BSMART helps the Chattanooga police give the local three-foot passing law some teeth.

[Mike Sales]

Chattanooga calls the result BSMART (its technical name is the C3FT Device). Developed by Codaxus, an engineering firm in Austin, Texas, the handlebar-mounted device measures the distance of passing vehicles with ultrasonic waves. The bike-car gap is then shown on a large digital display, and when a car comes closer than 36 inches, BSMART beeps—alerting an officer to a violation. Paired with a GoPro camera, the device both detects and records a car’s proximity to a bike.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... assing-law

[thirdcrank]

Let's hope this can be calibrated for different passing distances.

What seems to be the accepted distance in Europe - and those bits of the UK where the authorities bother - is 1.5 metres or a shade under 5 feet. The last thing riders need is official encouragement for drivers to reduce that be a couple of feet

[Bonefishblues]

Stick it on a 2ft arm

But seriously, 3ft's too tight, I agree.

[AndyK]

Let's hope this can be calibrated for different passing distances.

What seems to be the accepted distance in Europe - and those bits of the UK where the authorities bother - is 1.5 metres or a shade under 5 feet. The last thing riders need is official encouragement for drivers to reduce that be a couple of feet

From the manufacturer's website:

User Configurable Threshold Setting enabling custom distance triggers for alarm buzzer and LED indicators

Also...

Right- or Left-Facing Orientation Support for both right-hand traffic (RHT) and left-hand traffic (LHT) countries as well as one-way roads with left or right-passing situations

[thirdcrank]

Also from that www:-

C3FT (see-three-feet), Codaxus’ first commercial device, began its prototype phase in 2011 with productization occurring in 2015. It is being utilized across the US and around the world to address enforcement and education needs related to safe passing by motor vehicles of vulnerable users.

And this

The current generation of C3FT (see-three-feet) was introduced in July of 2017

I'll admit to knowing nothing about Chattanooga, other than its eponymous train. I see it's in Tennessee and claims to be the birthplace of the tow-truck. Were this gadget really in use "across the US and around the world" it's hard to see its adoption in Chattanooga as significant further afield.

Perhaps cUK could crowd-fund some to go with the mats. I'd still feel happier with more emphasis on 1.5 metres, even if that meant losing the Star Wars droid-type name

[Mike Sales]

It seems that he has not yet pinched anybody for passing too close.

He hasn’t written any citations yet, preferring to give warnings to those drivers who get too close. A lot of them, says Simmons, don’t know about the law. “The device has allowed me to interact with those who commit the violation and do some education,” he says. “A lot of people don’t know and have trouble judging three feet themselves.”

Simmons says if he gets attitude from a driver, or if the person behind the wheel doesn’t seem receptive to the information, he’ll write a ticket. He’s already worked out an arrangement with a judge who says he’ll try to sentence offenders to a Bicycling 101 course. The class imparts the rules of the road that apply to bicycles and includes a group bike ride to show participants how it feels to travel the streets of Chattanooga on two wheels.

Would a British bobby be able to charge a driver in the absence of a law specifically making a too close pass illegal?

[Jdsk]

Would a British bobby be able to charge a driver in the absence of a law specifically making a too close pass illegal?

It could be careless driving or dangerous driving. Or even common assault, but it would be a brave prosecutor who went down that line without some exceptional evidence.

Jonathan

PS:

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q967.htm

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss- ... ice-282593

[Jdsk]

"Operating a mechanically propelled vehicle in contravention of the law":
https://road.cc/content/news/271953-nea ... close-pass

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Would a British bobby be able to charge a driver in the absence of a law specifically making a too close pass illegal?

Close passing is at the heart of the eponymous Operation Close Pass operated by West Midlands Police and the motivation for the crowd-funded purchase and supply of the mats to every territorial police force in the UK.

The extension of fixed penalties to careless/inconsiderate driving has been launched/ relaunched and close overtaking of cyclists is usually quoted in the media as suitable offences for enforcement by tickets.

FWIW, I fancy that using a device like this in a UK court might attract more loophole merchants than it merited. (The prosecution would be trying to prove something that isn't a "point to prove.")

[Hellhound]

1.5m is not enough.
By putting a figure on it the typical UK driver will just say "I thought I was 1.5m" without actually knowing what 1.5m is.This is the image shown in the Highway code:-

Also states 'give-vulnerable-road-users-at-least-as-much-space-as-you-would-a-car'.That should be what Police are promoting not 1.5m!

[thirdcrank]

The problem with that bit of the Rule 163

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

is that it's ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. The accompanying pic - selected IIRC because the authors of the HC set their collective face against defining what the rule meant - if taken at face value appears to mean "only overtake motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders if you can move into another marked lane."

[Hellhound]

If taken at face value appears to mean "only overtake motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders if you can move into another marked lane."

That would be much better,in my opinion,than putting a meaningless figure like 1.5m.
From my experience the average UK driver must think 1.5m means 1.5m from where they are sitting not from their nearside mirror!

[thirdcrank]

It would be better in the opinion of some on here to ban motor vehicles from roads entirely. If there's to be a campaign with any hope of success, IMO it needs to be realistic and 1.5 metres now has quite a lot going for it.

I'd agree entirely, that creating a specific offence based on overtaking with less than 1.5 metres clearance would not be workable. For a start, the definition would have to include so many twiddly bits that it might never get on the statute book. If it did, proving 1.5 metres to the criminal standard would be difficult. IMO a better HC rule might be the way forward.

[axel_knutt]

If someone want's it to, 'give-vulnerable-road-users-at-least-as-much-space-as-you-would-a-car' can mean 'if you think it's OK to pass within 6" of a car, you can do the same to a cyclist'.

[thirdcrank]

If someone want's it to, 'give-vulnerable-road-users-at-least-as-much-space-as-you-would-a-car' can mean 'if you think it's OK to pass within 6" of a car, you can do the same to a cyclist'.

Yes. I think they were originally thinking of something like "Imagine a cyclist has the same footprint as a car" but the current ambiguous wording was agreed and since then, they've dug in. I think the pic was subsequently included as an explanation but it's widely ignored. I suspect that riders using it as a starting point for reports to the police may be counter-productive.

I have a copy of the HC dating from around 1968 and it doesn't cover this specifically.