Police close pass campaign met with the usual ‘but cyclists’ complaints; Cycling dictator back on the bike; Don’t text while cycling; Is this the coolest jersey money can buy?; Fabio Jakobsen is back; Vote for Jumbo-Visma Tour kit + more on the live blog

47 thoughts on “Police close pass campaign met with the usual ‘but cyclists’ complaints; Cycling dictator back on the bike; Don’t text while cycling; Is this the coolest jersey money can buy?; Fabio Jakobsen is back; Vote for Jumbo-Visma Tour kit + more on the live blog”

1. Another one here to add to

   Another one here to add to the bingo with the classic slowing down traffic but going too fast at the same time.

   Some cyclists are putting themselves at risk by taking up as much of the road as possible and cycle so fast a motorist would get a speeding ticket. Why not target cyclists about their own behaviour?

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • As many of the comments show,
     As many of the comments show, it is not a lack of awareness on the part of many close-passing motorists, they actually believe they are justified. Until they unwittingly kill the loved one of a friend or colleague and are faced with the full monstrosity of their self-justifying bile, the grieving mother asking them “why?”, what was so important about their ten seconds that justified another person’s lifetime, they won’t get it. Maybe not even then. Sovereign in your own car, it does things to the psychology of people. Well meaning police campaigns will only scratch the surface, for some it will even harden their attitudes. I don’t know what the answer is.
     Edit
     This sort of thing might be part of the answer:
     https://twitter.com/KatyCycles/status/1379892084216369166?s=20

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I often get the feeling a lot

       I often get the feeling a lot of it is frustration/anxiety that cyclists actually force drivers to drive carefully and think about how they are driving.

       There’s also the issue of drastically overestimating time-savings of overtakes,. I used to routinely keep track of the average speed of my car journeys (usually a 35 minute mostly M-way drive to my place of work on days when I couldn’t cycle). My average speed was very rarely more than 30mph, and often closer to 25mph. As a fit cyclist I usually tap along at 15mph. It would require a driver to be stuck behind me for over a minute for my presence to have delayed their journey *a single minute* of their time (even assuming that they don’t subsequently stop at a set of traffic lights/junction/to pick up a coffee). In urban areas, I’m nearly always quicker on my bike than a car would be. If you use a bike computer actually pay attention to how long drivers wait behind you – it’s rarely more than 10 seconds. Drivers threaten the lives of cyclists because of the MGIF mentality, not because overtaking is actually a pracitcal or necessary thing to do.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Entitled motorists, and maybe

   Entitled motorists, and maybe lack of awareness……?? I’m trying to be generous, but really.  It’s all in The Highway Code, but how many know what’s in it? Very few, I reckon; which is why we hear complaints from drivers about, for example;

   Cyclists riding two abreats on the road – It is allowed.

   Cyclists not using cycle paths – They don’t have to, it’s not compulsory.

   Cyclists taking primary postion – Again, in the The Highway Code.

   If they can’t be bothered to read it, maybe we need public information films on prime time TV.

   As for close passes – we need all the Police on this, not a select few, it has to be nationwide.

   Yes, I know – it’s not happening.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Velophaart_95 wrote:

     If they can’t be bothered to read it, maybe we need public information films on prime time TV.

     — Velophaart_95

     Daytime TV for this demographic I would have thought – and perhaps the darkest corners of Facebook.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • HoarseMann wrote:

       If they can’t be bothered to read it, maybe we need public information films on prime time TV.

       — HoarseMann

       Daytime TV for this demographic I would have thought – and perhaps the darkest corners of Facebook.

       — Velophaart_95

       That’s a bit unfair.  Maybe prime time on Channel 5…?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’ve got a new TV format

         I’ve got a new TV format

         “How to understand the Highway Code and drive better”

         I reckon it’s 8pm of Channel 5. Now who’s going to host it?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • IanMK wrote:

           I’ve got a new TV format

           “How to understand the Highway Code and drive better”

           I reckon it’s 8pm of Channel 5. Now who’s going to host it?

           — IanMK

           Nick Ferrari and Lawrence Fox…..

         • IanMK wrote:

           I’ve got a new TV format

           “How to understand the Highway Code and drive better”

           I reckon it’s 8pm of Channel 5. Now who’s going to host it?

           — IanMK

           I don’t know, but I bet it would be narrated by John Thomson or Jamie Theakston…

         • My vote would be for John

           My vote would be for John “wrong’uns” Thompson.

   • “The Highway Code, but how
     “The Highway Code, but how many know what’s in it? Very few, I reckon; which is why we hear complaints from drivers ”
     I could not agree more. At a (pre lockdown) family get together I mentioned the 1.5m rule. A relative was unaware and genuinely shocked that this was the law. Guess what she drives? A sodding huge Rangerover!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • To be clear, it’s not the law

       To be clear, it’s not the law.  I think many people would like it to be, but it isn’t.

       (The law simply says something like “give as much room as you would when passing another car” which is kind of meaningless…).

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • brooksby wrote:

         To be clear, it’s not the law.  I think many people would like it to be, but it isn’t.

         (The law simply says something like “give as much room as you would when passing another car” which is kind of meaningless…).

         — brooksby

         I’m not sure the law even says that. The Highway Code says it, but it’s a SHOULD, rather than a MUST, so doesn’t appear to be based on a legal requirement.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • But it is a rule in Ireland

           But it is a rule in Ireland and many other European countries. The highway code is being reviewed at the moment. The consultation finished Oct 2020. One of the proposals is :

           “give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:

           ─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph

           ─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

           ─ for a large vehicle, leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres in all conditions

           ─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 15 mph and allow at least 2.0 metres space

           ─ allow at least 2.0 metres space where a pedestrian is walking in the road (e.g. where there is no pavement) and you should pass them at low speed”

           This is where the 1.5m comes from but it is not yet in the highway code and I suspect is the reason so many police forces find it difficult to prosecute close passes.

           As usual the government doesn’t seem to be any rush to get this change made.

         • Remember how long it took to
           Remember how long it took to get seat belt wearing to be accepted? And that was the law, and it was manifestly for their own good.

           Still it took a hard hitting emotive campaign on our TV screens, at a time when there were only two other channels to watch.

           So what chance is there for safe-passing cyclists, with the occasional ‘jobsworths’ reading the Highway Code at you? (no disrespect to the police only doing their best here).

         • Most drivers don’t have a

           Most drivers don’t have a problem with it. That’s one thing I look out for when looking at my cam footage when deciding whether to submit a close pass or not. There’s typically good overtakes by lots of vehicles and then a noticeable difference with the poorly skilled driver not changing their line to give me room.

           A lot of drivers will tend to copy how other drivers behave and the majority are careful and considerate. It’s just a matter of getting through to the minority who don’t understand why their driving is so sub-standard.

         • Absolutely, it’s only a very
           Absolutely, it’s only a very small minority of drivers, most are golden. It’s not even all the close passes, some would be mortified by the consequences of their own lapse of competence.

           It’s the ones who know exactly what they are doing and feel justified, would be happy to tell anyone listening down the pub about the idiot cyclists they’d just had to educate, again.

           But given the numbers, a very small percentage still means too many.

         • Sriracha wrote:

           Remember how long it took to get seat belt wearing to be accepted? And that was the law, and it was manifestly for their own good. Still it took a hard hitting emotive campaign on our TV screens, at a time when there were only two other channels to watch.

           — Sriracha

           God bless Jimmy Savile. 😉

         • Sure – but even if it does

           Sure – but even if it does get added to the Highway Code, that won’t make it law.

           (The 1.5m predates the proposed HC changes – it’s come from various road safety campaigns that have coalesced around it, particularly popularised by the close pass mat campaign.)

         • “Sure – but even if it does

           “Sure – but even if it does get added to the Highway Code, that won’t make it law.”

           all true but semantic, because:

           a) failure to comply with the Highway Code may constitute evidence of a general offence, such as driving without due care and attention; but

           b) you have to find one or more police officers, the CPS and a court to care enough to pursue the case.

         • Of course it’s semantic, but,

           Of course it’s semantic, but, when it comes to the law, semantics do tend to matter quite a lot.

   • I will hold up my hand and

     I will hold up my hand and state I last looked through the HC in ’92  just before my driving test (pre theory and hazard perceptions, just the examiner asking me five questions in the car at the end of the lesson). I probably briefly covered it in 2005 or so when the Mrs was learning but it is only recently on this site that I have had the most exposure (mostly on cycling of course).

     And this is why I will back any party that proposes mandatory retests every 10 years. (usual caveats on other policies not being facist/ racist/ flat earthist)

     As an aside, it would be interesting to find out re-pass rates for those who are required to take an extended test to regain their license after criminal activity. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

       I will hold up my hand and state I last looked through the HC in ’92  just before my driving test (pre theory and hazard perceptions, just the examiner asking me five questions in the car at the end of the lesson). I probably briefly covered it in 2005 or so when the Mrs was learning but it is only recently on this site that I have had the most exposure (mostly on cycling of course).

       — AlsoSomniloquism

       No time like the present:

       https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

       It’s good to go through it.  It’s also good to follow up the references to the various legislation, because that is where the real power lies in law.

       For what it’s worth, I recall the stress of doing my driving test.  I’m not sure I want people to fac e that on a regular basis, or the collective hardship that a lot of people would face from suddenly losing their licences any time an error led to a fail.  But I do think that regular CPC – just like HGV and PSV drivers face – should be mandatory.  I know HGC/PSV drivers criticise it, but if it the programme of available course programmes was well designed to cover things we should know, it has some value.  Cycle awareness training is often free as a CPC course, for example.  Attend a course in person, verify your identity, pass the attitude test for the course, and you get the credit.

       I also think that GPs and other health professionals should have a duty to report unfit drivers to DVLA, with a robust process for limiting, suspending or removing licences on health grounds.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I disagree about GPs etc

         I disagree about GPs etc having to report anything – that’s not their job and shouldn’t be. Otherwise, there’s a disincentive for people to go and get checked up for something if they suspect that it might lead to getting a license revoked. It’s better if people feel free to discuss private health matters with their GP in strict confidence and if people are unfit to drive on the public roads, then that’s for the police (or public with cams) to detect and enforce.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • That is fair enough.  However

           That is fair enough.  However, looking further, it turns out there is a duty, if a patient continues to drive after being diagnised as unfit to do so.

         • So a doctor, whose first duty

           So a doctor, whose first duty is to preserve life, should allow people who have a history of blackouts, cataracts, mounting befuddlement or other conditions that could cause them to be a danger to themselves and other people because otherwise they won’t go to the Doctor. And we should hope they get detected quite by accident before they do cause deaths.  

           At worst case that attitude can cause 21 people to be killed or seriously injured in one incident (although there were medical failures anyway in that one) but I’m sure the widow in the other story today and many others over the years would disagree.

         • Doctors have enough to do

           Doctors have enough to do without having to worry about what their patients decide to do. They should definitely let the patient know that their condition can affect their driving but it should be down to the patient to contact the DVLA and some harsh penalties for neglecting their duty.

           The best idea would be to have periodic re-tests of drivers and maybe include a simple eyesight test. That way you can include a questionnaire covering the most common issues and get the driver to declare that they’re good to drive.

           I daresay that poor driving skills are a far bigger cause of collisions than diagnosed medical causes so having better enforcement of driving standards deals with road safety far more effectively.

         • So if they shouldn’t have to

           So if they shouldn’t have to worry about what a patient decides to do, well if it is taken out of the patients hands, then they don’t have to worry. 

           As an hypotehtical, would you be against a Doctor calling the Police if a patient came in suffering from some mental episode, states that they have a knife in their bag and feel that they need to knife someone because the voices in their head tells them to? Or should they tell them to voluntarily go to the Police station or voluntarily go and get checked in at the nearest mental speclist establishment. Or If they present with Self harm, do they ask them to voluntarily go to the hosptial? 

           And with the modern computer systems, it wouldn’t be hard to mark a code against the patients records that auto refers them to the DVLA and lets them process the for a follow up Medical with approved Doctors to test suitability and then fully remove or leave them with the license depending on results of that. After all, that is what alot do now with mailouts etc. 

         • I’d imagine anyone would call

           I’d imagine anyone would call the police if confronted with someone threatening violence with a knife, so that’s a bit of a straw man argument, and I’m not aware that doctors would enforce a hospital visit for someone self harming.

           The issue is whether putting an additional onus on doctors to ensure that patients are safe to drive prevents more RTCs than it prevents people from visiting the doctor as they’re concerned about the doctor shopping them in.

         • Well the scenarios are

           Well the scenarios are covered  in the Section 12 of the Mental Health Act which a GP can invoke if he believes a patient is a danger to themselves or to others through a mental act, why can’t something similar be introduced for physical issues.

           And yes, if mandatory reporting is brought in there is a danger people might not go to the GP/Opticians if they are having issues that might remove their license. But why then is that different to them going but then not self reporting? At least with the former the GP’s conscience is clear when he sees a report of a lorry driver causing 21 casulaties on the news. We have evidence the current system is a problem. Lets see about fixing some of those issues first and then try to curb others that might come up if they do.

           Yes, aresholes will arsehole and let their health deteriorate but others will go in under their own will of self preservation first and it just means their selfishness ofnot caring for others by not self reporting is not their option anymore. 

           “I’d like to die like my old dad, peacefully in his sleep, not screaming like his passengers.”

            

         • I think ultimately my point

           I think ultimately my point is that it’s only a tiny amount of cases where the patient has a diagnosis that would entail a permanent driving ban and that they continue driving. In other cases, it might be a temporary condition, so it’d seem unnecessary to invoke the DVLA for when a patient shouldn’t drive for a couple of weeks (e.g. sprained ankle).

           I think it’s messing around at the edges when what we need is quicker detection of poor driving and tougher enforcement – that covers almost all cases and would save more lives.

         • I was only talking about the

           I was only talking about the scenarios where the Doctor states you shouldn’t drive anymore and need to hand over the license to the DVLA / tell your employer. I doubt they do that for a broken arm or sprained ankle. They do for failing eyesight, slowing reactions or unexplained sudden blackouts and other delipidating illnesses though. 

           I also mentioned that the DVLA would do a final medical check to confirm the eligibility to drive (2nd opinion). I would hope that the reviews could be expedited for some rather then others depending on the seriousness of the nature. (Similar to urgent hospital referral rather then routine referrals depending on patient)

           And it is not an either all. I would also like the last line as well (and as stated you and me regulalry Retests) but the people who this part affects might drive well for most of the time and then have the episode so why not leave have it in as well to make it as safe.

3. My favourite ‘whatabout’ on

   My favourite ‘whatabout’ on there is

   Difficult one really, looks very close, but how wide is the road, was there oncoming traffic and car pulled back in ?, plus cyclist is the the cyclist too far out for the road ? Need more info to decide who’s in the right or wrong.

   I love how a driver hypothetically being so incompetent as to not see oncoming traffic is somehow the cyclist’s fault and also a defence of said motorist…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Then you also had the one

     Then you also had the one that maybe the cyclist had undercut the car at some lights. The Police have stated it was stills from a video clip of an exceedingly close pass and still people are arguign the the pics don’t give the story. Although as others on there have pointed out, the Police didn’t state what prosecution was done against this motorist which might have either hammered home the seriousness or the offence or the actual care most Police actually take in these situations. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I did like the one who couldn

       I did like the one who couldn’t work out whether the twitter photo was showing the front or back wheel of the bike…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • It was a unicycle !

         It was a unicycle !

         Log In or Register to post comments

4. I live in Carlisle, Cumbria,

   I live in Carlisle, Cumbria, and cycle almost every day. I will happily accompany any motorist on a cycle ride, to count the number of cycliststs they see jump a red light. At the same time, we can count the number of motorists that do the same thing. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • The same would work in South

     The same would work in South London. in fact, setting off from my house taking my usual commute, if you count going over the ASL into the cycle zone, they’ll see more cars going through red lights at the very first t junction we encounter than they’ll see cyclists doing so combined for the rest of the route there and back.  

     Log In or Register to post comments

5. I find it difficult to
   I find it difficult to comprehend that someone is able justify willfully dangerous driving around person A (who happens to be riding a bicycle) on account of they once saw (or heard about) Person B doing something illegal on a bicycle.

   It would be similar to setting fire to some random stranger’s car after every close pass. Or randomly castrating a man after every rape. It might work, but not really very fair.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Mungecrundle wrote:

     I find it difficult to comprehend that someone is able justify willfully dangerous driving around person A (who happens to be riding a bicycle) on account of they once saw (or heard about) Person B doing something illegal on a bicycle.

     — Mungecrundle

     And yet people do it all the time.

     In most arguments about cycling, in my experience it is the first subject to come up (“You’re complaining about being close-passed on the road?  Well, only last week somebody passed me on a shared-use path at high speed!  No, my dog wasn’t on a lead, but why is that relevant…?”)

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. On a more serious note, a few

   On a more serious note, a few people in the comments talking about everyone’s favourite topic – insurance…

   FFS why is that the first thing that springs to some people’s minds? If this were in the UK (comments suggest it is from NL) then yes the cyclist would be liable for any damage done and could be sued (if indeed any damage was done). That would amount to at most a few £00’s for a replacement bumper?

   The reason motorists are required to have insurance is the regularity with which motorists cause £10,000’s and upwards worth of damage – the sort of figures that the average person isn’t going to be able to pay out of their own pocket. And there’s a certain irony to the fact that most of that is due to damaging other people’s expensive motor vehicles.

   Not to mention many cyclists will in fact have liability insurance through home insurance policies or cycling-specific insurance policies.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • You’re right: the insurance

     You’re right: the insurance avenue is a dead end, or a red herring. Perhaps a dead herring. Smells fishy, anyway.

     Some interesting comparisons though:

     • Typical houshold liability insurance cover (inc. if I’m on a bike):  £5m
     • CyclingUK membership liability insurance cover: £10m
     • British Cycling membership liability insurance cover: £15m
     • Road Traffic Act minimum motor vehicle insurance cover (‘RTA’ insurance*): £1m

     (* This is the minimum insurance cover that a motorist is required to have for damage to property; injury/death is unlimited.)

     So, if the insurance can be stacked, I typically pedal out with 30x the cover a motorist is required to have, at no additional premium cost to me.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. I love how the texter’s first

   I love how the texter’s first instinct after face-planting into the van seems to be… ‘must finish my text’.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I turned into the wrong drive

     I turned into the wrong drive and hit a van that shouldn’t have been parked there.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hirsute wrote:

       I turned into the wrong drive and hit a van that shouldn’t have been parked there.

       — hirsute

       I think the Jasper Carrot quote was “I inadvertently turned into the wrong drive and hit a tree I haven’t got”.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Do you reckon that was a real

     Do you reckon that was a real event, though, or just a comedy set-up for the likes?

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. There is only one way to deal

   There is only one way to deal with the stupidity and malevolence of the idiots who protest at these close passing campaigns, and that is prosecution for the offences they are likely to be committing every day. The problem we have is that the police don’t believe their own campaigns, and simply refuse to believe any close passing, no matter how well documented, is a real offence if there is no blood on the road. I know from my own experience that Lancashire Constabulary does not believe that close passing exists even when the cyclist is hit. We recently heard the same about West Yorkshire Police, Essex Police wrote that a pass couldn’t have been too close because the cyclist ‘didn’t wobble or brake’. etc. etc. Last year’s ‘consultation’ on passing distances was worthless because the police were laughing at it and have no intention of enforcing any passing distance minimum. I know people are tired of me writing this, but the police are the enemy!

   Log In or Register to post comments