Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“This is not policing, this is intimidation”: Alliance of British Drivers takes on Sheffield police over close pass conviction

The pro-motoring pressure group described the court’s decision as “pathetic sucking up to the cycling lobby”

The Alliance of British Drivers has described a court’s decision to convict a motorist for careless driving as “idiotic” and “pathetic sucking up the cycling lobby”.

The pro-motoring pressure group was responding to footage of a close pass posted on Twitter by the Sheffield North West Neighbourhood Policing Team – and featured earlier this week on our Near Miss of the Day series – which resulted in the driver receiving a £417 fine and their licence endorsed with five penalty points.

If the motorist is caught driving in a careless or anti-social manner in the twelve months following the incident, their vehicle will also be seized by police.

> “If anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning,” say police 

The footage posted online shows the moment the approaching driver passes a group of cyclists too closely, at what the officers described as “excessive speed”. The police also added that “if anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning”.

However, the clip was greeted with complaints from motorists who criticised the behaviour of the cyclists, with some arguing that they should have stopped to let the driver pass as they approached the poorly parked car on the left-hand side of the road.

The Alliance of British Drivers, a pro-motoring lobby group known for its anti-cycling stance, launched a prolonged online attack on the court’s decision, retweeting the footage with the caption “If your [sic] weren’t already convinced that the police are out to get you…”

The alliance’s account described the fine and penalty points issued to the driver as an “idiotic decision that undermines the credibility of the courts and the police.

“We all know there are fanatics who want drivers to stop and bow down before every cyclist. If the police foolishly choose to side with them it will damage the relationship with the public,” the account argued.

The alliance claimed that the prosecution was “just pathetic sucking up to the cycling lobby”, and described the police’s publicising of the incident as “vile threats” which “make it abundantly clear whose side you are on”.

“This is not policing, this is intimidation,” the account wrote.

The group also criticised the use of the term “victims” to describe those on the receiving end of close passes, labelling it a “joke”.

> Highway Code: Alliance of British Drivers claims changes have “created a false sense of winners and losers” 

The Sheffield North West officers, on the other hand, were keen to dismiss what they described as anti-cycling “whataboutery”, pointing out that if the offending motorist “had simply driven to the conditions at a less dangerous speed and stayed on his own side of the road he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.”

After another Twitter user claimed that it was “strange that we never hear about how many cyclists you prosecute”, the officers replied: “Exactly how many car drivers were killed by cyclists last year David? There’s your reason. We prosecute those whose behaviour is most dangerous.”

Last week, the Alliance of British Drivers’ director Duncan White claimed in an interview with GB News that the recent revisions to the Highway Code “created a false sense of winners and losers” and “entirely failed in creating a sense of shared responsibility for the safety of all road users”. 

White also said that the changes, introduced in January to protect vulnerable road users, have resulted in “very provocative behaviour” and even “deliberate” acts of obstruction by cyclists.

The alliance’s Twitter account is known for its provocative and often volatile pro-car outbursts. This morning, the account tweeted that Rod King, the director of road safety campaign 20’s Plenty For Us, “needs to be deported to a third world country before he turns Britain into one”.

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

66 comments

Avatar
mdavidford replied to V8Reverb | 2 years ago
9 likes
V8Reverb wrote:

What i wanted to know is if there is the same obstruction on both sides of the road does the pecking order come into play?

Taking that enquiry at face value, in most cases it wouldn't be necessary for the person cycling to leave their own lane to pass the obstruction, whereas it would be for the person driving. So, other things being equal, the person driving should wait until the other lane is clear (i.e. the person cycling has passed) before moving into it. This was true before the changes to the Highway Code, and is no different now.

Avatar
Wingguy replied to V8Reverb | 2 years ago
7 likes
V8Reverb wrote:

What i wanted to know is if there is the same obstruction on both sides of the road does the pecking order come into play? Some of the answers to my question seem like they are just coming into puberty.

OK, so again this would be a question about a different situation - in this situation there was no obstruction to the cyclists which caused them to leave the lane in which they have right of way.

In the very different situation you are describing in which both the car and cyclists need to leave their lane then first priority would go to whoever gets there first. However, it is the responsibility of any road user at anytime to avoid a collision, this is just common sense. And yes, then the hierarchy of vulnerable road users puts more onus on the car driver to avoid that collision, as it is him/her that is far more likely to cause injury or death by trying to bludgeon their way through. Again, this is just common sense. It baffles me that you would be genuinely confused about any part of it.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to V8Reverb | 2 years ago
4 likes
V8Reverb wrote:

What i wanted to know is if there is the same obstruction on both sides of the road does the pecking order come into play? Some of the answers to my question seem like they are just coming into puberty.

There is no such thing as pecking order.  But assuming there were obstructions on both sides of the road and one vehicle was able to pass the obstruction on their side of the road without leaving their lane they would be the one with priority to proceed.

As was explained the other day, when someone asked if the roles were reversed would the driver have to stop?  Quite simply yes.  Because if the roles were reversed the driver would have to cross onto the oncoming lane to pass the parked car therefore they would have to wait until the other lane was clear before they could proceed.

If neither vehicle can pass the obstacles without encroaching into the other lane then they need to decide between them as neither has priority.

No doubt you will try and be one of the virtuous motorists who says that they would always stop if their was an obstruction in their lane and there was another motor vehicle coming the opposite way, even in the lanes were wide enough that you could pass the obstruction without encroaching on the other lane..... to which I will pre-emptively call bullsh!t.

Avatar
billymansell | 2 years ago
12 likes

The Howard Cox circle jerk furiously w@nking each other dry again.

Anyway, glad to say another motorist reported today after their driving illuminated a vehicle activated sign first at 44, then 47 and finally 50mph in a 30mph limit, all caught on video.

Little by little, quietly doing what we can to make roads safer for all whilst Cox and his band of dangerous idiots continue to shout and scream about their faux victimhood.

 

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
11 likes

Intimidation?

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
21 likes

The very threat of them being fairly policed is enough for many drivers to start shouting about bias and the war on motorists.  As the Sheffield North West officers point out, they are the ones posing the threat to other people, not cyclists and therefore they are the ones needing policing, not cyclists.

The fact that they can't see what is wrong with driving like that and their attempts to defend it, should disqualify them from driving.  The language used is so extreme and ridiculous and shows that they have no concept of proportionality or fairness; any threat to their ability to drive as fast and dangerously as they like is an affront to their god-given rights, and cannot be tolerated.

Pages

Latest Comments