PhilDawson8270
Veteran
But they're super human, highly qualified drivers, better than mere mortals. So the rules don't apply to their driving
Van drivers!!!
- Thread starter steve50
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
But they're super human, highly qualified drivers, better than mere mortals. So the rules don't apply to their driving
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
[QUOTE 4296276, member: 9609"]police cars carry cameras and if they were following someone who passed too closely then reasonably accurate distances could be established. This would be better evidence than 'you didn't leave plenty of room', oh yes i did, oh no you didn't oh yes i did.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, but the truth is that the Police really don't care unless you're under the wheels. Even then it's a push
Certainly, but the truth is that the Police really don't care unless you're under the wheels. Even then it's a push
glenn forger
Guest
I sent it to them on Twitter but I was a bit abusive.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
[QUOTE 4296302, member: 9609"]sadly that is quite true. And this is why I want this subject discussed in parliament and changes to the law, then the police may have to start and take notice. I appreciate there would be huge problems with a min distance law, and if it is unworkable then may be the law makers can come up with a better solution. but something needs to change and getting the subject brought to parliament would at least be a start.[/QUOTE]
My issue is that I have very little trust in lawmakers. And it would be far too easy to say "bicycles on cycle paths only, no road use". I imagine as far as police, and parliament, and many in the wider population are concerned, this would be "problem solved".
I don't know what the solution is though, there are far better minds out there than mine to figure it out, but I fear it will be a generation or two before any real change happens.
My issue is that I have very little trust in lawmakers. And it would be far too easy to say "bicycles on cycle paths only, no road use". I imagine as far as police, and parliament, and many in the wider population are concerned, this would be "problem solved".
I don't know what the solution is though, there are far better minds out there than mine to figure it out, but I fear it will be a generation or two before any real change happens.
[QUOTE 4296248, member: 9609"]With camera's, establishing a distance should not be too difficult. A definitive distance within law would be far more desirable than 'you should leave plenty of room' or 'leave as much distance as you would for another car' both of which are pretty meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Particularly when they are shoulds rather than musts in the HC.
Particularly when they are shoulds rather than musts in the HC.
Last edited:
Profpointy
Legendary Member
'kinell - several ordinary motorists managed to do perfectly sensible overtakes, something obviously beyond the skill of the police driver - who presumably would have had some extra training one would have thought, even if he's not a pursuit driver or whatever the term is.
classic33
Leg End Member
[QUOTE 4296302, member: 9609"]sadly that is quite true. And this is why I want this subject discussed in parliament and changes to the law, then the police may have to start and take notice. I appreciate there would be huge problems with a min distance law, and if it is unworkable then may be the law makers can come up with a better solution. but something needs to change and getting the subject brought to parliament would at least be a start.[/QUOTE]
Most are also calibrated as speed cameras would be. Therefore able to give a distance.
But, if you have on video your hand on an unstretched arm touching the vehicle would that not serve the calibration purpose?
Most are also calibrated as speed cameras would be. Therefore able to give a distance.
But, if you have on video your hand on an unstretched arm touching the vehicle would that not serve the calibration purpose?
classic33
Leg End Member
Would require a change in the law itself. 18mph & over we're supposed to use the roads.
classic33
Leg End Member
Would require a change in the law itself. 18mph & over we're supposed to use the roads.
bigjim
Legendary Member
- Location
- Manchester. UK
Re highway code-
definition of "should".
Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions:
Seems to me it is an obligation.
definition of "should".
Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions:
Seems to me it is an obligation.
It's not how the Highway Code uses the word. It's quite clear that legally required items use MUST. "Should" indicates that there is no legislative force behind the recommendation, but failing to do what one "should" may be used as evidence of negligence, or even of an offence, but doesn't of itself inherently constitute one.
Argument by dictionary doesn't get you very far in the legal system.
bigjim
Legendary Member
- Location
- Manchester. UK
Neither does being a cyclist.
I worked in a government department for quite a few years. We had a document that required companies to supply use with evidential information. It was worded with should. When one company did not adhere to this, their claim was disallowed by our legal bods as they used the dictionary definition to to show the compliance required. As you say though the courts may not think the same way.
D
Deleted member 1258
Guest
[QUOTE 4295992, member: 9609"]What law are they breaking ?
forget the bollox in the highway code, that just says you should leave as much room as you do when passing another car; which is utterly meaningless as you may normally only leave other cars 3 inches.
There is a petition to create a law
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=128190
but in a weird bit of logic many cyclists won't sign it because it may not get enforced.
So if you have not signed the above petition and wrote to your MP and police commissioner demanding something done, then stop whinging about close passes.[/QUOTE]
The petition was rejected by the government. I signed the petition and received the government reply, unfortunately I've lost my copy of the E-mail but I managed to find the original facebook post, petition and response.
This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.
This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.
We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190
forget the bollox in the highway code, that just says you should leave as much room as you do when passing another car; which is utterly meaningless as you may normally only leave other cars 3 inches.
There is a petition to create a law
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=128190
but in a weird bit of logic many cyclists won't sign it because it may not get enforced.
So if you have not signed the above petition and wrote to your MP and police commissioner demanding something done, then stop whinging about close passes.[/QUOTE]
The petition was rejected by the government. I signed the petition and received the government reply, unfortunately I've lost my copy of the E-mail but I managed to find the original facebook post, petition and response.
This Government currently does not have plans to legislate on a set minimum space e.g. 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of up to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist.
This type of legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and the Government does not believe that it would add to the existing rules and guidance, including those set out in the Highway Code, which advises drivers to give cyclists “at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.
We are keeping this position under review, and are interested in learning from the experience of places where legislation of this type has been introduced. One example is South Australia, where since 25th October 2015, drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60km/h (37.3mph) or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60km/h (40mph). The penalty for drivers caught disobeying this rule is a $287 (£148) fine, plus a $60 (£31) victim of crime levy and 2 demerit (penalty) points. However, it will take time to understand the benefits and impacts of this legislation on cyclists and other road users.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190
Relating to van drivers - i have had many close calls with them, but alarmingly I have more frequent and dangerous close calls with 4x4's and mpv's. Likely more to do with where I cycle mind. I find that overall the van drivers where I cycle give me space behind, to the side and also when pullibg back in front !
London however is a completely different kettle of fish.
London however is a completely different kettle of fish.
