- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
C3FT close pass measurement deviceCyclist accuses police of ignoring close pass video footage
A cyclist has accused police of failing to act after a driver passed him so close he claims he was almost knocked off his bike.
Simon Keen approached road.cc with two videos of drivers coming dangerously close to him on one commute in September, in Batford, Harpenden.
He alleges when he sent the footage to Hertfordshire Police with his concerns, they told him they won’t prosecute or educate drivers unless someone is injured. Road.cc has contacted Hertfordshire police to confirm or deny this, but the approach would be in stark contrast with a recent West Midlands Police initiative to prosecute close passing drivers in an innovative close pass initiative.
Cycling UK lauds West Midlands Police’s new close-pass initiative
Keen described the second of two close passes a “very close shave, with a car overtaking me at night approaching a blind bend and almost hitting me and an oncoming car.”
He says: “Having reported this to Hertfordshire police, which in itself was a challenge, I have been told that neither Herts police nor Bedfordshire police (where I live) will prosecute or even have a word with drivers.
“They will not consider videos as providing any evidence and will only get involved if someone is hurt,” he said.
Keen’s two close passes can be seen in the following videos. In the first instance a driver pulls out of a side road as Keen passes, which he says felt like the driver was driving directly at him. In the second incident, a different driver attempted to overtake Keen on a blind bend, with oncoming vehicles.
Warning: video below contains swearing.
He describes the incident in an email to police, seen by road.cc.
He said: “The driver had had time to overtake me when the road was clear and also made no attempt to pass me with any clearance. This incident was far worse as he only just missed me.”
Keen says it is unlikely the two drivers didn’t see him, as his bike had bright lights front and rear, as well as a Fly6 with flashing red light on the rear, he was wearing a white cycling jersey and reflective backpack, with reflective paint on his tyres and saddle bag.
Police in Camden, North London, are undertaking a similar decoy close pass initiative as West Midlands, and today sent a driver for prosecution for passing within six inches of one of their officers.
Whilst we try & educate people first when you give me 6" passing room then jump a red light expect my officers to send you to court. pic.twitter.com/Hup404MrTC
— Sgt Clarke (@MPSCamdenTnSgt) 29 September 2016
Over the summer Hertfordshire police did a crackdown on pavement cycling in Baldock and Letchworth.
Sergeant Alan Clarke, of the Letchworth and Baldock safer neighbourhood team, said: "We have had increasing reports of people, predominantly adults and teenagers, cycling on pavements."
"Cycling on pavements is dangerous, anti-social and unpopular with cyclists who obey the rules of the road - as well as pedestrians who have to negotiate bikes using the pavement."
"This kind of behaviour is unacceptable, frequently causes collisions and can be very intimidating for people trying to use the footpath."
It is unclear whether anyone had been injured by pavement cycling.
We will update the article when we hear from Hertfordshire Police.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 2 min 15 sec ago
Indeed, I was drawing from personal experience – I don't use it that often but it's such a nice bit of infrastructure that I sometimes go out of my...
- paulgardener@gmail.com 6 min 20 sec ago
Except socialism doesn't work like that in real life. It's the capitals countries that try to look after those in need, and the average person's...
- Patrick9-32 21 min 20 sec ago
2020/2021: Bike companies place large orders to attempt to fill pandemic orders which go unfulfilled due to massive lead times. Leaving many bike...
- David9694 42 min 1 sec ago
'I racked up thousands in Ulez fines - I misread the rules and my dog ate the letters'...
- KDee 1 hour 3 min ago
It's the mass that's the issue. Two people on a petrol powered scooter can really mess up a cyclist. Also the fact so many of the petrol scooters...
- james-o 1 hour 13 min ago
"if we’ve got to fly there we’re not going" *applause from over here*
- KDee 1 hour 14 min ago
"Strumpjumper"...sounds like a euphemism for something else 🤔
- andystow 1 hour 30 min ago
The new RH tubes claim to solve that issue, but price and availability is a problem. I tried to get some to try out, but they went out of stock on...
- brooksby 1 hour 55 min ago
Cough - cough - Clevedon seafront! - cough cough
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 25 min ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
Add new comment
85 comments
First pass was OK I thought (maybe just the camera angle?), but the 2nd pass in the last 10 seconds of the video was utterly shambolic and clearly dangerous! How on earth that doesn't get a word and a 3 points caution I don't know! Keep fighting for it, do it in writing as suggested above. You have the right to get home safely when using the road, that motorist was very close to stopping that, and deserves a warning.
Given that the same police force had the resources to mount a highly publicised operation to crack down on pavement cycling in the well known den of dangerous cycling, Baldock and Letchworth *, the resource argument does not wash. Sorry.
It's not math, it's priorities.
*(KSIs from pavement cycling: 0. No, I'm not going to google the stats, but I'll gladly by anyone who proves me wrong a pint)
But if there's no collision, what harm is done? /ducks
I couldn't give a toss if someone goes 80 on a dual carriage way if they keep a safe distance. I'd rather have people prosecuted for tailgating at 70, or going 35 in a 30.
One presumes that when you're not cycling you're basejumping, wingsuit flying and climbing skyscrapers without a harness, because you must have nerves of steel.
Or you're talking bollocks (Perhaps you drive in Harpenden?)
I'm genuinely all for giving equal opportunities to the less abled, but I draw the line at blind people driving. Even Keith Peates would struggle to justify that second overtake.
Oddly enough Thames Valley Police are more than happy to take action based on video evidence when you cross a hatched area on, say, leaving the M4 at J6. Don't ask me how I...cyclists may be better drivers, but not necessarily perfect. But the course was actually less excruciating than expected.
But obviously endangering cyclists is far less important.
Yay, it's the Mail Windowlickers' Day Out again!
[/quote] 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving.[/quote]
Agreed.............generally the closer you cycle to the kerb the more likely it is that some fcknut will see an opportunity and 'squeeze' past.
I dont think the first pass is about the distance so much, its that the car has done that thing where theyve decided not to wait a few moments more, or worse they just didnt look or care, and just pulled out of the side road, and you end up riding alongside them whilst they complete their turn, which is disconcerting because you kind of know you are in a temporary blind spot where they cant judge the distance away from you properly or see you in the mirrors properly.
so I can see why a rider would react to that, and dont forget sometimes its not the first encounter on a ride youd likely have had, its just the one that causes you to shout.
think the issue though not expressed as such is that cyclists deserve what they get for venturing onto "busy" roads - reasoning being that different standards are being applied - there are plenty of prosecutions of drivers for poor and inconsiderate driving offences when the driving has "merely" potentially, but not actually endangered other drivers - to apply the concept that a collision must occur for the driving to be below an acceptable standard is applying a different ruleset and an inappropriate one
resources are different issue from willingness to prioritise
That first 'incident' was a non event. I'd even argue that on a quiet road, the driver was doing the sensible thing... by pulling out and leaving plenty of room, it stops the car from being caught behind the cyclist moving forward.
However I get why the cyclist was pissed at it... it was a bit cheeky. It was not careless driving though was it?
I'd have submitted the second pass only, and maybe the forces may have been more receptive.
Probably not.
I commute 5000 miles a year by bike. I see my fair share of bad driving, but don't feel the need to get a camera. I fact I'm sick of cameras intruding into every aspect of daily life.
Do I feel any safer and notice anyone driving better now that people are videoing rides and sending them to the police - NO.
Do I get more abuse from drivers who see cyclists as the enemy - YES.
I ride with a camera incase the worst happens and hopefully there wil be some evidence and that will give my family some peace of mind.
Only once ive sent a video clip to a company because the driving fell far bellow the poor standards Ive come to expect.
Each to their own. Personally I use a camera so there is evidence if I'm injured or killed by the driver of a vehicle. I want my family to have some way of seeing justice done, and hopefully to avoid unnecessary hardship.
Fine, people can do what they want, but it does create a them and us, which impacts on all cyclists, not only those who choose to use cameras.
Personally, if I was so obsessed with getting killed riding a bike everyday that I felt the need to wear a camera to record my demise, I probably would be riding at all.
Cycling community wanker.
@ Drosco, How on earth does carrying a camera create a them and us scenario?
The camera just records what is happening and in the unlikely event of an incident it cuts thru' the "He said.." "She said.." nonsense.
I will accept that cameras positively affect behaviour if people know that they are being filmed, as witnessed this week when it was reported that Police wearing body cameras saw a 93% reduction in complaints.
But again I cannot see how would create a them and us situation either.
How dare I have an opion that isn't the same as yours!
(insert expletive here)
Cretins.
watched the video, no issues withh the guy pulling out.
cyclist probably neededs a better headlight to ride on unlit roads
finally got to the close pass after a long period of nothing, crazy close can't be defended.
conicence does not equal cause
roads are getting busiers drivers are getting more stressed -> abuse levels go up
drivers are more stressed and agressive -> camera use goes up.
I do not accept that the prevalence of camers causes abuse to go up, as we all know people are more likely to behave if their actions can be proven.
I don't agree.
This constant reporting of incidents on social media is making the problems worse in my experience. It's polarising attitudes to cyclists.
Drivers squash cyclists.
Drivers drive aggressively around cyclists.
In response:
Cyclists wear helmets.
Cyclists wear cameras to record driver behaviour.
And the cause of the 'them and us'? The camera wearers...
drosco - go and sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
By George, I think you're onto something!
Fook the root cause analysis: all you need now are some stats that show that the numbers of cyclists killed and seriously injured on the road has proportionally increased since social media - they shouldn't be hard to find!
I get what you mean about the first one but when someone does that to you there is always a heart in mouth moment when you aren't sure if they have seen you or not, so I can understand him calling the guy a tosser. Probably wouldn't have posted the video if the second, worse one wasn't on the same bit of video.
If one hides in the gutter as you seem to propose then they're even less likely to see you. Fecking idiot.
Blimey, I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! If your life revolves around raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you're a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you'll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.
As for people rubbishing what I've said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don't see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists' speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers')
Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you'll be a hell of a lot safer. I'm not saying drivers don't need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.
4 paragraphs of bollocks. Good work.
[/quote]
Nice critical analytical skills you've got there. I therefore take it you believe the opposite, which seems bizarre on a cycling website.
Such as?
[/quote] What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no 'mandatory distance', but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. "Stay safe" is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]
Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!
I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:
1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off. It's personal, and it's what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don't do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.
Are you saying that cyclists' behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs?
- If you are, you're wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs - govt and RoSPA figures.
- If you're not, then you must accept that you're arguing a trivial point - that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).
Proven not to be the case, studies have shown passing distances unchanged unless the cyclist where a vest marked "Police" or "Polite" in which case they are fine, they see you but they don't care unless they think the police are watching.
Pages