- 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
London bus and cyclist.jpgInvestigate how near misses involving cyclists are handled by police – Transport Committee
In its recent report on road traffic law enforcement, the House of Commons’ Transport Committee has recommended that the Home Office commission research into how collisions and near misses are handled by the police. The committee sees this as a necessary part of the Government’s strategy to promote cycling, which it says must involve reducing the number of people who consider it too dangerous to cycle on the roads.
Describing the vulnerability of cyclists as “a particular road enforcement challenge,” the Transport Committee says that it is also because of that vulnerability that cyclists are more aware of careless or dangerous driving around them.
“A ‘near miss’ involving a cyclist can be close to a fatal accident, and ‘near miss’ reports involving cyclists should be considered in that light. It is clear that there is a problem with the actual and subjective safety of the roads for cyclists, as well as the perception of the likely result of reporting offences to the police. The level to which cyclists feel unsafe on the roads due to a perceived failure to enforce traffic law is at odds with the Government’s aim to promote cycling, and must be addressed.
“We recommend that the Government’s strategy should not only promote cycle use, but must do so whilst reducing the proportion of people who consider that it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads.”
The committee spoke to a number of cycling campaigners and cyclists and said there appeared to be “substantial feeling that collisions or near misses involving cyclists are sometimes not effectively handled.”
Scary near-misses aren't acceptable in a true cycling nation says Chris Boardman
There was also found to be great variation between police forces with regard to how a road user can report a near miss. As well as suggesting that the development of best practice would be of benefit to all, the committee also recommended that the Home Office commission research into how collisions or near misses are handled, in particular “how this varies between each force area, and how this impacts the proportion of people who believe it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads.”
Making reference to cyclists being particularly vulnerable to collisions with HGVs, the report also says that the Department for Transport should assess the impact of Transport for London’s Safer Lorry Scheme with a view to applying pressure to make those requirements mandatory for HGVs across the EU.
Mayor of London says safer cabs proposal is being blocked at a European level
The committee also recommended that the Department for Transport respond to calls from campaigners for an HGV ban on the streets of central London during certain hours. It suggested that the impact of a ban on vulnerable road users and road haulage operators be evaluated to see if measures can be devised which would balance the two groups’ needs.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 2 hours 26 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 2 hours 46 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 3 hours 12 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 3 hours 58 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 26 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 7 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 5 hours 46 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 6 hours 43 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 59 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
24 comments
The employer or PR route can be effective.
http://road.cc/content/news/113535-caravan-firm-sacks-driver-who-was-fil...
(road.cc website bug - linkifier fails at $ in URL
http://www.caravantimes.co.uk/news/people/human-interest/forest-of-dean-...$21384068.htm
)
Round here - Thames Valley Police - the police won't even record accidents, let alone near misses, unless there has been injury. Even writing off a bike isn't sufficient to hit the accident records.
We've had policemen telling people that they should say they have been bruised to get a record of an accident.
For me it's not speed that is the problem it's how close they are.
The faster the more gap there should be.
My biggest bugbear is road furniture I would get rid of a good 50% of it. I have more close passes and cars so close it is very annoying. They cause so much danger when you cycle on the road. and had another one the outer morning as at a pinch point, the driver seamed to time it to pass at the narrowest point.
I record my journeys on camera and the 2 I have reported one was a result he got a warning .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS51DuZvrvg
The second https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHQXLI8iiM
I don’t know what has happened as they haven’t told me, even after asking twice.
I also use the cameras to get pictures of potholes as well for the website fillthathole.
The second video is shocking. Large vehicle, high speed, very close pass. Massive suction effect and to make it worse, because there was a trailer (or towed vehicle?) you could so easily have been sucked into the gap. If you go under the wheels I doubt you'd be here today.
Worse is that it was clearly intentional - the driver knew what he was going hence the hooting. Given the size of his vehicle he should be taking extra caution not less.
A a decent police and justice system would treat this on its merits - he'd be prosecuted as if he had hit you because it's only luck that he didn't hit you (and to people who say that's not fair, consider how many speeding fines are given out despite the fact that the speeding didn't result in an accident - we already have that precedent).
Of course he knew what he was doing: in his tiny little mind, what he was doing was "educating the cyclist that he ought to have been using the shared-use path running alongside the road, which has been built at great expense using his hard-earned taxes dontcha know?" The idea that he might have killed the cyclist without even knowing about it probably never even surfaced...
(I am presuming this, as I get a similar reaction now a new path's been built on my commute home).
As Zanf says above, making rat running impossible by making all residential streets effectively one-ways would do wonders.
Kids may even be able to play outside again...
Spanish drivers tend to leave much more space around cyclists than British drivers. This is probably because the law is very clear: vehicle drivers must leave a gap of at least 1.5 metres (almost five feet) around cyclists. British legislation is too wooly and subjective on this point.
I'm generally happy with 1m, far too many pass within 0.5m
I agree with wolfie above that speed plays a big part in incidents but is not regarded by many motorists as a 'problem'. Limits need to be fully enforced.
Disagree about infrastructure, I commute 10 miles each way using a variety of roads and I acknowledge that there will never be 'infrastructure' from my front door to my place of work.
I do believe that presumed liability would help in this matter, but it's so contentious in this car worshiping society, it'll never happen.
My commute covers two police forces. Last year I reluctantly purchased a camera and decided that I would use it. Not to post on youtube to whinge about drivers, but the worst incidents would be reported to the police with evidence to back the claims. North Wales police have been brilliant in the way they have dealt with matters, sometimes a quiet word, sometimes a ticket, but Cheshire police not so clever. I reported one incident in Cheshire last week, an overtake by an SUV with large 4 wheeled trailer which didn't even cross the white lines to pass me, they couldn't as there was a double decker bus coming the other way at the time of the pass. Made the report, sent the video, but a sergeant reviewed the footage and said they would be taking no action. I've challenged this back by sending a copy of the image from the Highway Code and asked for an explanation. If the answer is the same I intend to escalate to the Chief Constable and the Police Commissioner.
I do, however, fully appreciate the pressures that the police are under. Successive governments go on about road safety, but keep cutting the police budgets. Of course, all those 'law abiding' drivers are happy to see the traffic patrols reduced, they aren't the problem are they........?
It is hard to guess statistic about the percentage of good drivers versus bad. My view is that you only need one idiot to get in troubles.
I feel non cyclists, including my wife and friends, the general public, politicians, police etc… don’t understand how it feels to be passed too close or the implication of a crash which could be a dent on a car but hospital or worse for a cyclist. For instance both my wife and dad are very responsible individual and very prudent drivers, however until I explained they didn’t appreciate that when passing leaving a less that 50 cm gap with a car is fine but it could be deadly dangerous for a cyclist. Of course since I cycle for leisure and commuting they are both more aware and careful.
Of course there are certain people (regardless what they drive or ride) that are just bad citizen. This morning I was on my motor bike when an idiot with another bike almost clipped a cyclist with complete disregard of his safety. The guy had been driving like an idiot for a while. I cough up with him at the traffic light and talked to him. His answer? He showed me the middle finger! Of course no police around.
On a different note. Liability laws DO WORK! In Russian until last year it almost impossible to cross the road as no drivers would let a pedestrian go (regardless the traffic light). Now they have intruded "guaranteed jail terms" if you just touch a pedestrian. Guess what, now you can cross the road with your eyes closed!
I am not convinced by presumed liability because it effectively applies to being shunted from the rear today, yet there is no shortage of those collisions.
Using the segregated lanes on Tavistock and Royal College Street (plus the road that links them by Golden Crescent) on my commute has convinced me that segregation is essential for urban commuting. Its not what I want at the weekends when I'm looking for some green-stuff, but it is what I need for work. I'm no-longer interested in taking primary and hoping that no one is going to plough into the back of me while the Sun is supposedly in their eyes, or similar.
Near miss as he straightens wheels and comes towards me
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxPjodFxEs&feature=youtu.be
It is difficult to say from watching the footage whether or not it was deliberate but it does illustrate another issue, ill-conceived infrastructure that puts cyclists directly into conflict with motorists.
While the cyclist sees the road markings giving them exception to the one-way road, all the motorist sees is the no entry signs and a cyclist 'flouting the law'. I bet there is nothing to warn motorists approaching the give-way that there maybe oncoming cyclists.
Other than the big bicycle painted on the road with an arrow? Lol.
As others have mentioned, presumed liability would go a long way. The government have all but abandoned active policing of the roads, the only thing that keeps some semblance of order is the majority of drivers avoiding collisions with other motor vehicles because it effects them financially through raised insurance premiums.
Obviously this does not address actual collisions with cyclists and 'hit and runs'. These can only be addressed by effective investigatory policing, but the topic is 'near misses'.
The problem is to a lot of drivers (whether it is a car lorry bus or even some motorbikes) so long as they don't actually hit you, they can be millimetres away and they think they have passed you safely.
I would argue that this request to look at how near misses are handled, and then to do something about it, would make cycling a lot better for all of us. If they took these steps there wouldn't be a need for any infrastructure; if we all used the roads with consideration for all other road users most of these issues would go away.
The standard of driving is way too low and if you ask most people about their journey to work (for example) not one of them could remember a thing about it. Except maybe when their favourite song came on the radio. People don't concentrate and they really do think waiting for a minute behind a bike is too much.
Wolfie's figures above are way out in my experience. 20% of drivers are brilliant, and will cross the white line (shock horror) to pass you, having waited until it was clear to do so. On the other hand 10% are quite happy to skim past you without even their side of the car crossing the white line, and a good 5% seem to get a kick out of scaring the crap out of you.
Speed is a big factor in a higher percentage of road accidents of all kinds than presently acknowledged.
Enforcing the 20mph speed limits on residential roads would improve the safety. Getting impatient risk taking drivers to calm down.
Sentencing needs to be harden up too, perhaps even adopting the European liability rule. Drivers wailing about cyclists causing accidents has to be weighed against with a UK where drivers get away with showing no patience and consideration for other road users.
In my experience 95% of drivers are fine. 2% make silly mistakes and the last 3% have no regard for others and will happily risk killing you if you get in their way.
We've had 30 years of lads Top Gear and '0-60 in..' car adverts and this infantile approach to motoring needs to change.
Totally agree with the cultural point. I think we need to distinguish between driving as an expression of freedom, hitting the open road etc, and driving as transport, for getting from A to B. The majority of driving is the latter, but the majority of advertising and car worship revolves around the former.
The car lobby would have something to say about that distinction, though, and they're an irrepressible force at the moment...
I'd disagree slightly on speed. Speeding is less of a factor than you might think - according to the IAM. Speed in respect to the conditions is a significant factor (eg. we've all been down unfamiliar national speed limit single-tracks where to drive at 60 would be to guarantee inserting your car halfway up the next oak tree). I'd rather lump this all under 'drive to the conditions' than to focus on just one factor.
Introduce permeability in all residential streets. Completely cut out rat running and make it so that the only reason vehicles go into resdential areas is because they live, or are visiting there.
I was recently in Amsterdam, and stayed near Oosterpark. It was eerie just how quiet it was when my GF and I walked from the metro to the apartment, because cars just didnt use the back streets as cut throughs.
Cut the beaurocratic crap and just build dedicated, safer infrastructure. That will reduce "the proportion of people who consider that it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads."
Given the bogus need for austerity and the lack of political will to do anything other than pay lip service to cyclists needs, you may as well suggest that we sprout wings and fly everywhere.
Roads aren't inherently dangerous - a sizeable minority of ignorant, aggressive drivers are and that's why people have the perceptions they do. The only way to combat them is to enforce and strengthen the law and make it socially unacceptable to behave like they do. I also think that presumed liability laws like those on the continent would be a low cost measure that could have significant results.
Infrastructure has its place, but you can't build it everywhere. At some point cyclists and motor traffic will have to mix it on the road.
What is needed is a change in mentality (or at least behaviour) of those drivers who simply see us as an inconvenience that they must get past at the earliest opportunity and who think a 6 inch gap is plenty of space.
or indeed the latest opportunit, it is very tiring to have drivers overtake and then before they have even completed the overtake, the brake lights come on, or the indicatros, really if you are turning ;left in 50 yards , it won't kill you to wait behind.
often these people carry out what would otherwise be perfect overtakes, but it's just so rude.
I can answer how this is currently handled:
If nobody has died then there is nothing to investigate.
If somebody has died, then investigate whether the victim has lights, high-vis and helmet. If they don't have all three then there is no further investigation to be done.