an accident by going faster than is safe then you will have to face the chance of prosecution.
The police could issue a ticket or raise a case using any of the laws they have now
Except they won't unless I can be identified.... I go much faster than is "safe" many weekends when I ride trials
The closest I usually come to accidents though is when a family has got it into their head that a landing on a double is a perfect place for a picnic or letting their dog run up a dedicated bike trail is safe or some idiot cycling the wrong way on a one way trail around a blind bend.
I could follow the same logic... if I can't stop if a family are picnicking on the trail then I'm going to fast ??
The analogy is if they wish to picnic on a car race track then it is not the cars in the wrong place or going to fast.
The same road has completely different cycling safe limits if it is a closed circuit to a open road. The problem is many cyclists don't regard it differently.
Sure I can go round the blind bend at whatever speed.... Equally if someone in a peleton stacks then its going to take others out but that is a different situation where everyone signed up for that risk.
Treating (open) roads as a racetrack in either cars or cycles is different to closed ones.
Cyclists need to be prepared to do what they expect of cars and that includes stopping distances and overtaking.
Dezb - what circumstances is less than 1.5 m safe? 'cos in 50 years of riding I have never seen these circumstances
but I wouldn’t report it to the cops. Just no point.
Because, IIRC, you cycle in Hampshire.
If you cycled in areas covered by certain other forces, most notably WMP, it's highly likely you wouldn't be saying that.
Because, IIRC, you cycle in Hampshire.
Yep. But just because I don't report to the police, doesn't mean I do nothing. (Can't always catch the bastards though 😉 )
Yep, back in circles
Don't report = No issue with poor driving around cyclists = no action needed
what circumstances is less than 1.5 m safe? ‘cos in 50 years of riding I have never seen these circumstances
Either way moving in 2 lanes of traffic under 5mph, 10 mph ??? This happens to tens of thousands every day, strange it never happened to you?
Where a cyclist is on a physically separate cycle path on a 30mph road? I suppose you refuse to use cycle paths so I guess that's why in 50 years this never happened to you?
Yup, exactly. Policing reacts to public demand*. If you don't demand action against dangerous driving, the police will prioritise other stuff. It's only three or four months until Hampshire send out more coppers to stand by the roadside pulling over people cycling legally so they can give them a lecture and a yellow hat. That's time that they've refused to assign to looking at evidence of dangerous/careless driving (reminder: WMP previously claimed a 100% hit rate of video submissions containing adequate evidence of an offence; not sure what it currently is but it won't be far off).
* the public demand that the police/PCC decide they want to react to, anyway 😉
I still have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would want to risk killing or seriously injuring another person to shave ten seconds off their journey.
The sheer number of people who are willing to risk it, the sheer unthinking entitlement and sheer nonchalance about the safety of fellow people just astounds me.
I've got two kids. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the idiots who have close passed me over the years have got two kids as well. How can they not have some empathy with someone who is just the same as them? Baffling.
I still have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would want to risk killing or seriously injuring another person to shave ten seconds off their journey.
The sheer number of people who are willing to risk it, the sheer unthinking entitlement and sheer nonchalance about the safety of fellow people just astounds me.
I’ve got two kids. I’d be willing to bet a lot of the idiots who have close passed me over the years have got two kids as well. How can they not have some empathy with someone who is just the same as them? Baffling.
This also puzzles me ...
I have experienced drivers who pass way way too close when we are cycling and cyclists who do the same when I'm driving.
Even just passing parked cars the numbers of people who don't assume the idiot in the driving seat is going to open a door in our face without checking.
You can argue the idiot should have checked before opening the door... and if you are in a car then they get hurt... if you are riding a bike who's fault it is makes no odds as to how badly you get hurt. If you get knocked or swerve into the other side of the road or lane then you are just as hurt/dead.
I still have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would want to risk killing or seriously injuring another person to shave ten seconds off their journey
Perhaps because some motorists only 'see' you as a 'cyclist' rather than a person/parent etc.
There was a motorway safety campaign a few years ago that tried to make motorists drive more carefully through roadworks by highlighting that the people whose lives they were recklessly endangering were parents etc - rather than just an anonymous inconvenience in a high-vis jacket.
There's a strong case [according to at least one QC] apparently for the option of trial by jury to be removed for people charged with death by dangerous driving etc ... seemingly the conviction rate is so low because it's one of the few times members of a jury can empathise with the accused: "juries have a poorer record of convicting drivers, especially if the victim is a cyclist or a pedestrian"
It surely shows a high degree of incompetence and would warrant a complaint?
Yep. Investigating plod has fobbed the guy off and he's took it. He should be pushingback and saying that the reponse is not good enough and it needs to be escalated.
As it is, lazy plod gets the issue off his desk and he goes back to playing solitaire on his laptop, instead of going and giving a dangerous motorist a lesson in how to pass considerately.
It's a bit like the guidelines for Racism; if you think you have been on the receiving end of it; you probably have.
If you think you have been intimidated by a motorist, it's likely true; never mind the 1.5m and kinetic energy bollox above
seemingly the conviction rate is so low because it’s one of the few times members of a jury can empathise with the accused: “juries have a poorer record of convicting drivers, especially if the victim is a cyclist or a pedestrian”
Adding in most all drivers make mistakes, it's easy to see these events as just an unlucky mistake, I mean how unlucky was it that there was a cyclist in the road when they were using a phone and not looking where they were going. Or so the defence will tell you.
Only just read this thread, a disappointing view from SYP.
I reported a dangerously close pass with camera footage to Avon & Somerset and within a bout 12 hours I had a response saying they were issuing a fixed penalty notice. It is a shame there is no consistency between forces.
Only just read this thread, a disappointing view from SYP
Completely agree. Unfortunately though, I think this is the face of modern policing - and I speak from bitter and disapointing experience.
The emphasis for SYP (and no doubt many other police forces) seems to be like an IT Helpdesk - it''s all about 'fielding calls' - i.e. closing stuff down as quick as possible and maintaing those KPIs ...
Whilst phoning the driver up and having a little 'chat' might have been effective in the long run and made him think twice about punishment passes in the future, it would have made little or no difference to this month's stats so there is little or no incentive in the policeman doing it.
SYP are like any other 'service provider' - you have to chase, chivvy, cajole and mither in order to get results. Unfortunately there isn't a 'price comparison website' where you can select another Police Force ...
steve - 2 lanes of slow moving traffic - I will be in line with cars in the lane going my way. cycle lane on the edge of the road - I will not use it - too dangerous unless it gives more than 1.5 m of space to my right or has proper physical separation with a bariier. Less than 1.5 m space I am in the road in primary position
this is why in 50 years of cycling I have never been knocked off by a car apart from when its been my fault. ( I rode into the back of one once - got exasperated and threw my bike into a car cutting across me once)
I cycle almost every day - I don't own a car. I cycle for utility as well as leisure. I value my safety highly so I ride accordingly in the safest way possible - an asume every car driver is an idiot out to kill me.
drivers who pass way way too close when we are cycling and cyclists who do the same when I’m driving
Ah, do da bikeys fwighten oo? 😆
Ah, do da bikeys fwighten oo?
They sure do when I'm driving a ton and half of metal.... in the same way I'm not frightened of a power tool being used safely, respectful sure... but its not frightening... but I certainly don't like using a circular and leaving it about with a kid or anyone who doesn't respect the damage it can do.
I think you're missing the huge flaw in your analogy by failing to consider just which machine poses the threat of harm to others never it. (Whilst simultaneously offering its occupants complete protection from those same people.)
Your power tool analogy involves someone else taking control of your machine: like you getting out of your car, giving the keys to the people to perceive as irresponsible, and letting them drive it near you.
A better analogy would be you choosing to do your circular sawing in the local playpark on a Saturday afternoon.
The reason why we feel nervous when we're driving cars around people (without cars) who we consider erratic is not that we feel at risk, it's that we're handling something capable of killing them.
It was our choice to get in that something and move it around at speed. And to be reminded of its potency should be cause for caution, not anger (which, as here, is sometimes rebranded as some kind of phoney fear so as to make it more politically palatable).
I think you’re missing the huge flaw in your analogy, relating to just which machine poses the threat of harm to others. (Whilst also being the machine that offers complete to its occupants from those same people.)
I actually think I get where he's coming from, because I feel the same when I am driving in traffic with bikes weaving in and out. I get nervous, not because I'm worried about them scuffing my wing mirrors, but because I know that they are far more vulnerable than me and, even when ridden like an idiot, noone (I hope!) wants to be involved in an accident with a bike. Anyone who has driven in central Paris at rush hour with the motorbike loonies will understand what I mean here!
Personally, in such a situation I just double my safety margins and, if necessary, let the bike clear off ahead of me and become someone else's problem. Defensive driving isn't just about protecting yourself on the road...
(written as an experienced motorist, and a keen road cyclist who very much believes in defensive cycling, owning the road and, frankly, getting home in one piece every single time!)
I reported a dangerously close pass with camera footage to Avon & Somerset and within a bout 12 hours I had a response saying they were issuing a fixed penalty notice. It is a shame there is no consistency between forces.
That's a good response. I had the experience of a fuel tanker pulling alongside me immediately before a sharp left hand bend on a narrow road, and moving into the verge to take the bend when I was midway between the front and rear of the vehicle. I managed to emergency brake and get out of the gap before it closed, but it was the scariest piece of driving I'd experienced in 40+ years of cycling. I reported it to Police Scotland, but got no follow up. Several months later, after I contacted Police Scotland a number of times, they finally responded to say that they had "spoken to the driver's employer", so I considered the whole exercise as a waste of my time. I don't really want to end up having to run a camera every time I go for a cycle, but maybe that's the only way to get action on stuff like this.
In scotland you must have two bits of evidence - your statement and a camera will do but your statement alone is not enough. Twice I have reported stuff in edinburgh and each time they checked for cctv - unfortunatly the cameras were pointing the wrong way so no second piece of evidence - nothing they could do
I have reported bad drivers to their emplyers a couple of times - decent response from the employers but of course no way of knowing what action they took
I have reported bad drivers to their emplyers a couple of times – decent response from the employers but of course no way of knowing what action they took
Same here, fair few times. Apology from someone is enough for me, even if it's not the driver. I think I posted an email response on here a while ago from a company.
I cycle almost every day – I don’t own a car. I cycle for utility as well as leisure. I value my safety highly so I ride accordingly in the safest way possible – an asume every car driver is an idiot out to kill me.
@tj ... yes, that is the position I take. Except I own a car.
When I drive a car I also see how impossible it is if someone really isn't trying to stay safe themselves.
For example... on one occasion on Sunday I had two cyclists passing me - one on each side at the same time.
I was only going 15mph or so but at the time I was going through a village centre with kids, a min roundabout and a dozen other hazards... the last thing I needed was two cyclists I couldn't see at the same time one on either side of the car.
Other than stopping and letting the one behind me run into my boot there was no way to keep a 1.5m separation from either. More specifically the one hanging back until it was safe was IMHO the one acting to preserve himself.
I actually think I get where he’s coming from, because I feel the same when I am driving in traffic with bikes weaving in and out. I get nervous, not because I’m worried about them scuffing my wing mirrors, but because I know that they are far more vulnerable than me
@Daern.... that is exactly my point.
Within reason I don't give a toss about a scratch on my 2005 car.... what worries me is that they are vulnerable and are not acting appropriately.
Funny enough I was in Paris last week and had motorcycle taxi's at gate du Nord trying to get me to use them .... their explanation of how they can weave through the traffic and get me to my destination more quickly did absolutely nothing to inside me.
I have reported bad drivers to their emplyers a couple of times – decent response from the employers but of course no way of knowing what action they took
Firm of any size should have a record of what was received and action taken, FOI request time.
When I drive a car I also see how impossible it is if someone really isn’t trying to stay safe themselves.
For example… on one occasion on Sunday I had two cyclists passing me – one on each side at the same time.
Yep some people are idiots, this does not stop us from doing things to protect the masses or making the roads safer.
On a trip around any city you would see enough behaviour from cars to warrant banning private ownership on H&S grounds.
Sounds like a pretty bizarre, one off that.
Funny enough I was in Paris last week and had motorcycle taxi’s at gate du Nord trying to get me to use them …. their explanation of how they can weave through the traffic and get me to my destination more quickly did absolutely nothing to inside me.
@stevextc - Still the most terrifying journey of my life was CDG to La Defense in a taxi where the driver read a book the entire way. He had it wedged between his left knee and the door, so spent 2/3 of the journey looking down and then being surprised every time he glanced up. I was a nervous wreck when we finally arrived!
Still the most terrifying journey of my life was CDG to La Defense in a taxi where the driver read a book the entire way. He had it wedged between his left knee and the door, so spent 2/3 of the journey looking down and then being surprised every time he glanced up. I was a nervous wreck when we finally arrived!
I lived in Paris for 7yrs.... those are the only 7yrs I didn't cycle regularly in 4+ decades...
I was in a taxi a few weeks ago from GdN (again) after getting the train in specifically to avoid crazy drivers... (Was due near La Defense the following morning and went to meet a friend near Clichy)
The driver parked and before I could even say anything opened his door into a cyclist (who was actually going uphill not that fast) .... though he still went over the top of the door.
they are vulnerable and are not acting appropriately
This thread is pretty much one whole "I'm not racist, but…" isn't it?
Another bad one here. Same police force different tone though. I suppose at least they talked to the driver on this one but apparently if the driver sounds the horn its up to the cyclist to get out of the way
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJacIdZJdho
That last clip proves how you cannot reason with stupidity.
i have a friend who has a very similar close pass on video during a work commute and the Police have been very keen to peruse and look to prosecute down here in Surrey.
Another bad one here. Same police force different tone though. I suppose at least they talked to the driver on this one but apparently if the driver sounds the horn its up to the cyclist to get out of the way
The most significant point in this seems to be the cyclist was actually being safe and passing the parked cars at a SAFE distance.
This is the exact point I'm making about cyclists leaving a safe gap... and it being required not just "advised" or "good practice"
The police seem to be arguing the cyclist is somehow in the wrong by following what is only "advice" and passing the parked cars safely... when the cyclist did everything to be safe but the police fall back on this not being anything but "advice" and then trying to imply that by leaving a safe gap they were somehow complicit to the driver deciding to overtake when there most obviously want room.
If I was cycling down that road no way would I go into the door opening space... where win a moment a door can be opened and either you get flung into a car, swerve into one to avoid the door or get flung UNDER a car.
Going back to what Saern said
actually think I get where he’s coming from, because I feel the same when I am driving in traffic with bikes weaving in and out. I get nervous, not because I’m worried about them scuffing my wing mirrors, but because I know that they are far more vulnerable than me
As a driver I am nervous behind a bike that hasn't left a gap should a door open or is passing other cars who may not know they are there. The last thing I want is for the cyclist to feel they must pull to close to cars they are passing due to idiots like the officer in that video then using that as an excuse not to prosecute the driver who not only passed to close but tried to force the cyclist into the danger zone.
Quite honestly self defence kicks in here...
Personally, in such a situation I just double my safety margins and, if necessary, let the bike clear off ahead of me and become someone else’s problem. Defensive driving isn’t just about protecting yourself on the road…
I'd still be cringing on behalf of the cyclist if they pass cars without a safe distance. I'd just be making sure if they do get flung into the road it's not me running over their head.
Looks a closer pass than the first?
This is an downside of defensive cycling, for some motorists it's an invitation to push a close pass.
In the second video how can it be 'obstruction' when he has every right to be where he was?
Someone educate me please..
In the second video how can it be ‘obstruction’ when he has every right to be where he was?
Someone educate me please..
<div></div>
<div>That is the difference between having the right and following best practice and him actually meant to be in the safe zone.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The whole thing rests on guidance (highway code) because the drivers "best practice" is to stay on their side of the road where possible (and other guidance says to leave room) ... but non of that is actually LAW... just guidance left to some potential idiot (the officer on the phone) to interpret as they see fit.</div>
<div></div>
<div>I "have a right" as it were to cross a road... and cars have an obligation not to hit me but that is not the same as the law that states they must stop if I am on a Zebra.</div>
<div>If I'm not on a Zebra they can interpret not hitting me .. they can stop or they can swerve or they can argue that they just went straight into me to avoid hitting other road users because I jumped in front of them. In the same way it's best practice to check your mirror before opening a door into a cyclist but that won't somehow prevent them from serious death or injury if someone doesn't follow it and a the same time the same police officer would presumably blame the cyclist for cycling too close to parked cars.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The next time someone sends in a video of a close pass the same officer is then free to do a 180 and again blame the cyclist for not cycling right next to parked cars... and so on.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>If I am on a Zebra they they MUST stop at any point I am on the Zebra. It's clear and its law.</div>
<div></div>
<div>In the last video the police officer is arguing they were both doing more or less what they were supposed to do according to contradictory best practices... no-one was hurt in this instance and it saves a lot of paperwork.</div>
<div></div>
Best Practice....
Don't cross the centrelines or solid whites? Good idea
Give Cyclists the same space you would a car/motorbike
Don't overtake where it isn't safe
None of those contradict do they, it all just adds up to a safe passing policy.
By the way people want to fill it with but, except, unless, if, might etc. you can see why an actual fixed rule would come in. Nobody thinks the rules apply to them.
In contrast when I've seen people out on horses people treat them like they are passing unstable nuclear land mines, slow as they can, miles away and almost silently. Maybe bikes need a horse escort.
That second clip is pretty horrendous. Shame the criteria wasn't 'deviation from line' in that one, as he is clearly pushed slightly inward by the speed and proximity of the pass. But I guess SYP just make up the criteria as they go along in favour of whatever blarney the driver is using.
Surprised that the officer even bothered to go along for a cosy chat with the driver, but you can imagine how it went - sorry to bother you sir, but we've had a complaint about your driving, no I can't see what's wrong with it either, he's clearly just one of those cyclists who complains about everything, but I have to discuss it with you, did you watch the Blades at the weekend, thanks for the biscuits, I'll be on my way.
Very similar to the punishment pass I had off a Fedex driver the other day, albeit a bit closer. Moving out for parked vehicles, holding my line despite a gap in the vehicles I 'theoretically' could pull into (trying to avoid being boxed), driver decides he's coming through regardless.
sorry to bother you sir, but we’ve had a complaint about your driving, no I can’t see what’s wrong with it either, he’s clearly just one of those cyclists who complains about everything
Does seem to be the case. There's video evidence there, the cop is watching it with them and completely agreeing with the driver who says "He was in my way". Cop is clearly not a cyclist, never has ridden a bike on the road, has not had any training as to how cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) should be treated and is thick as shit.
As I said earlier, pointless reporting it. Take it into your own hands, or just thank **** you weren't actually hit.
Best Practice….
Don’t cross the centrelines or solid whites? Good idea
Give Cyclists the same space you would a car/motorbike
Don’t overtake where it isn’t safe
None of those contradict do they, it all just adds up to a safe passing policy.
They do when the police want them to....
The point is not to look at this as anti-cyclist but anti-work and anti-KPI's...
The cyclist is the one making the complaint... so they are the one blamed so they drop the complaint the lazy/overworked?? officer doesn't have to do any follow-up work... and the incident never occurred so doesn't affect the KPI's.
It's no different to many other things... I once watched a motorbike go past a car and throw a brick through the window... my friend called the police who then started asking if it was HIS car... when he said no they just increasingly threatened him with hassle like having to go to the police station and file a report etc. if he insisted on reporting it.
By the way people want to fill it with but, except, unless, if, might etc. you can see why an actual fixed rule would come in. Nobody thinks the rules apply to them.
Because they are not rules but best practice and inconsistent.
As I was saying a SAFE passing distance is a SAFE passing distance it doesn't matter if you are in a car or a on cycle..
The video illustrates this.... be you on a bike or in a car driving inside the door opening zone is unsafe.
In a car, bus or on a cycle... passing closer than is safe at a speed is the same. That it's the cyclist that comes a cropper is not relevant BECAUSE otherwise drivers will not get it but also because its simply the case. Cyclists need to swerve but so do cars and buses and vans.... If a cyclist is 30cm away from your car then that swerve if a kid runs into the road or any other unexpected event is not possible without hitting a cyclist.
In contrast when I’ve seen people out on horses people treat them like they are passing unstable nuclear land mines, slow as they can, miles away and almost silently. Maybe bikes need a horse escort.
If you speak to horse riders they will doubtless disagree but therein lies the part of the problem....
I'm blown away by the last clip. Are these police forces not accountable to anyone?
They cannot get away with that surely? And I'm talking about the police. They have just blamed the victim for being in the way - when they were exactly where they should be, and is recommended for their own safety.
Kudos to both cyclists for staying cool and maintaining a reasoned and rational conversation in the face of complete stupidity.
both cyclists
Same bloke innit. He has practice. Really don't know how he can be arsed, but there you go - gets nice vids for his channel, I suppose.
I’m blown away by the last clip. Are these police forces not accountable to anyone?
Yes, they are accountable to KPI's.
The driver did nothing illegal... at least nothing that can't be argued with. It's simply easier for them that "nothing happened" as it doesn't affect their KPI's or involve extra work.
There is no law that say's 1.4m... there is just guidance ... and that guidance cannot be universally applied so the police can simplify their lives by ignoring it.
Do you realistically think as an example that 1.4m can be enforced?
If a cyclist passes a car at <1.4m then slows down so the car then passes them for example .... I don't think its reasonable to blame the driver for the cations of the cyclist... which is why there should be a universal rule and clear when it doesn't apply.
Its like I cross the road and a car swerves uncomfortably close to me.
If I'm on a Zebra then its clear cut.... if I'm crossing elsewhere "close" can be argued..so the police will often just take one that can be argued and simplify their lives and KPI's. Ultimately unless someone actually gets hit its just easier for the police to pretend nothing happened.
If the law actually properly supported and enforced the cyclist riding safely then there is no possibility of discussion. It's like theft from a shop.... it can be clear as day that someone stuffing stuff down their pants is planning to steal it... but they haven't actually stolen it until they try to leave without paying. (At least so far as I know its not a crime to act like your about to steal)
Anyone watching the video can see that the motorist is WAY in the wrong and the cyclist does everything correctly. You don't NEED to be a cyclist to have this pointed out.... but that isn't the point to police forces driven by KPI's and budgets.
The only way this will change other than a fundamental change in policing and police funding is by making the law clear. The cyclist must be required to have a door clearance passing parked cars and minimum distance from other cars and then any move by a driver that compromises that is not arguable.
Equally drivers need a VERY specific set of conditions (like when it's OK to pass on the left) where 1.4m does not apply and anything else is a non arguable prosecution. e.g. it may be OK to define when travelling <5mph ... or when travelling <40 mph and the cyclist is in physically separated lane. (These are just examples)