Hampshire police officers last week stopped both motorists and cyclists in the New Forest as part of the force’s Give Space, Be Safe campaign. The Bournemouth Echo reports that seven drivers were stopped for passing a plain clothes police cyclist too closely, while 15 cyclists were given advice and “high-visibility freebies.”
Sergeant Rob Heard said: “The week’s activities were a great success. We have seen a marked improvement with drivers giving plenty of space and time when overtaking cyclists.
He added: “A close pass not only presents danger to the cyclist but it’s also intimidating. Drivers should be allowing other road users as much room they would a car – but many seem to not know this, or choose to ignore it. Remember that any cyclist you overtake could be our police cyclist.”
New Forest defends its record on cycling following unflattering comparison to other national parks
Similar operations were also run in Portsmouth and Southampton. In all cases, motorists opted for roadside education using Cycling UK’s close pass mat rather than prosecution.
In Portsmouth, seven drivers were stopped for passing too closely when overtaking the police cyclist, while officers issued 15 cyclists with fixed penalty notices for not having lights and spoke with more than 150 about what lights and clothing they should have to ensure they are visible. Those fined can however avoid paying if they buy new lights from an approved cycle shop in the area within 28 days.
In Southampton six drivers were stopped, while 20 cyclists were spoken to – two for riding through red lights.
Explaining why a close pass operation had seen so many cyclists stopped, Heard said: “We have not only been targeting poor driving behaviour, we have also been targeting cyclists and other road users whose behaviour may make them more at risk of being involved in a collision.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
47 thoughts on “Hampshire Police stop 20 drivers and 185 cyclists during close pass operation”
So you’re telling us that
So you’re telling us that cyclists are nealry 10 times more likely to cause accidents than motorists… Great job!
” seven drivers were stopped
” seven drivers were stopped for passing too closely when overtaking the police cyclist, while officers issued 15 cyclists with fixed penalty notices for not having lights and spoke with more than 150 about what lights and clothing they should have to ensure they are visible. “
FFS they can’t help themselves can they? No matter how they start out it always dengenerates into handing out tickets…
marcswales wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that the ratio of cyclists not having the correct lights to drivers passing too close was that high. As for advising on clothing for cyclists, that’s none of their fucking business. Would they tell the driver of a black car to get a fluorescent paint job on it?
[/quote] I find it difficult to believe that the ratio of cyclists not having the correct lights to drivers passing too close was that high. As for advising on clothing for cyclists, that’s none of their fucking business. Would they tell the driver of a black car to get a fluorescent paint job on it?[/quote]
Oh I can, I’m a cyclist and a taxi driver in Portsmouth and the vast majority of people on bikes in the city, dont use lights.
Eton Rifle wrote:
” seven drivers were stopped for passing too closely when overtaking the police cyclist, while officers issued 15 cyclists with fixed penalty notices for not having lights and spoke with more than 150 about what lights and clothing they should have to ensure they are visible. “
FFS they can’t help themselves can they? No matter how they start out it always dengenerates into handing out tickets…
— Eton Rifle I find it difficult to believe that the ratio of cyclists not having the correct lights to drivers passing too close was that high. As for advising on clothing for cyclists, that’s none of their fucking business. Would they tell the driver of a black car to get a fluorescent paint job on it?— marcswales
Wholeheartedly agree. The wrong message is being sent out here. Call me cynical, but why couldn’t they pull up drivers for other offences not related to close passing, just like they did to the cyclists?
don simon wrote:
The number of cars with disfunctional lights at the moment is insane, don’t see or hear about them getting stopped?! Got overtaken last week at 9pm by a car with absolutely no rear lights, tried signalling a number of times by waving my hand over my stupidly bright lights but the driver was oblivious.
Close passes are dangerous to vulnerable road users, pedestrians crossing the road aren’t required to wear lights, or hi-viz… So why target vulnerable road users who pose no danger to anyone?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
And then there are the drivers who use spotlamps to dazzle everyone, which is illegal unless visibility is less than 100m, I think, but am willing to be corrected. Never seen anyone pulled over for this, but there are thousands of them out there.
Reminds me of the submission I sent to Viz Top Tips “Drivers, if you use spotlamps all the time during the hours of darkness, have you considered strapping a 14″ flourescent pink dildo to the roof of your car so that we’ll know in daylight too.” Don’t think they printed it.
Eton Rifle]
I don’t – still baffled on my daily london commute how many cyclists consider lights and optional extra. Frankly what excuse anyone could have not to use lights, it won’t cut it with me. At least dutch and belgian police take no rubbish from folks not having lights, it’s a guaranteed 60EUR fine and a walk home !
Surrey and Hants police
Surrey and Hants police forces.
In urgent need of education re their reponsibilities and duties.
A flying visit from a neighbouring force with somewhat more enlightened ways should (ideally with Cycling UK to explain more fully how things work on the roads) might do the trick.
A close pass initiative which
A close pass initiative which stopped nine times more cyclists than drivers. This was not a close pass initiative, it was a stop cyclists initiative, with a few token drivers stopped to make it look good.
It got into the local paper
It got into the local paper so people have read about the close passes. Hopefully some will have thought about their driving.
If they’re stopping cyclists without lights I’ve no problems either. Would you rather they were given a free pass and sent on their way in the dark ?
fenix wrote:
They would so the driver who eventually runs them over wouldn’t be prosecuted making it more difficult for that cyclist to claim compensation.
fenix wrote:
I would hope that the tickets were cancelled upon presenting proof that you now have satisfactory lights installed and working… that’s what some forces do, give you a week to do so.
Paul_C wrote:
28 days – it says so in the article you didn’t bother to read.
fenix wrote:
No and frankly how anyone could defend otherwise is beyond me
Hampshire Police are an
Hampshire Police are an absolute shower of shite. Try reporting a close pass or dangerous driving to them and, even with video evidence, they’re not interested. I get the impression they have a close pass operation as more of a PR stunt rather than targeting bad driving.
thx1138 wrote:
this I have reported a few now. I get several close passes every bloody day in Southampton. Even with video they don’t follow up. Not in the publics interest dear boy!
BrokenBootneck wrote:
You are clearly cycling in the wrong part. You need to cycle in the part where most drivers know that there are police about frequently so they give cyclists sufficient room.
Another publicity stunt by
Another publicity stunt by Hampshire Police, reported several close passes and delberate run me off the road. Followed up by formal complaints when they refused to prosecute and still nothing. Hampshire Police seem proud of the fact that they only prosecute 12% of reported crime!!
Courts around the country are closing due to lack of work because the Police no longer prosecute and send people on courses or give them conditional cautions. Then we wonder why are roads are not safe.
Good that operation close
Good that operation close Pass is still gaining momentum albeit at a bit of a no starter a part from 2 areas in Scotland.
It’s only right those cycling without lights etc are held to account as the law is clear in regards to lights, reflectors etc. Why should we have one rule for motorists and then ignore the blatant disregard of the ignorant cyclist.
And I am both. Motorist and cyclist, but have a 65 lumen rear lamp along with a Knog for daytime use and a 1800 lumen 3 cree led for darker times.
SculturaD wrote:
But stopping cyclists to tell them about their clothing whilst cars continue to speed by at close distances is akin to stopping drivers to tell them their radio is too loud whilst a maniac attacks them with a machete…
And today they’ve been
And today they’ve been handing out free hi-viz to trick and treaters and doing a whole fuckload of victim blaming of vulnerable road users (i.e. kids in fancy dress). Not one message in the campaign asking drivers to take extra care this evening.
They have this insane and misguided view of equivalency, whenever they do a cycle op they feel they have to target both drivers and cyclists, which completely dilutes the message. The local rags just clickbait the story with “Hundreds of cyclists stopped by police” headlines meaning that any impact on driver behaviour gets lost in a “well, they’re asking for it, and they don’t even pay road tax” wankshower.
Having said all that I did
Having said all that I did almost get taken out by a cyclist on a shared use path tonight. All in black, on a black bike, no lights, riding no-handed. More luck than judgement that I didn’t clip him. Darwin award right there.
I wince when I see almost
I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.
Leviathan wrote:
You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.
There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.
That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.
StoopidUserName wrote:
You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.
There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.
That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.
— BehindTheBikesheds Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.— Leviathan
Your previous post seems to suggest that someone not having a light on a shared-use path is a gateway to them committing more crimes.
How does that refute the point that thousands of lives are lost due to people not being able to stop within the distance they see to be clear?
davel wrote:
You were defending cyclists not having lights in the dark basically as they cause no harm. I’m pointing out they do – to other cyclists and pedestrians. Of course motorists cause vastly more casualties on our roads…but relatively little on the segregated cycle path…where a minority of idiot and selfish cyclists take over. That’s my point. They shouldn’t be defended, ever. My other point was if they’re happy to ignore one Very, very important rule then they’re more likely to ignore others – which i often observe them doing. Doesnt meann all of them do, but in my experience a large proportion do. They are a danger to others, once again I’m calling them out for what they are.
StoopidUserName wrote:
Actually, *I* wasn’t… But I didn’t interpret BTBS as defending that kind of behaviour, either. More having a go at the prioritisation and focus of resources by under-staffed police forces.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I am almost amused by the people you hear complaining about all the invisible cyclists they see.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Wöt? Ridiculous, no victim blaming. It is a simple fact that some older bike lights are feeble. Reflectives and good lights are more important that clothing. Having been T-boned twice by drivers not looking at forward pointing lights, I am glad of brighter more defuse lights I have now.
You say there is no law, except for the law you quote. Also what has stopping distance got to do with it? Most of us are in a lit urban area where bike lights are to be seen, not to see by. You really seem to be advocating people driving and riding at 10kph or less after dark; even on a bike I have places to go fast than that, how you expect drivers to adhere to this I don’t know.
Bonkers, BehindTheBikesheds leading us back to the Land of the Blind.
At a set of lights a clever
At a set of lights a clever clogs passenger in a van said to me “bit stupid wearing all black on a bike aint it”
I replied f*** off mate i’m delivering milk tray.
Unless they’re personally
Unless they’re personally known to me I couldn’t care less whether idiots put themselves in serious danger by not having lights.
But they put me and others in danger all the fucking time. They also have no idea about riding in a straight line on a cycle path, often are in the wrong lane of a 2 way path and of course, if they’re happy to break one rule, then theyll be happy to break all the others, which they do. Finings too good for them. Selfish bastards every one.
Based on those numbers, I’m
Based on those numbers, I’m not entirely convinced that Hampshire road traffic police have their priorities in order…
So the motorists were stopped
So the motorists were stopped (for a chat??) but the cyclists were given FPNs?
Pub bike wrote:
Although they will be cancelled if they prove they have then gone on to buy some lights, so really it’s probably a good idea.
I don’t think they should be stopping cyclists for the clothes they are wearing though, which does seem to be the case here.
I really wish police would do
I really wish police would do a campaign where they stop cars for driving without lights…. or as is becoming increasingly popular driving with daytime running lights at night.
The number of people who have absolutely no idea that many modern cars have daytime running lights that only put the equivalent of side lights on at the front but no lights on at the rear is unbelievable.
On the other hand I can full well understand why so many cyclists were stopped for cycling without lights as that is probably more prevalent I’m afraid. On my commute from work last night I encountered about a dozen other cyclists, of which only 2 had lights on, the rest were cycling in the road with no lights and dark clothing. In my experience telling them to put lights on results in me getting verbal abuse in return.
As for the police stopping people and saying that they need Hi-Viz clothing – bullcrap – that’s going back to the same old tired victim blaming that the police often use. As a matter of course on my commute at this time of year I use Hi-Viz but that is because I will undoubtedly be cycling to or from work in the dark. But to be told to wear Hi-Viz during the day is ridiculous.
craigstitt wrote:
On the contrary. If by hi-viz you mean dayglo stuff, then it is useless in the dark. (The clue is in the name). It is only intended to be used during the day.
At night what you need is retroreflective stuff. Most hi-viz things also included retroflective patches, but so too do many jackets etc in less lurid colours.
That said, I agree with you that being told to wear hi-viz is ridiculous.
So, on one hand we have close
So, on one hand we have close-pass operations that are educating drivers on the correct amount of space to leave cyclists when overtaking.
On the other hand, we also have all the painted line cycle lanes on the roads, such as this one, which conversely imply that the thickness of the line is all the space you need to give a cyclist:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4343101,-0.8892536,3a,75y,319.36h,90.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw_3FD0GPIPL9Dp-t7xdX4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That section of that road is 40mph and and the driver of the red car would consider themselves to be passing the schoolboys perfectly legally and considerately, but wouldn’t be if you slapped a close-pass mat on the road. I hope the silver car behind moved over a bit. You can bet your bottom dollar that in reality the car is doing at least 45mph past the lads, who will be doing about 12mph. The footpath on both sides is shared use.
For this reason alone, I’m not a huge fan of this type of cycle lane and I use this one quite a lot.
The whole thing about giving cyclists at least as much room when you pass them as cars doesn’t really help when you consider how normal it is for cars to pass each other with only a few inches between them where there is more than 1 lane – and the speed differential there can be anything up to 70-odd mph where you have a queue for a sliproad, for example.
The point that needs to be made is that cars don’t wobble and aren’t usually affected by things such as wind, road defects, the vortex of something passing at high speed and having a chat with your mates.
I worked and commuted by bike
I worked and commuted by bike in Southampton for 6 months, to be honest I’m not supprised so many cyclists were stopped for jumping red lights- every “cyclist” there would jump them- (they’re not really cyclists, just t*ats who have access to bikes.)
The amount of time I would catch up with them to challenge them on this- and seemed very shocked that someone would actually call them out on this. As far as I’m concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that’s up to you- however every time drivers see this then that’s just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there’s no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.
beigemaster wrote:
Utter bollocks, where were you working? I’ve commuted either by car or bike in Southampton for 8 years and its incredibly rare to see cyclists jump lights and on the whole cycling behaviour is good – good lane discipline on shared use paths etc.
Not using lights is another matter though, and seriously hacks me off considering there’s a Decathlon selling perfectly adequate urban lights for £2.99
kil0ran wrote:
I commute by bike into Southampton, the above ratio of bikes without lights and red light jumping to close passing seems consistant with what I see every week.
kil0ran wrote:
Shirley High Street is a big hot spot along with the roads that connect to it (ironic because the pavement is easily wide enough for a segregated cycle lane along).
The cross roads at Bellemoor road where it meets the common, I promise I’m not exaggerating when I say that literally almost every time I used that junction, at least one person would jump the lights when they were red to allow pedestrians to go through -I assume mainly students heading back to campus over the common. I’d also see people jumping the lights/mounting the pavement where Oakley road meets the Winchester road- so in short, pretty much most of the junctions controlled by traffic lights on my relatively short commute.
If we’re not seeing the same thing, then logically either we have been cycling in different parts of the city or at different times, or perhaps the standards of what we expect on our commute are quite different?
I’m back in Sheffield now, and I hardly ever see anyone jumping lights or mounting pavements and so perhaps that’s the standard I’m used to- but that could be because there are much less casual cyclists in Sheffield as it’s not an easy city to cycle around in- you will at some point have to ride up a big hill!
beigemaster wrote:
The collective responsibility nonsense aside, where are you going with this?
Drivers seeing cyclists jumping red lights mean they give us all more close passes? Yeah, a link to this research, if you will.
davel wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that’s up to you- however every time drivers see this then that’s just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there’s no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.
— davel The collective responsibility nonsense aside, where are you going with this? Drivers seeing cyclists jumping red lights mean they give us all more close passes? Yeah, a link to this research, if you will.— beigemaster
You’ll find as much evidence as you need in the comments section of any cycling story of most of the tabloid tripe that plagues the internet.
I didn’t say it was a logical argument- hence why I put the caveat “in their minds” into it, human beings are not as rational as we like to believe we are, so a simple mind set of “us and them, ‘they’ do bad stuff so I don’t need to treat them better” is unfortunately very apparent in our consciousness- hell that’s what the whole tabloid press is based on!
How many times have you challenged a driver for a close pass and their response has been something like “well you lot jump red lights all the time!”? I know it’s been a fair few for me, and I’m pretty sure I could scroll a through a few helmet cams on YouTube to find similar.
For the sake of argument, even if I’m wrong, jumping a red light on a bike or in a car is illegal, and I don’t want to be tarnished with the same brush as those cyclist to believe themselves to be above the law.
Note, I’m not talking about helmets, high viz or headphone what-aboutery, I’m talking about people who break the law in broad daylight in front of other road users which IMO, you lose the moral high ground when expecting other road users to also comply with the rules of the road- not a justification, but simply a logical inconsistency.
beigemaster wrote:
I can agree with the argument regarding drivers making excuses – that’s their whataboutery.
Where I fundamentally disagree is that if ‘we’ stopped running red lights, there would be any decrease in close passes. It’d just result in different tabloid troll excuses, which, as you say, lack logic. It’d be lycra, it’d be holding them up, it’d be road tax.
CYCLISTS. Worried about being
CYCLISTS. Worried about being stopped by the Plod in Southampton? Strap a copy of this magazine to your head. Instant Hi-Viz.