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

[Guy951]

And now The Mat has made it into North Yorkshire

(To confuse TC, here's a link to the YP from down here in Bedfordshire )

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/close-pass-scheme-to-stop-cyclist-collisions-launched-in-north-yorkshire-1-8545725

Looking at the pic in that article it would appear that 1.5 metres measured from the centre-line of the wheels is perfectly adequate* for overtaking.




* Adequate if you are the motorist doing the overtaking. Not quite so good if you happen to be the one being overtaken.

[thirdcrank]

From the link:-

North Yorkshire Police’s Close Pass campaign, where drivers who fail to keep a safe distance from cyclists while overtaking are given an educational talk and could even be prosecuted, follows a similar scheme in West Yorkshire. (My emphasis.)

Purely from my own observation as a member of the public, North Yorkshire seems to be the force that takes traffic policing relatively seriously so this should be a good thing. I'm looking forward to reading reports of more happening than the ceremonial handing over of mats with associated media releases. We'll know something's happening when we read the squeals on the driving forums.

[landsurfer]

What is this saying about riding 2 up ..... see 95 ALIVE post ..... does the mat make it illegal to ride side by side ...Must 2 riders, side by side, be within .75 of a metre of the kerb ????

This worries me ....

[Psamathe]

What is this saying about riding 2 up ..... see 95 ALIVE post ..... does the mat make it illegal to ride side by side ...Must 2 riders, side by side, be within .75 of a metre of the kerb ????

This worries me ....

The answer must be yes. It (the mat) is explicit. It is being used by the Police and has the full support of the CTC (cycling organisation). How can this new rule be questioned ?

Ian

[thirdcrank]

A result!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40571699

The report is a bit confusing, giving the impression that the prosecution was for a close overtake of the police officer, when the rider was, in fact, a member of the public.

[Bez]

More on that:

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/late ... px?id=5843

[The utility cyclist]

just like NSW when they rolled out the close pass rule, only two prosecutions for close driving compared to thousands of prosecutions for no helmets and no bell/ID. Whilst we don't have the issue of cyclist criminality regarding not wearing helmets/not having a bell/ID only one prosecution in the area that started off this initiative would seem to state that either the driving standard in the West Midlands is superb or that the actuality is that enforcement of this rule/law (dangerous/careless driving) is about the same level as it was in the past.

How many prosecutions in total over the same period compared to before this was rolled out, has it actually increased the safety of the roads for people on bikes?

[Bez]

It's not just one.

Hundreds of drivers (as I recall; at least, the last time I spoke to WMP about numbers a few months ago they'd stopped counting and it was around 200 then) have been issued with points and fines or education courses by WMP for close passing offences through either third party video evidence or WMP's operations, as well as nearly 200 more being given on-the-spot education. All but one of those drivers, including a number who sought advice from specialist motoring lawyers, accepted the offences without dispute. One decided to go to court. He lost and was hit with a significant fine.

I think that's accurate; I'm sure WMP would be happy to confirm or clarify if you contact them.

[thirdcrank]

I've not been following this policy, other than when I've posted on here. I don't think I've concealed my scepticism. I saw this latest story on the BBC's national news www page and thought it was worth linking here. The issue for me is the impact this has on drivers who read about it, or hear about in the pub etc., as many probably will. People who think "They can't touch you for it" discover that they can and sometimes do. (The court clipped this defendant just over a grand + five penalty points.)

As Voltaire might have said had he not preceded the invention of the motor car "They think it's good to nick a motorist from time to time, to encourage the others."

[Psamathe]

I've not been following this policy, other than when I've posted on here. I don't think I've concealed my scepticism. I saw this latest story on the BBC's national news www page and thought it was worth linking here. The issue for me is the impact this has on drivers who read about it, or hear about in the pub etc., as many probably will. People who think "They can't touch you for it" discover that they can and sometimes do. (The court clipped this defendant just over a grand + five penalty points.)
....

I agree - the value is not the few drivers who are caught (as that will always be limited compared to numbers out there giving cyclists inadequate overtaking clearance) - the value is largely in the publicity and making other drivers think that they do risk being caught and thus they think a bit more about giving a good gap.

Similar (probably even better) the other evening on East Anglia regional BBC magazine program they had a bit about somebody being caught (and prosecuted) for mobile phone use. The 18:30 eve program has had quite a lot of coverage of mobile phone use campaigns recently and I think that is the value - drivers watching TV realising they might get caught (rather than the few who actually are).

The reminding drivers that the Police are acting (even if it's only a few occasionally) plus the reminder that phone use whilst driving (or close passes to cyclists) is dangerous.

Ian

[Paulatic]

I think early on I expressed concern over the 75cm line on the mat.
Recently read a discussion on Twitter , driver stating cyclists should be prosecuted for being further out than the 75.

[mjr]

Similar (probably even better) the other evening on East Anglia regional BBC magazine program they had a bit about somebody being caught (and prosecuted) for mobile phone use. The 18:30 eve program has had quite a lot of coverage of mobile phone use campaigns recently and I think that is the value - drivers watching TV realising they might get caught (rather than the few who actually are).

Norfolk Constabulary are now soliciting dash/bar cam footage of phoney drivers under the name Operation Ringtone -
https://www.norfolk.police.uk/contact-u ... eport-form - I expect it may be encouraged for other offences (although it looks like it's now possible anyway) once they've some experience from the phoney drivers operation.

I'll be buying an extra small memory card for round-town use and re-enabling the timestamp on my cameras, just in case I get a clear image, although the angle from cycleway to carriageway means most of the time, all the handlebar camera sees is sky reflected in their windscreen. I wonder if the dashcam will fare better, but I drive less than I cycle.

[landsurfer]

I think early on I expressed concern over the 75cm line on the mat.
Recently read a discussion on Twitter , driver stating cyclists should be prosecuted for being further out than the 75.

MMM ... If motor vehicle drivers can be prosecuted for being to close then it's only a matter of time before the "too far out" defence or even a test case appears in court.
Especially if the accused motor vehicle driver is a Legal Practitioner.
This would be a good thing in my opinion as it would set a precedent under law.

But still, the cyclists riding 2 up needs to be addressed.

[Bez]

Recently read a discussion on Twitter , driver stating cyclists should be prosecuted for being further out than the 75.

Meh, so what. If you're going to take someone expressing a dodgy opinion on Twitter as a sign of anything at all then I think you can conclude anything about anything as a result.

But still, the cyclists riding 2 up needs to be addressed.

My Poe's Law meter is on the blink. Is that sarcasm or sincerity?

[landsurfer]

I'm serious, the 95 alive campaign is directly aimed at preventing cyclists riding 2 up.
Wherever they, as non cyclists, feel it's unsafe.
A little mission creep, some group funding, and alignment with police authorities and they move from a campaigning group to an "authority".
The definition of "safe " cycle / vehicle passing distances is laudable.
But it's enforcement ............ that really is the dark side...
All english law is reciprocal ( feel free to shoot me down) if this law applies to you, it applies to al involved parties.
There has been a prosecution, under close passing guidance, as i stated previously i hope the outcome is appealed for obvious reasons.