# close passing prosecutions



## lutonloony (16 Sep 2016)

Apologies if this is old news, and if my link is rubbish!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...close-passing/ar-BBwdvqN?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=iehp


----------



## fossyant (16 Sep 2016)

It's unlikely to happen as there aren't prosecutions for running people down.


----------



## steve50 (16 Sep 2016)

Motorists who endanger cyclists by getting too close to them will be prosecuted for* driving without due care and attention* under a new scheme.
I imagine that is what they will be aiming for, anything the police do to make the roads safer for cyclists is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Edit ; have anyone read the comments under the article, the usual anti cyclist brigade giving it their all.

Have left a comment of my own, will be interesting to read any responses.


----------



## lutonloony (16 Sep 2016)

if they are classing it as 1.5 metres, I think that is probably 70% of all cars that go past me on a daily basis


----------



## lutonloony (16 Sep 2016)

steve50 said:


> Motorists who endanger cyclists by getting too close to them will be prosecuted for* driving without due care and attention* under a new scheme.
> I imagine that is what they will be aiming for, anything the police do to make the roads safer for cyclists is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
> 
> Edit ; have anyone read the comments under the article, the usual anti cyclist brigade giving it their all.


will have a read, when I get time, this work malarkey keeps getting in he way


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Sep 2016)

The cynic and realist in me will believe it when it happens. 

Until then I'll take the enforcement situation for me on my bike as SNAFU


----------



## Lonestar (16 Sep 2016)

[Rant] I can't post on there as I'm not on ar53b00k,probably lucky really as I wanted to say....society showing how thick it is as usual.

Confronted by a mobile wielding motorist yesterday whose brain cell was overloaded...an ignorant coach driver blocking the cycle lane crossing and a lorry driver who demolished a Boris Bike...luckily with no rider on it....and do get me onto lack of signalling or suddenly swapping a right turn for a left turn.

Oh yeah...another car pulling out from a sidestreet without looking or stopping (until he nearly collided with me,that is),but that ok isn't it?

Pedestrians staring at mobile phones when crossing the road,very clever.Where's the clown smiley?[/Rant Over]


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Sep 2016)

Can somebody confirm?

Article is about car drivers being clamped down on for endangering other users? Followed by car drivers complaining they aren't allowed to endanger other people?

Am I going crazy or is the above what I am reading? If so, it's amazing this species has achieved as much as it has.


----------



## Lonestar (16 Sep 2016)

*Jimmy Jim · 
Owner-operator at Self-employed
All cyc;ists should be made to pay road tax have insurance and sit a test to make sure they know the rules of the road the times I have seen then go through red lights go up one way streets be on the pavements and all there bikes should have a type of Mot to be on the road.*

His punctuation is almost as bad as mine.**


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Sep 2016)

The annoying thing about this is that since I ride both a motorcycle and drive a car. I have taken 2 lots of practical tests, and 2 lots of theory tests, and 2 lots of hazard perception too. And since one license was 4 years after the other. That is probably more regular training than what most of those car drivers get.

Not even all cars pay VED. Should we ban electric cars too?


----------



## lutonloony (16 Sep 2016)

steve50 said:


> Motorists who endanger cyclists by getting too close to them will be prosecuted for* driving without due care and attention* under a new scheme.
> I imagine that is what they will be aiming for, anything the police do to make the roads safer for cyclists is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
> 
> Edit ; have anyone read the comments under the article, the usual anti cyclist brigade giving it their all.
> ...


felt compelled to add a few comments/replies as well


----------



## Mile195 (16 Sep 2016)

All a nice idea, but almost entirely unenforceable isn't it? I can't see many cases going to court and anyone being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt whether or not a driver was at least 1.5 meters away. It's impossible to be that accurate even with video footage - we all know how wide lenses distort distances from camera footage that gets posted on here all the time. "Honest, he was much closer than it looks in the video".

And also, <1.5 meters - is that always a close pass? At a traffic speed of 10-15 mph, 60cms doesn't even feel close sometimes. Cycling along a 60mph road, 1.5 meters may not even be enough.

Still, maybe if it became law then it might make people think, and then its served a purpose. Kind of like that middle-lane driving thing. Handful of prosecutions, but maybe more people pay attention to their positioning now. Who knows.


----------



## mjr (16 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4469021, member: 9609"]the current 'leave as much room as you would a car' is meaningless bolloxs.[/QUOTE]
Especially when it's accompanied in the highway code by a picture of a car straddling a white line that would be dangerously close if it was overtaking an identical car:


----------



## Rooster1 (16 Sep 2016)




----------



## jarlrmai (16 Sep 2016)

What's the .75 about? That could be argued/misconstrued/misinterpreted to be something like a maximum distance from the kerb for a cyclist?


----------



## jarlrmai (16 Sep 2016)

also

http://www.screwfix.com/p/bosch-plr...NpHP9GFWZeQ_dfm9d1lmmlwj6QFQ_KLEdAaAhcq8P8HAQ


----------



## Electric_Andy (16 Sep 2016)

Mile195 said:


> All a nice idea, but almost entirely unenforceable isn't it?


 Agree. If a policeman sees it happen then fair enough. If someone records it happening with a helmet camera, and happens to be looking right at the time, they stand a chance. But 90% of the time, it will be a cyclist reporting it with no evidence other than their own interpretation. 

Let's be positive though. At least if there's a threat of being "done by the rozzers", it might stop some people close passing?


----------



## jarlrmai (16 Sep 2016)

Well I'm taping my laser measure to my handle bars for a laugh, I'll point the gopro so it can see the readout and the car overtaking.


----------



## wheresthetorch (16 Sep 2016)

On BBC News website now:

West Midlands Police target drivers too close to cyclists - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37384899

The comment from ROSPA is disturbing: "Ideally cyclists would not need to mingle with traffic on the roads". So whose roads are they then? Oh yes, the motorists'. Bastards.


----------



## Arjimlad (16 Sep 2016)

In these instances, my local police have taken action by visiting the (shocked) driver & giving stern words of advice, based upon the pictures & reviewing the video footage. With the blue Renault, they asked if I wanted them to consider prosecution. Perhaps camera footage would be enough ?


----------



## mjr (16 Sep 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> What's the .75 about? That could be argued/misconstrued/misinterpreted to be something like a maximum distance from the kerb for a cyclist?


It's probably a hangover from the bad old "Cycling Proficiency Test" where future sideswipe victims were told to ride "about two feet" from the kerb, but it might also be working backwards from the 2m minimum cycle lane width in Local Transport Note 2/08 and some others, adding 25cm to allow pedals to clear the kerb and then deducting the 1.5m passing distance.

Either way, it's not good.


----------



## DRM (16 Sep 2016)

Surely the law in France that should you hit a cyclist, you are immediatley at fault would give these numpty motorists food for thought, and encourage them to pass properly.


----------



## newfhouse (16 Sep 2016)

mjr said:


> Especially when it's accompanied in the highway code by a picture of a car straddling a white line that would be dangerously close if it was overtaking an identical car:
> View attachment 144139


It isn't dangerously close to the cyclist. Surely what counts is the distance between the two road users. Have I misunderstood your meaning?


----------



## Big Andy (16 Sep 2016)

DRM said:


> Surely the law in France that should you hit a cyclist, you are immediatley at fault would give these numpty motorists food for thought, and encourage them to pass properly.


Ok in theory i suppose. A bit hard on the motorist who isnt at fault though.


----------



## mjr (16 Sep 2016)

newfhouse said:


> It isn't dangerously close to the cyclist. Surely what counts is the distance between the two road users. Have I misunderstood your meaning?


Yes, which was that the picture doesn't actually illustrate its caption.


----------



## irw (17 Sep 2016)

mjr said:


> Yes, which was that the picture doesn't actually illustrate its caption.


I think the idea is that you would generally leave (for sake of argument) 1.5m between your car and the one you are overtaking. Therefore, you should leave 1.5m between your car and the cyclist you are overtaking. If you had to leave a car's width everytime you overtook a car, all roads would need three lanes!


----------



## DaveReading (17 Sep 2016)

irw said:


> I think the idea is that you would generally leave (for sake of argument) 1.5m between your car and the one you are overtaking. Therefore, you should leave 1.5m between your car and the cyclist you are overtaking. If you had to leave a car's width everytime you overtook a car, all roads would need three lanes!



+1

The clue is in the word "space". It's not saying that a driver's positioning on the road should be identical whether they are overtaking a bike or another car, but that they should allow the same clearance (as a minimum) in either case. I can't see how the graphic supports any other interpretation.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Sep 2016)

User said:


> If the motorist isn't at fault, it will be readily apparent.


I would hope so, however if you have a ruling thatcsays he is automatically at fault it is then a problem.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Sep 2016)

It may work in other countries. But I am personally against the introduction of any legislation that places automatic or implied blame on any part before an investigation.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It may work in other countries. But I am personally against the introduction of any legislation that places automatic or implied blame on any part before an investigation.


I agree. A very slippery slope.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It may work in other countries. But I am personally against the introduction of any legislation that places automatic or implied blame on any part before an investigation.



I don't know about France but the presumed liability currently being sought in this country would apply solely to the civil aspect of damages and not the criminal aspect of fault.

GC


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Sep 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I don't know about France but the presumed liability currently being sought in this country would apply solely to the civil aspect of damages and not the criminal aspect of fault.
> 
> GC


I do understand that, but I am still opposed to it. In any scenario.


----------



## mjr (17 Sep 2016)

DaveReading said:


> +1
> 
> The clue is in the word "space". It's not saying that a driver's positioning on the road should be identical whether they are overtaking a bike or another car, but that they should allow the same clearance (as a minimum) in either case. *I can't see how the graphic supports any other interpretation.*


And that's my point. Motorists will happily squeeze past other vehicles with much less than 1.5m clearance and the illustration encourages them to do similarly close overtakes of cyclists because it's clearly not treating the cyclist as if they're a car. I don't agree with that interpretation and at best, the rule is dangerously ambiguous and should be rephrased with explicit distances, preferably backed by law.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I do understand that, but I am still opposed to it. In any scenario.



Even where you're rear-ended by another driver? 

GC


----------



## DRM (17 Sep 2016)

The thing is the French don't view cyclists as a bloody nusiance, when you are overtaken they give you lot's of room, most sundays in villages and towns there is the club run, so motorists are used to cyclists being on the road, however the main differance to the UK is French roads are generally long and straight, but it is a better mindset from drivers, alot of whom probably ride as well, so they know what it is like to be on a bike so are more careful around cyclists.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Sep 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Even where you're rear-ended by another driver?
> 
> GC



Even then. That has been abused, with the crash for cash scams. Admittedly you would be daft to crash for cash on a bicycle  But yes, even in that scenario I don't agree with it.


----------



## PK99 (17 Sep 2016)

DRM said:


> *The thing is the French don't view cyclists as a bloody nusiance, when you are overtaken they give you lot's of room*, most sundays in villages and towns there is the club run, so motorists are used to cyclists being on the road, however the main differance to the UK is French roads are generally long and straight, but it is a better mindset from drivers, alot of whom probably ride as well, so they know what it is like to be on a bike so are more careful around cyclists.



Not in my experience over a number of years in France and specifically last week touring in Provence:

1. Up hill. Armco to my right. Secondary road position. Large HGV overtakes too close and gets closer to the point where I could have touched the Armco on my right and his wheel on my left. I have never has such a close pass in the UK - my wife was riding behind and was terrified for my safety and asked if I was ok and needed to stop when she caught up a few moments later.

2. Group of 13, split into two sub groups. with the length of a cricket wicket between. Large farm with large trailer attached, overtakes rear group, stays wide but passes second group very close and pulls in, the trailer forcing the riders almost into the verge.

3. Riding up the Gorges du Verdun. Rock wall to the left. Stone parapet and deep drop to the right. Winding bends. Car overtakes on bend and is met by car coming the other way. Pulls in hard at an angle part way along the group leaving zero space at the front. Both cars and cyclists forced to a standstill.

There were many other close passes less dramatic, but equally well short of the mythical 1.5m

And one not passing related:

I'm going down hill (on the route from Sault to Gorges de Nesque. Long. Straight. Steep. 20/25mph. Wide cycle lanes both sides. Car pulls out of side turning. Stops front wheels into the main carriageway, completely straddling the Cycle Lane. I'm forced into emergency braking to the point of locking up. Only escape is to swing very sharply behind him. How I managed to first avoid T-boning him and second to stay upright on the swing behind I still do not know. Garmin trace clearly show heart rate spike.

A typical cycling week for me is 150 miles in the Surrey Hills and the Thames Valley west from Kingston - in 10 years I can recall one event where I felt as directly in danger as those 4 events in a single week in Provence.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Sep 2016)

User said:


> It isn't automatically at fault though. It is simply that the onus is placed on the driver to show that they are not at fault.


Well thats slightly better. However guilty until proven innocent is still a slippery slope.


----------



## doog (17 Sep 2016)

DRM said:


> The thing is the French don't view cyclists as a bloody nusiance, when you are overtaken they give you lot's of room, most sundays in villages and towns there is the club run, so motorists are used to cyclists being on the road, however the main differance to the UK is French roads are generally long and straight, but it is a better mindset from drivers, alot of whom probably ride as well, so they know what it is like to be on a bike so are more careful around cyclists.



I thought the same rather wistfully but after multiple tours through France I'm firmly of the belief that familiarisation breeds contempt with the French. They tend to indicate more so than the Brits when overtaking but their speed is often higher (or not reduced at all) and I notice no real difference in relation to passing distances. 

I also find Sundays to be quite hazardous in rural areas - usually after dinner, cant think why


----------



## Lonestar (18 Sep 2016)

doog said:


> I also find Sundays to be quite hazardous in rural areas - usually after dinner, cant think why



I found the Saturday night commute back quite hazardous but I did get some good overtakes and signalling...also quite a few strong smells of grass,man.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Nov 2016)

Metropolitan Police are upping the stakes by suggesting that repeat offenders are at risk of having their vehicle seized.


----------



## mjr (17 Nov 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Metropolitan Police are upping the stakes by suggesting that repeat offenders are at risk of having their vehicle seized.


And blimey, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59 appears to give them that power.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2016)

I think the only way this could get to court is if the car that closely passes you is being followed by a police car who sees the incident.

Closes passes on head cams often don't look like close passes because of the distortion.

I like the idea, but proving it is a different thing.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Nov 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think the only way this could get to court is if the car that closely passes you is being followed by a police car who sees the incident.
> 
> Closes passes on head cams often don't look like close passes because of the distortion.
> 
> I like the idea, but proving it is a different thing.




I suspect it's primarily targeted at offenders caught in situation like the West Midlands Police 'Operation Close Pass' where it is unmarked police cyclists who are providing the evidence. If it creates some worry in wider motoring circles that's all good.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I suspect it's primarily targeted at offenders caught in situation like the West Midlands Police 'Operation Close Pass' where it is unmarked police cyclists who are providing the evidence. If it creates some worry in wider motoring circles that's all good.


Thats lovely. I like that.

Now we can all wear those viz vests with POLICE on the back :0)


----------



## david k (17 Nov 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Thats lovely. I like that.
> 
> Now we can all wear those viz vests with POLICE on the back :0)


Or POLITE


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2016)

david k said:


> Or POLITE


Mine will say POLITI


----------

