Campaigners have questioned Cambridgeshire’s police’s explanation that there isn’t sufficient road space to carry out a close pass operation. They point out that such initiatives are specifically designed to highlight why space needs to be given when passing cyclists.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign (Camcycle) has professed itself ‘beyond disappointed’ with Cambridgeshire police’s decision not to run a close pass operation similar to that pioneered by West Midlands police and has questioned the force’s reasoning.
Close pass operations involve plain clothes police officers out on bikes identifying drivers who don’t allow enough room when overtaking. The West Midlands operation has led to a 20 per cent reduction in cyclists killed or seriously injured on the region’s roads since it was adopted in 2016.
A number of forces have since followed suit – most recently in Norfolk and Suffolk – but Cambridge will not be among them.
Casualty reduction officer Jon Morris explained:
“We have been liaising with officers in the West Midlands about Operation Close Pass and have explored the possibility of implementing something similar locally.
“The average road is approximately 3.5 metres from the kerb to the white lines. Cyclists are advised to cycle 0.75 metres away from the kerb to avoid drain covers and an average car is about two metres wide. Operation Close Pass recommends drivers leave about 1.5 metres when passing a cyclist. If we add all those figures together it would mean drivers are moving into the opposite lane to overtake.
“For Cambridge city where roads are narrower and often very congested we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.
“Cyclists are vulnerable road users and it’s important that we are doing all we can to make the roads safer for everyone but at this time we don’t believe Operation Close Pass in its current format is practical in Cambridge.”
Campaigners ‘angry’ at message being sent
Camcycle said: “We are angry that they are apparently advising drivers that it is OK to pass closely because maintaining the speed and flow of motor traffic is more important than the safety of vulnerable road users.
“The fact that Cambridge’s roads are narrow is precisely the reason why close-passes are a problem here and action should be taken against them. Cambs police contradict Highway Code rule 163 ‘Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car’. The accompanying image is clear: you should wait until the opposite carriageway is clear to overtake if there isn’t space.
“Given the express intention of the police not to safeguard vulnerable road users, we suggest people cycling follow Bikeability training guidelines and cycle centrally in the lane on narrow roads, to prevent the kind of dangerous overtakes the police refuse to take action against.
“We have seen that Cambridgeshire Police have been very reluctant to enforce 20mph despite the proven benefits for road safety in other towns and cities. We see them once more refusing to take action that is proven to protect vulnerable road users because they do not wish drivers of motor vehicles to be delayed whether in the city or out on the country roads of the county.”
Sam Jones, campaign coordinator at Cycling UK, told Cambridge News: “Cambridgeshire police’s decision is very disappointing. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Highway Code’s guidance on overtaking people cycling, but it also seems to prioritise the inconvenience of one road user over the safety of another.
“Cycling UK would urge Cambridgeshire police to rethink their position, as clearly in a congested city like Cambridge, close passes are a problem, and need to be addressed if they are serious about keeping cyclists safe.”
The local view
Our own Simon MacMichael is a Cambridge resident.
“Compared to other places I’ve lived and used a bike to get around, we’re absolutely spoilt in Cambridge.
“We have some terrific off-road routes particularly on or close to the river, and the separated lanes on Hills Road are a delight to ride along, as are the cycle paths along the guided busways.
“And in many parts of the city centre, the introduction of filtered impermeability – barriers across streets that block through motor traffic but allow people on bikes to pass freely – means the streets are largely given over to cyclists.
“True, many drivers give you ample space when overtaking – here, given that levels of cycling far exceed those anywhere else in the UK, the likelihood is that they will ride a bike, or have family members who do.
“But, it only takes one close pass to ruin your day, and it is a daily occurrence for anyone who chooses to get around the city on two wheels.
“And in my experience, it’s due not just to sometimes shocking driving, but also poorly thought out road layouts.
“Late at night, on Mill Road, say, it’s not unusual to have a driver pass you closely at 40, 50mph on what is a 20mph road – and moreover, one that isn’t too far from the main police station.
“Riding into town along Cherry Hinton Road, you encounter another problem. There are narrow cycle lanes either side, but the space that leaves for the single lane of motor traffic going in each direction means that if you are riding in them, close passes are inevitable.
“Then, you have somewhere like Arbury Road where, particularly at the southern end close to the junction with Milton Road, parked cars either side mean that it’s highly likely you will be overtaken far too closely.
“As I said above, there are a lot of positives here, but there is also much that could be improved.
“And, is it just me, or is rejecting the concept of a close pass operation on the grounds that there isn’t enough space to do so missing the point, while at the same time reinforcing why it’s needed?”
Close pass crackdown
A close-pass enforcement day was held by Cambridge police two years ago, targeting motorists passing cyclists too closely.
It was subsequently reported that the operation ended with officers instead turning their attention to cyclists riding without lights.
Referring to close-passes, a police spokesman said of officers: “So far they’ve not seen it as a problem.”




-1024x680.jpg)


















69 thoughts on “Cambridge police say close pass operation ‘not practical’ due to lack of road space”
FFS. You really couldn’t
FFS. You really couldn’t make this up. If some random anonymous member of the public came up with an argument as completely, blindly, foul-smellingly bullshit as this, you’d think they were trolling.
FFS, how stupid the police
FFS, how stupid the police are?
” …we would be potentially
” …we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.”
No, it’s “the *safe* space to overtake” not “the *recommended* space to overtake”.
Jesus! It’s a matter of safety. If there’s not the room to overtake then motorists wait until there is.
Are Cambridge Police really suggesting a few cyclists KSIs are worth motorists saving a few seconds journey time? Yes, they seem to be suggesting just that 🙁
“For Cambridge city where
“For Cambridge city where roads are narrower and often very congested we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.”
Note to Cambridge Police: if there isn’t the space to overtake safely then the law clearly states that the motorists should be driving at the speed of the cyclists (or slower of course) and not overtake until there is space – that is exactly what you should be forcing those motorists to do.
I for one am very disappointed with police forces who neither seem to understand the law nor take any kind of action to enforce it.
As I grew up I thought that the Police were supposed to make sure that people followed the law and were safe; that is no longer the case in many places, Cambridge clearly being one, where they simply wait for bad things to happen so that they can then “deal with” the aftermath.
We really ought to have some legal recourse to deal with police forces who refuse to protect us.
This makes the government
This makes the government look competent!
This can’t be their stance, surely? That’s just beyond belief. There’s not enough space to pass safely, so pass the cyclist however and we’ll look the other way. What?! What about, don’t pass until it’s safe to do so? What?!
“it would mean drivers are
“it would mean drivers are moving into the opposite lane to overtake”
yes – it’s called overtaking. just like any other overtake of any slower moving vehicle, you have to move around them to go past them…
is it possible that all the brainiacs at the university there are monopolising the capacity for normal brain functioning? – maybe one of them invented a machine that literally sucks the intelligence out of the general populace?
“For Cambridge city where
“For Cambridge city where roads are narrower and often very congested we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.”
Yes, exactly, drive at the speed of cyclists where there isn’t room to overtake, and wait until there is room.
If the roads are “often very congested” then presumably the traffic isn’t moving much faster than that anyway?
What’s the problem, Cambridgeshire Police? Other than your lack of understanding of the law and of the comparative rights of cyclists versus the rights of drivers?
How about we just sack those
How about we just sack those police that aren’t able/willing to do their job and instead employ people who will enforce the law of the land?
You would be called a
You would be called a fantasist for making this shit up!
Anyway, I’m sure all will
Anyway, I’m sure all will turn out for the best. Remember, we have a “keen cyclist” in government. Everything will be put right before too many more thousands of us have been “mown down” [official phraseology].
Anyway, I’m sure all will
Anyway, I’m sure all will turn out for the best. Remember, we have a “keen cyclist” in government. Everything will be put right before too many more thousands of us have been “mown down” [official phraseology].
And the award for Completely
And the award for Completely Missing the F-ing Point goes to…
How did I end up with two of
How did I end up with two of these? Kind of weakens the patented biting sarcasm, you know.
of course, it is possible
of course, it is possible that the test to become a policeman in Cambridgeshire is to simply answer the question – do you know what overtaking is? – and anything containing the answer about moving around and passing other road users results in an automatic recruitment to police driver… but if you get the question wrong you just get a beat to walk.
So take the lane, and force
So take the lane, and force them to overtake you properly or not at all.
If there isn’t space to overtake safely – then there isn’t space to overtake, and you’ll just have to bloody wait.
I was taught that if you don
I was taught that if you don’t cross the white line when overtaking a cyclist you are probably too close to the cyclist, so for the police to be advocating the passing of cyclists without crossing the centre line is just ridicluous.
Also, if we assum cars are about 2 m wide (they aren’t quite) and the cyclist is 0.75 m off the kerb with 0.5 m bars (so 0.25 m further into the road) a car would need to be within 0.5 m (about 19 inches in old money if it adds emphasis) of the cyclist to pass without crossing the centre line, which is most certainly far too close.
Cambridgeshire Police –
Cambridgeshire Police – upholding the right of motorists to get home quickly. Even if it means cyclists don’t get home at all.
So, to paraphrase: “Don’t
So, to paraphrase: “Don’t expect us to punish people for ignoring the highway code and driving dangerously. Being in a hurry is far more important and we aren’t willing to slow down people’s journeys to save lives.” Do they take the same approach to speed cameras?
“Mr Morris said this would
“Mr Morris said this would mean drivers had to move into the opposite lane to overtake.”
How utterly, appallingly unthinkable. What idiot would suggest doing that?
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/559afd05e5274a155c00001f/the-highway-code-rule-163.jpg
As featured in https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#overtaking-rules-162-to-169
And he’s supposed to be the casualty reduction officer! More like the motorised traffic speed maintenance officer.
What a lot os rubbish…..
What a lot os rubbish….. Cambridgeshire Police have more than just the city to worry about… they can patrol the market towns and Peterborough then they will have some drivers to sort out….
Clearly this mirrors the huge reluctance of the Police & Crime Commissioner to enforce the close pass initiative, as he did with the County wide parking enforcement when he was the leader of Huntingdonshire District Council…they opted out of enforcement so now it’s an unregulated and enforced free for all with parking on verges, corners, double yellows and the like. He clearly doesn’t want to upset car users . On the Police’s stance on narrow roads and cyclists issue, again in Huntingdon, there was a sharp corner which it was decided to reduce it’s width to allow a further 3 homes to be built on a development, at the time there was a campaign to stop this but it was unsucessful as it was measured that 2 buses could pass (only just mind) so that was okay and at the same time the local Police even admitted that cyclists could ride the road as it would reduce the speed of motorists…. this is the attitude they have in Cambridgeshire.
The County Councillor for Transport, Mr Bates always keeps trying to spew the propaganda that Cambridgeshire is the county of Cyclists…. utter Bovine excretment.
At least they’re honest.
At least they’re honest. Cars have to have their speed, numbers and volume reduced. For most of those suffering from physical disabilities an electric golf cart speed limited to 20mph should suffice. The rest can get the train or bus.
It is better to be silent and
It is better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
If the roads are not safe for
If the roads are not safe for driving in accordance with the Highway Code then close the road to cars until road improvements can be made.
Quote:
Well, I think this is
Well, I think this is excellent news.
Close pass initiaves and the rest of it are waste of time, bringing only a temporary benefit at best in the vast, vast majority of cases. It’s nothing more than a tiny sticking plaster. And of course they do nothing to address drink/drug driving, speeding, texting etc etc.
If you want cycling to be safe and viable, as it certainly should – and could – be in a place like Cambridge, you need to separate the cars and the bikes properly.
Which is, when you follow the logic, what the dibble are saying here; just not sure that they meant to.
BarryBianchi wrote:
I presume you’re joking in the same way the policeman is? No? Because in the West Midlands they’ve seen a 20% reduction in cyclists being hit on the roads. As for a temporary benefit, well clearly if they keep doing the close pass initiative (as they plan to – it’s apparently resource neutral) then it clearly won’t be temporary.
Of course it doesn’t address drink driving etc., in the same way drink driving initiatives don’t address close passing.
I despair – at least the stupid policeman presumably has the excuse of not being a cyclist.
aracer wrote:
I’m not joking because it’s not funny. These fads of “iniatives” don’t even scratch the surface of what needs to be done. If you want safe cycling, get safe cycling. That means proper routes and separation. I’ve lived in several countries in Europe, and know it can be done. If you think close pass initiatives in Cambridge or anywhere will make a toss of real lasting difference you’re pissing up a rope.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Yeah that’s great but you’re taking an idiot policeman’s comments and extrapolating them out into better infrastructure. I haven’t seen any quote from him leading onto infrastructure. Only that cyclists are in the way and inconvenience car drivers.
I’d rather have an initative that has clear results than nothing at all, thanks for speaking out against that though.
Goldfever4 wrote:
Do you really think you are helping? You’re writing like a child. In the real world, things are just a little more complex. Bashing the police and bad mouthing anyone who deigns to err from your view is just very very silly. You really thing policemen like him hold forth for quotes on infractructure reform? And guess what – cyclist ARE an incovience to drivers – may be news to you, but not to the thinking people, and those of us who have cycle commuted for 25+ years. Which is rather my point; remove the clash. Safe shared space is a tired and unworkable concept; this is Britain 2017; that ship, if it ever was is the harbour, sailed years ago.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Troll off somewhere else
Goldfever4 wrote:
Year 6 next – you get to use the Bunsen burners!
BarryBianchi wrote:
So how soon do you think we’ll be getting proper separated infrastructure?
Because in the mean time, the WMP Close Pass initiative has been proven to reduce the numbers of cyclists injured on the roads. The chances are it’s already saved at least one life. Yet you apparently think it’s excellent news that Cambridgeshire won’t do it – ergo you’re pleased at more cyclists in Cambridgeshire being injured and killed.
You do realise that Cambridgeshire refusing to do this won’t advance the cause of separated infrastructure one iota?
aracer wrote:
Is that significant? What’s the usual annual variance in cycling incidents in the west midlands? Is this variation over a single year statistically significant enough to attribute success to the scheme? I’m glad they are carrying out the scheme, and hope it is having an effect but you have to be suspicious over anyone making claims over such few data points
BarryBianchi wrote:
Don’t you worry. You’ll be banned for your own good. Except from the MTB trails and the turbo trainer in the garage.
Ush wrote:
Already are in a way. My kids are MTB only. Riding on the road is just too dangerous. Close pass initiative are not going to change that. No more than speed cameras have solved speeding. Or mobile phone law has stopped abuse of those while driving.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Why do Binary, Barry? You want to ride your Bianchi only on separate infrastructure, or do you actually use the roads?
Nobody’s arguing AGAINST better, separate infrastructure, but if you’re as well-lived as you claim to be, you’ll know we’re eons away from that in the UK.
So, meanwhile, those who actually ride on UK roads will take the baby steps – and still campaign for the whole shebang including drivers being safer and proper infrastructure.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
I both the views above have merit.
Barry’s right, in that ultimately nothing but dedicated, high-quality, infrastructure is going to fix the (relatively, compared to a number of other European states) poor cycling safety conditions in the UK. And I think it’s also right that that drum must be beaten loudly *every* time cycling safety comes up.
However, the police work with the conditions today, and the law as it is today. And they can improve things significantly in short order, if they’d bloody well enforce the law. The statements from the police in this story are clearly idiotic, showing an ignorance of the law and a dereliction of their duty.
One other comment I’d make… that high-quality, dedicated infrastructure.. it does NOT take long to do. Significant amounts of it can be built within /years/, “all” it needs is the political will to do so.
I remember (vaguely) the Netherlands in the late 70s. I remember watching the cycling infrastructure being built near us. We went from cycling on the road, to me being able to cycle on my own to school, aged 6.
The Netherlands went from no cycling infrastructure, to lots of it, in a relatively short space of time (in the grand scheme of things). Building it is easy, and does /not/ take that long. Once the will is there. Do not be defeatist about how “easy” it is do, in terms of the practical side.
Cycling was part of the dutch cultural identity then, and still normal. The normality of cycling has been lost here, unfortunately.
You…. have…..to…….be.
You…. have…..to…….be…….kidding…….me!!!!!
If I lived in Cambridgeshire I’d be doing something about the idiot policeman who responded. He needs reporting to his seniors. The local councillors, MP and police commisioner need to be informed.
Ok, so are the police instead
Ok, so are the police instead advocating that all cyclists should instead use the pavement so that cars are free to continue unhindered by anything, except each other of course?
I would presume they’d then insist cyclists give full regard to the safety of pedestrians when that very same regard for life has been denied to them by this absurd stance from the very authority tasked and paid to uphold the safe overtaking rule?
Given this overtaking rule is clearly unworkable in Cambridge I assume the police are therefore taking action to have this silly law amended?
The close pass initiative isn
The close pass initiative isn’t really the big headline of this story. It’s the fact that the “Casualty Reduction Officer” doesn’t even know the highway code. And he is also unable to apply a hint of logic. And he’s in a job that requires at least a little of these two skills.
He needs to be sacked, regardless of whether he eventually agrees to the initiative. At the very least he needs retraining (i.e. to read the highway code).
fanatic278 wrote:
might just be deliberately passing on as a press release what he or she has been told is firm policy by more senior officers – knowing it is not a good road safety argument but that senior officers are responding to the car driving public’s perception of what is right – probably add in pressure from local politicians who should know better
Barry, I’m guessing our anger
Barry, I’m guessing our anger is because we would like to see the police enforcing the law and holding drivers to the standards outlined in the highway code.
ktache wrote:
1. No, I’m not angry.
2. I’d like to see tangible change and progress; this is not going to get us that.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Anything to substantiate that?
And what will?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
I’d like to see tangible change and progress; this is not going to get us that.
— Helmut D. Bate Anything to substantiate that? And what will?— BarryBianchi
Been through this several times in this thread. Physical separation. WTF is it with this forum? One min it’s “car drivers are all tw@ts who will mow you down with legal impunity/inaction from the scum pigs all day every day”, and the next it’s “a micro side show about passing 2 feet wider will change the world”. Smell the coffee, it’s not going to happen. Have a read of this – toady’s local news near me – an tell me WTF a close pass iniative (which by the way we’ve had apparently) has done/is going to do: http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/
Britain is full of tw@ts driving cars badly and dangerously all day every day, with almost total impunity.
BarryBianchi wrote:
You’re ignoring the question – I have to suspect it’s deliberate, as I was very specific in asking the question earlier. How and when do you think we are going to cycling utopia you want?
Personally I shall be very surprised to see any progress at all towards that in my lifetime.
Yet you’re happy that nothing is being done about that in Cambridgeshire
The Close Pass initiative has got tangible positive results where it’s been done properly – I’m not sure what you think anecdotes in a local newspaper is going to prove? Feel free to dismiss it if you like, but the evidence doesn’t back up your position.
BarryBianchi wrote:
We’re not in total disagreement, but your cynical stance, like the Cambridge cops, is the worst of both worlds. It ACCEPTS close passes – in the case of the cops, condones it from a position of authority. What will that actually achieve? Even if the close pass initiative changes 1 driver’s approach, it will be infinitely superior to you and the Cambridge cops shrugging your shoulders, which will have zero positive effect.
And it is totally illogical. It seems to be ‘roads are unsafe: leave them to the cars and use the separate infrastructure.’ But we don’t have separate infrastructure to be able to do that.
It’s the easiest position to take, that of a cynic. So let’s hear what you actually do. Do you ride a bike? If so, where?
What are you doing to accomplish your separate infrastructure goal?
“…potentially forcing
“…potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake” – yup. That’s the point. If there isn’t room to overtake then there isn’t room to overtake. End of discussion. Maybe blame all those darned motorists in the other lane?
Personally I reckon these
Personally I reckon these initiatives are little more than temporary reminders because the good drivers will generally give ample room most times, those that wouldn’t give ample room won’t care about the initiative and will still won’t most times with perhaps a very small % actually changing their driving habits.
Things could always be worse
Things could always be worse … they could ban cycles from narrow roads.
“The average road is
“The average road is approximately 3.5 metres from the kerb to the white lines. Cyclists are advised to cycle 0.75 metres away from the kerb to avoid drain covers and an average car is about two metres wide. Operation Close Pass recommends drivers leave about 1.5 metres when passing a cyclist. If we add all those figures together it would mean drivers are moving into the opposite lane to overtake. For Cambridge city where roads are narrower and often very congested we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.”
So? Telling motorists that they can overtalke when there *isn’t* the recommended space to overtake isn’t merely fucking moronic, it’s encouraging them to break the law. Surely to goodness even the Police realise that encouraging people to break the law is actually A Bad Thing?
Richard D wrote:
Exactly: motorists are *supposed* to move into the opposing lane to overtake (just make sure that there’s no oncoming traffic, eh?)
(anything here is my opinion,
(anything here is my opinion, not that of Camcycle- I did author our statement but it was approved by several other trustees) Of course we want physical seperation. We’ve pushed and sort of got it on Huntingdon Road, Hills Road and being built on Trumpington Road. We’re still pushing for it on Milton Road. We’ve helped ensure that the A14 project includes a 4m wide cycleway alongside its “Local Access Road” component.
But the cops are right- a lot of streets in Cambridge are narrow. I’d like to see considerable traffic reduction of course, but in the mean time members and others have been crying out for action- eg on Mill Road.
Plus the whole country road thing I raised.
But what Cambridgeshire Police have said is worse than simply not taking enforcement action. They have outright said that it is OK to squeeze past if the alternative is being held up.
‘We would be potentially
‘We would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake’
erm… isn’t that the £$%^ing point?
I have a bit of a dilemma
I have a bit of a dilemma with this safe distance campaign when it comes to filtering which I do on a daily basis , both on the inside, the outside and down the middle although not all at the same time. If the traffic then speeds up I expect it to repass at the same unsafe distance I passed it. By filtering are we sending a confusing message to motorists of what we consider to be safe?
inz4ne wrote:
Drivers have to realise that cars and bikes are very different. Whilst a cyclist moving past slow/stationary cars can pass with only a very small gap, they tend to be travelling at only a few mph faster than the cars. Also, the cyclist will be extremely careful (we don’t typically like to fall off and hurt ourselves) and cyclists have a much better view of the road most of the time (higher up, no engineered blind spots and paying attention).
Meanwhile, when the cars get a chance to move forwards, they don’t appreciate that they’re in a tonne of metal with sticky out bits that can easily snag/hit cyclists if they try to leave the same space that the cyclist used to overtake them. Most motorists understand that and will try to leave as much gap as possible and go slowly.
inz4ne wrote:
I presume you’re doing all that filtering through stationary or almost stationary traffic and while riding a bicycle? Then that is in no way comparable to being passed at 30-40mph by a car, a van, or a bus. Unless you think the occupants of the cars you pass are seriously scared that you might kill them…?
inz4ne wrote:
If the other traffic is just speeding up slightly so it’s “filtering” back past you, then I don’t see a problem with it passing at the same distance you passed – fundamentally the big difference here is that the other traffic is presumably maintaining its position on the road rather than pulling out and back in, so the amount of space you have is predictable . We’re talking about something rather different with the Close Pass thing where vehicles are overtaking on free flowing roads, and I hope most people will understand the difference (though admittedly some drivers are complete idiots).
Anecdotally, whislst I’m not in an area enforcing Close Pass, West Midlands is the next police authority (and every driver I’ve reported for a close pass has lived in the West Mids police area!) I’m convinced drivers are giving cyclists more space than they used to – both from experiences cycling and from watching other cars when overtaking cyclists driving. Just overtook a group of cyclists this morning and was pleasantly surprised how much space everybody gave them.
inz4ne wrote:
The difference being if I go too close, I clip a wing mirror. If an articulated lorry goes too close, I turn into a 50 metre bloody streak on the road.
I’ve got £50m of separated cycle infrastructure almost on my doorstep, and in my experience, it’s a disaster. It was unsafe before, it’s worse now. I use a busy dual carriageway instead because it’s safer.
A big up to West Midlands Police and the police forces following in their footsteps though. Unlike Cambridge, who just appear to be at best a bit dim. At worst, if this is the Cambridge Police Casualty Reduction Officer, I don’t want to meet their Murder Squad in a dark alley.
Call me greedy but I’d like
Call me greedy but I’d like segregation in towns, cities and urban through routes PLUS other road users acting in accordance with the codes and laws intended to ensure safety. And I’d quite like the Police to enforce that second part, rather than undermine it. After all, that’s what I’m paying them for.
I accept that the first part is subject to the vagaries of the democratic process and if voters want to prioritise other things then it’s up to me to argue for what I want. The second part to me doesn’t seem optional, it suggests it’s okay to pick the laws one wants to obey. If that’s the case I’d like back the part of my taxes used to pay that police officers salary.
” If we add all those figures
” If we add all those figures together it would mean drivers are moving into the opposite lane to overtake”
Holy shit, they’ve never read the Highway Code.
When I filter I do it with
When I filter I do it with great concentration, covering my brakes, and on the flat bars, my little fingers about 2 inches from the wides point of my bicycle. I have the knowledge that if I connect with anything it could result in personel injury.
The vehicle driver does has none of these things. This is why I can pass closer to their vehicle, when we are both travelling relatively slowly, than they should be passing me, when we are both moving at greater speeds.
And of course I am not threatening their safety, whearas a mistake on their part could result in my serious injury or even death.
ktache wrote:
What he said. (thumbs up) 🙂
ktache wrote:
All true but in my opinion the principal difference is that a moving cyclists may deviate laterally intentionally or unintentionally for a number of reasons, many of which are actually spelled out in the highway code. I have yet to see a stationary car move laterally for any reason. I don’t filter past moving vehicles too dangerous.
Casual Retardation Officer
For Cambridge city where roads are narrower and often very congested we would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake.”— Casual Retardation Officer
YES. THAT’S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF A CLOSE PASS INITIATIVE YOU UTTER FUCKING MORONS.
When the police are quite happy to make this statement publicly, it make me wond- oh I can’t be bothered anymore.
I literally can’t have enough
I literally can’t have enough outrage for Cambridge Police’s incompetence here, so I’ll save expressing any and save it for something else that is less draining and less ridiculous.
“Above all else it puts the
“Above all else it puts the safety and security of the public first.” The Office of Constable, Police Federation.
I always thought that the first duty of any police officer is the safety of the public. If somehow that doesn’t apply to cyclists in Cambridge, then Casualty reduction officer Jon Morris should explain in words of one syllable, why not. Is he suggesting that cyclists aren’t members of the public? Or that their safety is somehow less important than that of other members of the public?
I sincerely trust that local cyclists will be inundating the PCC with emails, letters and phone calls 24/7, demanding that the police perform their duty to protect the public who ride a bicycle.
There is very little to say
There is very little to say that hasn’t already been said, and isn’t depressing to have to repeat when things should, and could so easily, be getting better. Except…
The average car width is not two metres. Increasing numbers are that wide, mostly SUVs, so how about banning them from the city centre? If safe passing is such a mathematical impossibility, surely that’s the problem which needs to be tackled.
This from the cops in one of
This from the cops in one of Britains “premier cycling city” folks.
You couldn’t make it up.