Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigations, has reminded motorists that they have “a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”, after footage posted by broadcaster Jeremy Vine showing a lorry close passing a police officer received a backlash from angry drivers.
BBC Radio 2 and Channel 5 presenter Vine was riding with cycling officers from the Metropolitan Police as part of Cox’s latest fundraising campaign for RoadPeace.
In May 2021 DCS Cox raised over £50,000 for the road crash victims charity after completing a 200-kilometre run, the largest amount raised for the organisation by an individual fundraiser.
This year, the former lead for Vision Zero at the Met is aiming to complete 30 miles of physical activity (walking, running or cycling) a day for a week, as he aims to “amplify victim’s voices and bring road danger reduction to the forefront of national conversation, and prevent the needless deaths and injury on our roads”.
Each route starts at a police station and travels to people affected by road death and injury, who will tell their stories and, Cox hopes, help shed light on the five people killed every day on the UK’s roads. The campaign has currently raised over £64,000 for RoadPeace.
> Popular ‘cycling Twitter’ cop runs 200km to raise record £43k+ sum for RoadPeace
During yesterday’s ride, Cox’s ambition to increase public awareness of the need to reduce road danger was inadvertently aided by the driver of a Waitrose lorry who, as can be seen in Vine’s video below, passes one of the police officers – decked out in hi-visibility clothing emblazoned with ‘Police’ on the back – with little room to spare.
Out cycling with HIGHLY VISIBLE police officers — and a massive @waitrose truck actually close-passes one of the @MetCycleCops! Take a look and see his reaction.
> Event: raising awareness and funds for @roadpeace with @AndyCoxDCS and colleagues https://t.co/MDUcPBKUYK pic.twitter.com/n8IEqsQSRM
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 21, 2022
According to the officer on the receiving end of the close pass, the lorry’s wheels were “touching the line” as he passed the group of cyclists.
“He thinks you’re on one side, he’s the other side, so he’s fine,” replied Vine in the footage.
“He’ll get undue care and attention for that,” the officer confirmed.
Despite the officer’s assertion that the lorry driver should have given the cyclists more space or waited until it was safe to pass, since the video was posted online last night many Twitter users have leapt to the defence of the motorist, who they claim “stayed within his lane”.
“He stayed within his lane, the cyclist should have been more aware,” one user tweeted. “JV cycles around London looking for trouble. JV you are promoting a negative narrative against me and my fellow cyclists with your anti-motorist agenda.”
Just don’t overtake in your truck if it’s not safe. This is really, really simple.
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
Another said: “I’m a big supporter of road safety and cyclists’ rights, but there has to be reason on both sides. A [very] busy road, lots of big lorries – cyclists should cooperate by dropping to single file or keep away from lane line.”
Another remarked that the officer’s “road positioning was selfish and asking for trouble. He put himself in danger.
“No large vehicle could pass him with decent space without going onto the wrong side of the road. For a big truck, near a junction, that would be dangerous.”
Victim blaming AGAIN
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
This would be an unacceptable overtake. “Staying in your lane” is nothing to do with it. https://t.co/2Pn4nJ0PAI pic.twitter.com/ptyWhsh2Fm
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
Vine responded to a number of the tweets, which he claimed were “criticising a police officer for trying to keep vulnerable road users safe.”
“When you pass a vulnerable road user, distance from the line is not the issue,” the broadcaster wrote. “It is distance from the cyclist.”
It shouldn’t have overtaken with so little room to pass. That’s what the experienced police officer made clear. pic.twitter.com/rnqI2QxpHm
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 21, 2022
Another user claimed that the antagonistic replies to Vine’s video “show that some British drivers are dehumanised.
“As long as they are ‘in their lane’ it doesn’t matter if they endanger the life of another human being.”
Ultimately it took DCS Cox, who in his previous role as a Met Superintendent built up a solid reputation on Twitter for schooling those spouting anti-cyclist rhetoric on the platform, to add some much-needed perspective to proceedings.
“The point lost by so many commenting on this thread is… Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users,” he tweeted. “That way everyone gets home safely, alive.”
You can donate to DCS Cox’s latest campaign for RoadPeace at his Just Giving page.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
56 thoughts on ““Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”: Hi-vis police officer close passed by lorry driver”
The sooner we can replace
The sooner we can replace these unsuitably sized vehicles in urban areas with the likes of Volta trucks, which put the driver at pedestrian/cyclist height, the better;
https://voltatrucks.com/
Not really sure what they
Not really sure what they wanted the driver to do when he is going slow and steady in his lane. Are they really saying he can’t continue in his own lane (straight on) regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left ?
Why would you be cycling so close to the edge of the lane anyhow?
Seems a bit one sided on the HC –
There is updated guidance for people cycling about positioning themselves which includes:
The updated code explains that people cycling in groups:
What do they suggest happens at traffic lights where one lane is red and one green? Does this mean the lorry driver or car driver has to sit there on green until there are no cyclists in the other lane ?
I have to agree here. The
I have to agree here. The police cyclist had a very odd road position. Ultimately the lorry should have hung back as the lanes were very narrow and the cyclists quite spread out, but there are much worse close-passes to worry about. At least there was the option for the cyclist to move to the left.
hirsute wrote:
He can continue in his own lane without overtaking – the cyclist isn’t stationary. If (for example) I’m driving my car round a bend and there’s an HGV in the lane to the left and in front of me, and my lane is clear, I don’t overtake and say ‘I was in my lane!’ – I hold back and give the lorry driver the space they need.
Wasn’t quite what I asked
Wasn’t quite what I asked though – ‘regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left’
Also my other question – What do they suggest happens at traffic lights where one lane is red and one green? Does this mean the lorry driver or car driver has to sit there on green until there are no cyclists in the other lane ?
Genuinely curious, does the
Genuinely curious, does the law follow football (on the line is in) or rugby (on the line is out), i.e. if a vehicle is touching the white line is it deemed to have left its lane? One would think it quite important in cases such as this. I know a mate got a bus lane fine when turning left, with the camera evidence showing the very edge of his back left tyre clipping the very edge of the end of the bus lane marking, definitely not going over it, but I don’t know if this applies in all circumstances.
Can’t wait for the comments
Can’t wait for the comments when this appears in the DM with the ubiquitous headline “who do you think was to blame?”
Poor road positioning by the
Poor road positioning by the Police officer does not absolve the HGV driver of their responsibility.
I can’t help but think that
I can’t help but think that if this had been submitted as footage to the police instead of happening to a police officer, they wouldn’t have dreamt of prosecuting.
AidanR wrote:
Exactly. It hardly seems fair that this driver is prosecuted when tens of thousands of worse incidents happen every day, and are submitted to the police but no further action happens.
The tone of the comments has
The tone of the comments has a hint of “cyclists should cycle perfectly or else they deserve what they get.”
Hardly #CycleLikeYouDrive
DCS Cox needs to do his
DCS Cox needs to do his reminding to the Bad Cops! This Sid Hill Transport of Blackpool artic JO51 DHL travelling at well over 30 mph was NFA’d by Lancashire
I reported a close pass to
I reported a close pass to Cheshire Police, with video footage, and received the following reply:
“Having reviewed your footage I feel the most suitable outcome is to issue the registered keeper of the vehicle with a vulnerable road user warning letter which informs them of the nature of the incident and advice on vulnerable road users as given in the updated Highway Code.
Please bear in mind that your footage is the only independent evidence I have to review and I can only go from the perspective that gives which isn’t always a true reflection on what occurred. Obviously you were there at the time and experienced the incident and may feel it occurred differently but I have to be able to evidence using your footage that any offences can be clearly seen to any other party to have been fully made out beyond any reasonable doubt.
I should point out that this letter has been issued because of the location and speed of the pass not being ideal. Due to the road being very narrow and like this for some distance the driver was always going to be limited with this and the size of their vehicle as to the distance they could reasonably leave, it’s difficult to ascertain from the footage but the vehicle does appear to have been over as far as they were able to be at the point of the pass.
The vehicle details are retained in case the vehicle comes to our attention in the future and the matter is now closed.”
I’ve responded with the following:
“Thank you for letting me know the outcome of this incident, PC Hughes.
Whilst I agree that a letter to the registered keeper is a good outcome for this incident, I feel that I must mention my disappointment at your view that:
“…location and speed of the pass not being ideal. Due to the road being very narrow and like this for some distance the driver was always going to be limited with this and the size of their vehicle as to the distance they could reasonably leave, … the vehicle does appear to have been over as far as they were able to be at the point of the pass.”
The other option that they had, other than close passing a vulnerable road user, would have been to wait until there WAS a place where they could pass me in a safe manner? Looking at the footage, it’s approximately two minutes until I reach the end of the lane, where there is plenty of room to safely pass. Is two minutes really worth putting a vulnerable road user at risk for?
Hopefully the driver will take more care around vulnerable road users in future, and I’ll try riding primary in order to stop anything passing me where there is less room than recommended in the Highway Code to overtake.”
They really are unbelievable.
He should have been aware of
He should have been aware of the cyclist straying close to the edge of the L/H lane and been a bit more patient. Safety first, especially when you’re in charge of such a monstrous vehicle.
I’ve a bit of sympathy for the HGV driver though: the lorry is basically the width of the whole lane and the cyclist was straying close to the edge of his lane. May have been a case for a little toot if the cyclist didn’t ease back in – HC112 says “drivers should only use the horn when the vehicle is moving and they need to warn other road users of their presence”.
Six of one, half a dozen of
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, for me. Crap positioning by the police officer, impatience on the part of the lorry driver.
The real issue here is that you have very large articulated lorries driving through town centres and mixing with cyclists in very tight spaces.
srchar wrote:
Which is irrelevant. As good police officers on Twitter often point out, it is the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle overtaking to do so safely, not the opertor of the vehicle being overtaken to facilitate it. If a cyclist is riding in a “crap position” that doesn’t absolve the overtaker of their responsibliity.
The bottom line is that motor vehicles should give cyclists 1.5m of clearance at up to 30mph and more at higher speeds, regardless of how good or bad the cyclist’s position on the road is.
It’s not like every car we have to deal with on the roads always positions themselves in the perfect position after all.
If that was a single lane of
If that was a single lane of traffic and the lorry was travelling in the opposite direction, would the cyclist position himself that close to the edge of their lane? Doubtful, and in that case nobody would be saying that the lorry driver was at fault, even though it would be even more dangerous.
I don’t know what the opposing traffic was like (in London, usually pretty bad) but assuming the lorry couldn’t pull out because there were cars coming the other way, the positioning of the cyclist was blocking 2 entire lanes of traffic for no good reason (eg because they were using the right-hand lane for navigating a junction). He looked like he was off in his own little world and not paying attention to the road around him (you know, lack of ‘due care and attention’…) a point he would later prove by drifting across into the next lane without looking or indicating, right in front of a taxi, forcing them to take avoiding action (something cyclists are still required to do like other motor vehicles).
I know a bike is unlikely to do more than scratch a car/lorry (and certainly not hurt the driver, unless the evasive action caused a crash with another vehicle) and doesn’t excuse close passes, but it seems rather hypocritical to complain at someone else’s bad driving after causing the situation and then weaving across lanes.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn’t have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can.
Why can’t all forces agree on the interpretation of a rule/law, and uphold any breaches of that interpretation?
Cheshire Police have made it
Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn’t have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can
Although I only know about Lancashire Police, what Cheshire probably mean is that if the close-passers have to squeeze right next to you because of oncoming traffic, or even if they just feel like it although the other lane is clear, then if they didn’t kill or injure you, then it’s OK
Just a warning letter in
Just a warning letter in essex for this
https://twitter.com/MrJasonJay/status/1529374098408755200
and a letter in sussex for this
https://twitter.com/BTNSharkBike/status/1425175199121612804
on the subject of staying in
on the subject of staying in your lane, at 1:35 the same cop seems to drift into the outer lane as he rides away from te lights, certainly not the best example of riding.
Well that brings up some
Well that brings up some interesting discussion points:
1) When setting off, how much control do you have?
2) Does magic paint overrule 1.5 metres?
3) How good does a rider have to be before they are allowed on the road? Given the amazingly low standard of driving in the UK, doesn’t #cyclelikeyoudrive apply?
I’d really like a definitive answer to no. 2 because on our local cycle lane the width you are given clearly is not based on safe passing but on whether there is oncoming traffic – yes, drive the line, no, give cyclist space.
For 2) where the road is
For 2) where the road is multi lane and the lanes go in different directions, can it be considered to be overtaking with respect to the HC?
If you look at the relevant sections it is all about having to use a different lane to the one you are in to pass someone in an overtake https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html
hirsute wrote:
I would argue it’s clear that yes, you are still “overtaking” according to the HC even if you are in another lane. One of the bullet points under R163 discusses traffic queueing in different lanes, and certainly implies that passing traffic in another lane falls within the definition of “overtaking”. See also R264, R267 and R268 – they are in a section about motorways, but again it is clear that moving past traffic in a different lane is considered overtaking.
I would also mention that the lanes in question didn’t “go in different directions”. The left hand lane is marked straight and left, with an additional informational arrow informing that the left turn takes you onto the A10 – it is not a mandatory left-lane-turns-left. https://goo.gl/maps/6hzmAYCLNobUZDFH8
In that case, I picked out
In that case, I picked out the wrong still from the video where there was just a left arrow.
I found it rather ironic that
I found it rather ironic that he did that literally just after saying the driver would get “Undue care and attention” then drifted across into the next lane without looking, right in front of a taxi that has to take avoiding action. ??♂️
Did he? Seems the lane went
Did he? Seems the lane went from 2 – 3 at that point and he stayed in lane and taxi driver stayed in lane.
This is poor infrastructure,
This is poor infrastructure, both for the cyclists and the lorry driver. Lanes just are not wide enough and as it stands, both have rights (and responsibilities) to be using the road.
Ideally the driver of the larger vehicle should hang back if they cannot pass with sufficient clearance but the real life pragmatic approach in these less than ideal circumstances is surely for the cyclist, who is far more maneuverable, to be aware of the larger vehicle and make space? This is very different to the driver of a larger vehicle forcing their past in the same lane. The cyclist has an entire car sized lane which they can still easily control from the centre without riding up to the lane markings.
If that was my video I’d probably not even post it up and prosecution seems way over the top, especially compared to many of the NFAs associated to far worse driving showcased in NMOTD committed against cyclists who are not Police Officers.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Only just watched the video and I agree. I don’t think it’s the best driving, but if I were that officer, I’d’ve just gone more central in my lane to avoid the danger and wouldn’t really have given it much further thought.
> “Drivers have a
> “Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”
No, drivers have a responsibility not to endanger others. We don’t say “gun owners have a responsibility to protect people”.
Alas this is probably a good
Alas this is probably a good analogy. I suspect – in the rare cases where people actually think about it – motorists do consider themselves the “apex species” on the roads and see behaving appropriately towards others from a kind of “white knight” perspective. So “good guys with guns”.
Seems like a storm in a tea
Seems like a storm in a tea cup to me.
If the lorry stays in its lane then I can’t see the issue at this speed.
Rich_cb wrote:
Tell me, what a speed is it unsafe for a lorry to travel over a cyclist?
jh2727 wrote:
Tell me, what a speed is it unsafe for a lorry to travel over a cyclist?— Rich_cb
Well, Teller (from Penn & Teller) got run over slowly by a huge truck without any harm:
More seriously, I’m with Rich on this one. It is very close, so I appreciate that any sudden pothole or swerve could drastically change the situation which is why I would re-position myself if I suddenly had a lorry that close to me.
I must have missed the bit in
I must have missed the bit in the video where the lorry ran him over…
The point is that the cyclist has his entire lane in which to manoeuvre. If he’s uncomfortable with the proximity of the lorry he can move away, the low speed of the lorry gives him plenty of time to do so.
It’s very different to a close pass at speed when you’re both in the same lane and you’ve nowhere to go.
Rich_cb wrote:
I thought the Hierarchy of Road Users puts the onus for any such evasive manoeuvres onto the road user who is more likely to squash the other if someone misjudges things…
In general, I like the
In general, I like the Hierarchy of Road Users, but it does lead to some cyclists using that as an excuse to be inconsiderate of other road users, in the same way that we often complain at drivers not being considerate of cyclists on the road.
I think most of us cyclists are conscientious and try not to hold up other traffic unless it’s deliberately preventing an unsafe pass.
In this case, the lorry couldn’t pull out thanks to opposing traffic, so the cyclist’s positioning was essentially blocking 2 whole lanes of traffic, whereas they could easily (and I think should) have moved over within their lane.
Jimmy on wheels wrote:
There were several cyclists there, so even if they were fully taking up two lanes (which I don’t think is true), they would still be creating less congestion than typical cars/lorries. The lorry driver merely had to hang back a bit to avoid the whole issue and would likely have been delayed by less than 5 seconds.
The cyclists did not follow
The cyclists did not follow the rules for being in a group – Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.
hirsute wrote:
I don’t think that’s fair as other vehicles were able to easily overtake and give the cyclists a bit more room. If there was traffic coming the other way (couldn’t see any on the vid) then the lorry merely had to wait a few seconds and then they could have overtaken with a better gap.
But none of them were the 1
But none of them were the 1.5m away.
Reading twitter, many are happy to use the bits of the HC that suit and ignore or be unaware of the obligations for the cyclists.
(no one has answered my other scenarios either).
hirsute wrote:
The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.
The speed is low, so generally a lesser distance can be gotten away with. I don’t agree that the cyclists were blocking overtakes, so I don’t think it’s a case of cherry picking from the HC. I haven’t read the Twitter replies (and am unlikely to do so), so I can’t speak for others, though I would say that it sounds like comparing cyclists’ safety with drivers’ convenience.
They were blocking overtakes
They were blocking overtakes as you already said “lorry merely had to wait a few seconds and then they could have overtaken with a better gap.” ! (assuming there were no other riders in the vicinity.
They could have show the required consideration to other road users by being more central.
hirsute wrote:
I wouldn’t consider a slight delay to an especially wide vehicle as blocking overtakes, but the officer could have ridden more centrally. It’s a slight change and I wouldn’t consider that he was ignoring his Highway Code obligation.
In my mind it’s similar to when you have a line of vehicles that you want to filter past and one or two are either too close to the kerb or too far out which makes you have to weave in and out to make progress. It’s slightly inconsiderate, but again, I wouldn’t consider it to be against the Highway Code.
Maybe they did not think it
Maybe they did not think it was safe to do so?
I doubt it even occured to
I doubt it even occured to them. They were already in a group, so why would be unsafe about going single file or more central ?
Rich_cb wrote:
Being crushed by a lorry that’s travelling at 2mph is likely to have the same end result as being crushed by one that is travelling at 30mph – the only difference with the slower lorry is that the risk is 15 times greater.
jh2727 wrote:
I think you mean 15 times less, (probably more like 1000 times less as energy is related to speed squared).
I agree that having a lorry that close is dangerous and the lorry driver should have just hung back a bit to give the cyclists more room (especially as they’re police). My perspective is that I’ve seen lots of far more dangerous driving on the streets (and NMOTD videos) and I wouldn’t consider this incident notable if it happened to me.
I don’t disagree with the driver getting done for this – I just think he would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t a police cyclist.
Well cyclist did not have his
Well cyclist did not have his “whole” lane to manouvre as other cyclists were present and it did seem the Highly Visible Police were on the outside as escorts for the other cyclists raising money for the Road Peace campaign. I disagree with his assertion that the truck was “on the line” but he was closer to the cyclists then would have been preferred.
In other news, the Sheffield leg had mention of several cars who close passed them (again in Hi Viz labelled jackets) AND having to deal with an RTA on the route as well.
Just watched the video,and in
Just watched the video,and in this case I think my cycling group might well have singled out but taken the lane.
What is interesting is consider how close cars and lorries have to drive when using those lanes – which I think demonstrates the problem with the old HWC wording of “give cyclists as much space as you would passing a car.” which often is measured in gnat’s crotchets.
So if the police are taking issue with this, and consider passing in another traffic lane and not giving 1.5 metres is inappropriate, they have written a test case for a while host of other infractions we see, including cycle lanes and overtaking on marked highways.
Was passed twice yesterday by
Was passed twice yesterday by someone driving a Ribble Weldite team car.
First pass was on a stretch on solid white lines, while I was doing 20+ mph and vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
Second pass was on a blind bend.
When those involved in cycling don’t give a damn, what chance of “ordinary drivers” driving responsibly?
Sometimes pro and amateur
Sometimes pro and amateur racers will draft off the back of normal riders for practice. Maybe the driver was doing the same for practicing driving in the peloton without taking a cyclist down.
Is it worth highlighting the
Is it worth highlighting the builders truck and mpv car both pass “in the lane” without raising concern, so the 1.5metre isnt the exact issue here, it’s the Waitrose truck, always a debate about whether vehicles that size should be allowed in cities but at least it didnt have one of those cyclists stay away stickers on the back, that gets much closer and might even head abit towards the cyclist group, now we cant see if something coming the other way made the HGV driver feel they need that bit more space, but again the van behind the truck passes within lane and wasnt an issue and the truck doesnt exactly progress far.
What most of the fairly
What most of the fairly depressing comments on social media about this incident disregard is the fact that drivers have a duty of care towards other road users no matter what the situation. It’s not enough to say I was still in my lane, it doesn’t give you carte blanche to proceed; drivers can still be charged with careless or dangerous driving even if they were technically within the law, e.g., someone driving at 60 mph on a national speed limit country road is within the law, if they cause an incident by doing so in thick fog at night, they are culpable. We can argue until the cows come home as to whether the police officer should have been there or should have singled out, the lorry driver had clear sight of him and chose to squeeze by at an unacceptably close distance and that, as the police officer says, is sufficient for a driving without due care and attention charge.
Looks like the equivalent of
Looks like the equivalent of someone sitting in the outside lane doing 60mph.
No, other drivers shouldn’t undertake them, but you’re being inconsiderate and causing an unnecessary obstruction.
“Obstruction … weaving
“Obstruction … weaving across lanes … inconsiderate”
Bingo!