Kickstarter - CyclingUK asking for donations to fund "close pass" mats.

[PH]

[
Quite explicit (to a driver being "educated") where the cyclist should be positioned.

Ian

Where's the car door?

distance out from left. 0.75m to cyclist centre line gives maybe 0.5m to kerb (or car parked to left) which for me puts the cyclist in the car door zone.

Ian

Where does it say that?

[Psamathe]

Where's the car door?

distance out from left. 0.75m to cyclist centre line gives maybe 0.5m to kerb (or car parked to left) which for me puts the cyclist in the car door zone.

Ian

Where does it say that?

Look to the left of the cyclist and you'll see the 0.75 m with arrows showing it is the distance between the cyclist centreline and the kerb. My handle bars are 25cm centreline to outside edge so that makes distance between left edge of handlebar to kerb 50cm.

The positioning of the cyclist is irrelevant to the passing clearance. If the cyclist is 1m out from the kerb (BikeAbility?) then the car should still give 1.5m clearance. If the cyclist is 2m out from the kerb then the car should still give a 1.5m clearance for the cyclist. So the 0.75 is irrelevant and should be left off as it can only mislead drivers into "knowing" where the cyclist should be positioned on the road (after all, the Police showed them where the cyclist should be ...).

And it should be 1.5m NOT 1.25m because the graphic shows the 1.5 to the centreline of the bike. Remember the CTC declared "even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances" yet they are now producing publicity materials with a global 1.25m clearance shown!

Ian

[PH]

I think I'm going to leave this, there's too much alternative agenda for me.
I'll stick with the ideas of people I respect as having understood the issues, people like Chris Boardman who said about the WMP initiative

Olympic gold medallist and cycling advocate Chris Boardman praised the scheme, which he saw first-hand this morning.

[Steady rider]

The issue gets side tracked with interpretation of what is being required. The display without the dimensions may be useful.

[Psamathe]

The issue gets side tracked with interpretation of what is being required. The display without the dimensions may be useful.

I think is "disappointing" that the CTC could not have reviewed the mat, discussed improvements with WMP (e.g. that the 0.75m is irrelevant and should be left off and that 1.25m gap should increase to 1.5m gap (i.e. not centreline) and then come-up with an improved mat that gets the message across without the misleading bits and shortcomings. Instead it appears they have just blindly copied it, faults and all.

Ian

[mjr]

My understanding is that this style of scheme is unlikely to be used in rural areas because it would be exposing the plain clothes police cyclist to unacceptable preventable risk to order them to ride up and down stretches where close-passing is common and traffic speeds exceed 30mph. They could do it only in towns, but the cyclists suffering close-passes there are at less risk than those suffering them at higher speeds out on country roads, so it seems a bit odd to focus on them. It's not about the cost of the mats.

Rural/semi-rural forces seem more likely to imitate North Wales's Operation Snap (bar/dash cam footage) than the West Midlands scheme - we've just seen Northumbia Police start Operation Cadence http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/new ... -1-4386580 and I'm hopeful that Norfolk and Suffolk might get something similar soon - if you're in these areas, please watch for news from KLWNBUG (West and Fens), Norwich Cycling Campaign, Cycle Ipswich or Cycle Felixstowe (or maybe others I've forgotten) on the web or faceberk or however.

So appealing for funds only to encourage the Close Pass and not Snap/Cadence seems rather urbanist by CUK again.

[thirdcrank]

Historically, police forces and particularly their chief constables have been keen to protect their independence. OTOH, on major policy issues there has always been a level of conformity to prevent one being played off against another. The old Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) had committees dealing with different areas of policy, each with a lead. The late Peter Wright devised a protocol bearing his name which meant that

... Chief Constables should agree to any policy promoted by the ACPO unless they dissent in writing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wri ... ce_officer)

With the creation of Police and Crime Commissioners,the ACPO has been replaced by the National Police Chiefs' Council. (NPCC.) I know nothing about this new organisation but I doubt if the Wright Protocol has changed much. To cut a long story short, Suzette Davenport is the lead on roads policing, which is what we are talking about here. The WMP blog linked previously suggests that this initiative was local, the brainchild of a couple of traffic PC's in Brum. If cycle campaigners up and down the land are now asking their local force to adopt this, the key is Ms Davenport and her committee. If Cycling UK haven't approached her, somebody will, either the press looking for a comment or somebody out in the sticks checking the NPCC line before deciding what to do.

[Psamathe]

.....Suzette Davenport is the lead on roads policing, which is what we are talking about here......

I thought she quit (Policing rather than any particular role within the Police force). But maybe I'm suffering poor memory or confusion.

Ian

[Labrat]

[binsted]

Is there any communication and commitment from police forces that if these mats are purchased they will be in a position to operate a close pass campaign ?

[Psamathe]

Overall, I think that if there was any real police interest in ... er ... rolling these mats out nationally, then the price of the mats would not be a hurdle.....

Having watched Tooey's video I would agree. The costs are in using the mats - you need several officers present and their cost each day is the far far greater cost, not £250 for a mat. A plain clothed Officer on the bike, a couple more to pull over drivers and spend time teaching them about passing space, etc. One mat would last ages so the £250 is spread across many days policing whereas the Officers cost is for each time it's used - so several days use and the costs of the mat are negligible.

I suspect this is all about the CTC trying to get together a cheap campaign that has not been thought through very carefully.

I think getting the Police to do this sort of thing is very worthwhile, but there are big shortcomings in the graphic that are easily addressed.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Suzette is the currently the ACPO national lead for Roads Policing in England and Wales.

https://www.police.uk/gloucestershire/t ... davenport/

It doesn't really matter because if she had left the job, there would be a replacement, although when I think about the way things are going, possibly not.

At the time of writing, I see getting on for 400 people have donated almost £6K = about £15 each.

[Psamathe]

Seems that GMP have also been doing it (so wont need the CTC mat or rather have not found the £250 cost of a mat a hindrance). But if you look at the cost of their operation, Police cyclist wearing body cameras etc. plus patrol car to pull drivers in for "education" and drivers refusing the offered on-the-spot education are charged with driving without due care and attention.

And with the Police cyclist body cams, they are also watching out for other offences (mobile phone use, not wearing a seat belt). They have already done trials in Bolton, Tameside and Manchester and are gradually rolling the initiative out across their area (so maybe they'd need more mats that the CTC plan to provide them with ?). So the £250 for a mat is definitely not a hindrance so looks to me more like CTC/CUK trying to tag along on a matter they had previously abdicated from campaigning on and with trivial effort from their side.

http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/WebsitePages/CCB079668E765DA2802580CD0031656C?OpenDocument

Ian

[Steady rider]

I think it is more important to have enforcement on this particular issue than education. The problem with the mats is they provide the mixed messages, suggesting a 0.75 m distance for the cyclist to kerb, and not being clear about the minimum passing clearance required, say 1.5 m but indicates more like 1.2 m. A motorist could say he thought the 1.5/1.2m applied if the cyclist was within 0.75m. The driver judged the cyclist to be 1.0m from the kerb, so reduced the clearance, so entre debate and lack of clarity, or excuse area for motorist to use. The wording of the law in such as Queensland is clear,

http://www.harbug.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... -paper.pdf
The two illustrations are reasonable clear, give cyclists at least 1 metre space or a metre matters

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/94655/1/Final ... 170316.pdf

144A Keeping a safe lateral distance when passing bicycle rider
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle passing the rider of a bicycle that is travelling in
the same direction as the driver must pass the bicycle at a sufficient distance
from the bicycle.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.
Note—
Section 129 requires the rider of a bicycle on a road, other than a multi-lane road, to drive
as near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
(2) A sufficient distance from the bicycle is—
(a) if the applicable speed limit is not more than 60km/h—a lateral distance
from the bicycle of at least 1m; or
(b) if the applicable speed limit is more than 60km/h—a lateral distance
from the bicycle of at least 1.5m.
(3) For subsection (2), the lateral distance is the distance between the following
points—
(a) the furthermost point to the left on the driver’s vehicle or any projection
from the vehicle (whether or not attached to the vehicle);
(b) the furthermost point to the right on the bicycle, any bicycle trailer
towed by the bicycle, the rider or any passenger in or on the trailer.
Example of what is part of a bicycle for paragraph (b)—
a basket or pannier bags attached to the bicycle
Example of what is not part of a bicycle for paragraph (b)—
a flag or stick, whether or not flexible, attached to the bicycle, that projects
sideways from the bicycle

It hardly needs pictures, it is fairly clear.

[PH]

a matter they had previously abdicated from campaigning on and with trivial effort from their side.
Ian

At the AGM we were told that they would look into it further and keep the matter under review.
Seems dammed if they don't and dammed if they do, well by you anyway, not by the hundreds of people supporting it with donations.