About Anglia and the Close pass iniative

[NUKe]

Norfolk Police have a campaign about Close Passes similar to the campaign started by the West Midlands Police.
https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/late ... ss-cycling
It was featured on about Anglia. They had a video of the Police explaining the recommended distances, why cyclists need room. The motorcycles with cameras they will be using and stated they wanted to educate drivers rather than punishing. It was all good stuff, but then the 2 sneering presenters felt the need to come up with the usual diatribe of car centric nonsense that get spouted, about bike blocking the road riding 2 abreast, not following the highway code etc. The final part was a lady interviewed from a Norwich cycling imitative who gave a good account of herself, but had to spend most of her interview defending cyclists rather than talking about the scheme.
The thing I can’t decide is was the anti-cycle rhetoric, there so the lady could answer the questions and show that sometimes it wasn’t possible to pass and motorists should wait, and that the Highway Code does allow cycling abreast, or were they a couple of Clarksons.

Did anybody else see the programme and like to comment.

[Psamathe]

Norfolk Police have a campaign about Close Passes similar to the campaign started by the West Midlands Police.
https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/late ... ss-cycling
It was featured on about Anglia. They had a video of the Police explaining the recommended distances, why cyclists need room. The motorcycles with cameras they will be using and stated they wanted to educate drivers rather than punishing. It was all good stuff, but then the 2 sneering presenters felt the need to come up with the usual diatribe of car centric nonsense that get spouted, about bike blocking the road riding 2 abreast, not following the highway code etc. The final part was a lady interviewed from a Norwich cycling imitative who gave a good account of herself, but had to spend most of her interview defending cyclists rather than talking about the scheme.
The thing I can’t decide is was the anti-cycle rhetoric, there so the lady could answer the questions and show that sometimes it wasn’t possible to pass and motorists should wait, and that the Highway Code does allow cycling abreast, or were they a couple of Clarksons.

Did anybody else see the programme and like to comment.

I didn't see any report but your description of "the presenters" and their attitudes tells me is was "Look East" 18:30-19:00 and I can guess the presenters but don't know their names. Very poor presenters unless they are reporting on a cat stuck up a tree. Anything more important and they are a waste of space.

Ian

[mjr]

I didn't see any report but your description of "the presenters" and their attitudes tells me is was "Look East" 18:30-19:00 and I can guess the presenters but don't know their names. Very poor presenters unless they are reporting on a cat stuck up a tree. Anything more important and they are a waste of space.

About Anglia is a former name for ITV Anglia's regional news show. I'll try to remember to have a dig around on itv's website and see if it's there because I didn't see it at the time.

[Barks]

I have just sent the following to the Norfolk Constabulary complaints/compliments e-mail address:

I very much welcome your adoption of the Close Pass Initiative and will look forward to seeing improvements on the standards of driving in the vicinity of cyclists on roads in the area.

I do have two observations though. Firstly, you mention that passing should be more than 1.5m when cyclist are .75m from the kerb - while I know this has been the WEst Midlands Police original advice it is deeply flawed. There are many justified occasions when a cyclist might be further away from the kerb than .75m; irrespective of that reason drivers should always give 1.5m clearance whereas i can see many drivers taking the attitude “oh the cyclist was so far from the kerb I had no alternative but to pass them very closely” and believe they are correctly following your directive. This premise has to be changed and I implore you to change your leaflet and any other sources of advice.

Secondly, you mention that cyclists ‘should use’ a cycle lane where it exists and stay within its markings. Use of cycle lane depends on whether the condition of the lane area is suitable (I.e. clean and pothole free) and even more so on the expected speed of the cyclist. I typically cycle on the flat in excess of 15mph and often much faster. In the UK using a cycle lane at such speeds is not sensible so invariably I will be on the main carriageway where I am fully allowed to be under the law of the UK. Your inference will attract ‘righteous’ drivers sounding their horn, shouting and worse, close passing to demonstrate that the cyclist ‘is in the wrong’. Again, please change this advice/direction before some poor cyclist is subjected to harassment.

This is my take on how the #closepass advice should be framed; i’d be grateful for feedback/advice on how other forum members as to whether I am on the right lines or not.

If I get anything back from Norfolk Police i’ll post an update.

[Ivor Tingting]

I didn't think there were any police left in Norfolk to catch "real criminals" let alone promote this scheme. They are not interested in burglaries so what hope does this initiative have? Just window dressing.

[NUKe]

Sorry it wasn’t about anglia but the bbc regional news look east.Ian good guess Susie Fowler watt,was the main presenter that annoyed me.

[Psamathe]

Sorry it wasn’t about anglia but the bbc regional news look east.

I was going to post that I got the wrong channel (in my earlier response) but I do sort of remember something in the background I was not listening to. And your description of the presenters fitted well with the Look East presenters I was thinking of.

Ian

[awavey]

now Im confused though because "About Anglia" though tbf I dont think its been called that since the 90s, ITV Anglia news also covered the same operation close pass that actually is run by the Norfolk/Suffolk Roads and armed police unit who were doing it in Norwich though I dont think they pick locations based on the prospect of close passes but rather near a space they can commandeer to put down the mat !?!...and they also managed to dig up a presenter whose opening gambit seems to be not understanding that people cycle to commute home from work, hence being on the road at 6pm, we dont go ooh its dark damp and cold lets go ride a bike, and then at the end wanted to moan about cyclists not wearing reflectives in the daytime and that it should be as educational for cyclists to wear hi viz and the police agreed with them and said theyd stop cyclists to give them that advice !!!

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/ ... ide-berth/

glad I didnt see Look East as well as Id have been truly spitting feathers about it, annoyingly their coverage lasts only 24hrs on iplayer, so unless someone recorded it Im guessing the beeb wont be interested in sharing it

[MikeF]

I have just sent the following to the Norfolk Constabulary complaints/compliments e-mail address:

I very much welcome your adoption of the Close Pass Initiative and will look forward to seeing improvements on the standards of driving in the vicinity of cyclists on roads in the area.

I do have two observations though. Firstly, you mention that passing should be more than 1.5m when cyclist are .75m from the kerb - while I know this has been the WEst Midlands Police original advice it is deeply flawed. There are many justified occasions when a cyclist might be further away from the kerb than .75m; irrespective of that reason drivers should always give 1.5m clearance whereas i can see many drivers taking the attitude “oh the cyclist was so far from the kerb I had no alternative but to pass them very closely” and believe they are correctly following your directive. This premise has to be changed and I implore you to change your leaflet and any other sources of advice.

Secondly, you mention that cyclists ‘should use’ a cycle lane where it exists and stay within its markings. Use of cycle lane depends on whether the condition of the lane area is suitable (I.e. clean and pothole free) and even more so on the expected speed of the cyclist. I typically cycle on the flat in excess of 15mph and often much faster. In the UK using a cycle lane at such speeds is not sensible so invariably I will be on the main carriageway where I am fully allowed to be under the law of the UK. Your inference will attract ‘righteous’ drivers sounding their horn, shouting and worse, close passing to demonstrate that the cyclist ‘is in the wrong’. Again, please change this advice/direction before some poor cyclist is subjected to harassment.

This is my take on how the #closepass advice should be framed; i’d be grateful for feedback/advice on how other forum members as to whether I am on the right lines or not.

If I get anything back from Norfolk Police i’ll post an update.

"Cyclists should always use Cycle Lanes when they are available and keep within the lane when practicable" is what you should have quoted . Some lanes are impossible to use eg here. This lane is absurd - look at the width of the cross hatchings to prevent motor vehicles hitting each other. The problem is there isn't a standard design for a cycle lane.

[The utility cyclist]

Motorists should always use motorways when provided, after all billions are spent from tax payers money, why are they even on the 'roads' when there's a motorway over there

[reohn2]

I have just sent the following to the Norfolk Constabulary complaints/compliments e-mail address:

I very much welcome your adoption of the Close Pass Initiative and will look forward to seeing improvements on the standards of driving in the vicinity of cyclists on roads in the area.

I do have two observations though. Firstly, you mention that passing should be more than 1.5m when cyclist are .75m from the kerb - while I know this has been the WEst Midlands Police original advice it is deeply flawed. There are many justified occasions when a cyclist might be further away from the kerb than .75m; irrespective of that reason drivers should always give 1.5m clearance whereas i can see many drivers taking the attitude “oh the cyclist was so far from the kerb I had no alternative but to pass them very closely” and believe they are correctly following your directive. This premise has to be changed and I implore you to change your leaflet and any other sources of advice.

Secondly, you mention that cyclists ‘should use’ a cycle lane where it exists and stay within its markings. Use of cycle lane depends on whether the condition of the lane area is suitable (I.e. clean and pothole free) and even more so on the expected speed of the cyclist. I typically cycle on the flat in excess of 15mph and often much faster. In the UK using a cycle lane at such speeds is not sensible so invariably I will be on the main carriageway where I am fully allowed to be under the law of the UK. Your inference will attract ‘righteous’ drivers sounding their horn, shouting and worse, close passing to demonstrate that the cyclist ‘is in the wrong’. Again, please change this advice/direction before some poor cyclist is subjected to harassment.

This is my take on how the #closepass advice should be framed; i’d be grateful for feedback/advice on how other forum members as to whether I am on the right lines or not.

If I get anything back from Norfolk Police i’ll post an update.

"Cyclists should always use Cycle Lanes when they are available and keep within the lane when practicable" is what you should have quoted . Some lanes are impossible to use eg here. This lane is absurd - look at the width of the cross hatchings to prevent motor vehicles hitting each other. The problem is there isn't a standard design for a cycle lane.

Elsewhere on the forum I've posted that the UK is anti cycling(one member objected).IMO where cyclists safety is concerned,from the police and authoriities POV there's always,but always,a leaning toward the motorist,whether that be 'cyclists should use the cyclepath or lane provided' or keep out of motorists by riding '0.75m from the kerb or roadside'.
As pointed out above these rules(?) are flawed in so many ways and as such should never be stimpulated unless,in the case of cyclepaths/lanes it is made clear why cyclists won't be using such cyclepaths/lanes,average speed is the primary reason,but as we know UK cyclepaths/vary from the sublime to the ridiculous and it is the ridiculous nature of some that renders them unuseable.
As for riding 0.75m from roadside or kerb this is NOT a stipulatation anywhere in law,neither is it a safe place to cycle on the road,1m is more like a minimum and even then,as in the quote,is not a hard and fast rule and there maybe times when a cyclist needs to ride much further out due to the disgustingly poor state of UK roads as a whole.
It's my belief cyclists rights,and care of vulnerable road users in the UK is being slowly eroded by stealth,one can see this in the many,many examples on this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829 and that motorists are NOT being punished harshly enough when they've been in collision with and killed or maimed vulnerable roadusers when it's been entirely or partially the motorists fault,and non more so when those vulnerable roadusers are cyclists.

Policing is woefully inadequate due to poor and reducing funding(we now even have various chief constables up and down the country admitting they can't police the streets),court sentencing isn't harsh enough(that's when criminal activity even gets that far) and as a result even with all the police campaigns and ideas nothing significant ever changes on the roads of the UK,and in fact IME they're becoming worse as a result.it is also my belief that illegal driving of motor vehicles is on the increase as is drink and drugged driving,and not to mention mobile phone use at the wheel.
The whole problem stems from motorists thinking due to an absence of law and order that they have more rights to UK roads than cyclists,and it is predominently cyclists who are their gripe and focus of their bullying criminality.The police authorities due to their inadequacies are going to the least line of resistance ie;allowing the bullying majority to have their own way over the minority,this is also fueled by a rabid anticycling press,and celebrities from chefs to politicians with a similar outlook.
What are the cycling bodies doing?IMO becoming toohless dog charities in the pocket of government and afraid to rock the boat their funding plug be pulled,poodles is the word Im looking for......
Rant over

EDIT:- all that said whilst waiting to turn out onto a busy road yesterday a cyclist passed by with a string of over fifteen cars following seemingly oblivious to the hold up they were causing,and with a stream of oncoming traffic leaving no room to overtak,it doesn't help,especially when the cyclist was travelling at I'd estimate between 10 and 12mph.

[MikeF]

As for riding 0.75m from roadside or kerb this is NOT a stipulatation anywhere in law,neither is it a safe place to cycle on the road,1m is more like a minimum and even then,as in the quote,is not a hard and fast rule and there maybe times when a cyclist needs to ride much further out due to the disgustingly poor state of UK roads as a whole.

I agree. I don't know what distance I ride from the kerb/road edge, but I think it must be more like a metre in general; 0.75m seems too close to me. Anyway whatever the kerb distance is, it's completely irrelevant (why is it on those mats?); it's the overtaking distance that is the crucial one, regardless of anything else. Also cyclists do not have zero width! However there are many good drivers that do give plenty of room and, yes, even the local taxis (they're not black cabs) seem to be good as well.

EDIT:- all that said whilst waiting to turn out onto a busy road yesterday a cyclist passed by with a string of over fifteen cars following seemingly oblivious to the hold up they were causing,and with a stream of oncoming traffic leaving no room to overtak,it doesn't help,especially when the cyclist was travelling at I'd estimate between 10 and 12mph.

If all those travellers had been cycling there wouldn't have been a problem. What was the cyclist supposed to do? Vaporise? On a busy road it doesn't take long for a string of cars to build up.

[reohn2]

......If all those travellers had been cycling there wouldn't have been a problem.

But they weren't and neither was I

What was the cyclist supposed to do? Vaporise? On a busy road it doesn't take long for a string of cars to build up.

What I do in such situations if I see I'm causing a tailback of more than a few motors say eight or more,and can see they're not able to pass me anytime soon due to oncoming traffic etc.I stop in any convenient side road or drop kerb driveway and let the traffic clear.I find it speaks volumes and very often I get a thank you wave for my courteousness.
There are times when I won't,when it either inconveniences me ie;when climbing a steep hill,if I know there'll very shortly be somewhere they can overtake such as where the road widens or if I know there's a TL up ahead where they'll be stopping anyway,etc.
It's a matter of judgement at any given time and place.
What does infuriate me though is being closely overtaken by motors that I know will be held up in a jam or at TL up the road.Then it's time to have 'words'.

[mjr]

Motorists should always use motorways when provided, after all billions are spent from tax payers money, why are they even on the 'roads' when there's a motorway over there

Rather irrelevant to Norfolk, that! Nearest motorways are the other sides of Cambridgshire, although they seem to have made the A11 into a cheapskate substandard quasi-motorway and now people (led by councils) want the A47 to be botched the same.

[mjr]

What was the cyclist supposed to do? Vaporise? On a busy road it doesn't take long for a string of cars to build up.

What I do in such situations if I see I'm causing a tailback of more than a few motors say eight or more,and can see they're not able to pass me anytime soon due to oncoming traffic etc.I stop in any convenient side road or drop kerb driveway and let the traffic clear.I find it speaks volumes and very often I get a thank you wave for my courteousness.
There are times when I won't,when it either inconveniences me ie; [...]

Each stop is like another 100m cycled and it also slows you, so isn't it almost always inconvenient?

I shudder to think how many times I'd have to stop if I pulled over every time eight cars were behind me on the bit of the A149 I ride most often - I'd be spending as long stopped as pedalling! Not a way to encourage cycling, that,but I know some on here don't care if there are more cyclists...