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

[Cyril Haearn]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311139164_Evidence_of_proposed_UK_law_regarding_motorists_passing_cyclists
This links is to a paper presented in Portugal, November 2016. You can download the paper I think.

The paper was an update of http://www.harbug.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... -paper.pdf
(some minor changes occurred).
They detailed the evidence supporting introducing a passing law.

A passing law would of course gain major publicity nationwide if introduced and probably 95% of drivers would be aware.. .

Surely not 95% that would be aware, understand, obey!

It is not possible to measure your passing distance in everyday conditions

[[XAP]Bob]

You don't need to measure it - there are plenty of things you can't measure that you still have to make judgements around.
- braking distance being the obvious example.

You just do it conservatively - if you are obliged to leave - 1.5m then aim for 1.75...

[Steady rider]

I suppose in practice driver will roughly know their doors are about 0.9m when fully opened and generally currently pass at over 1m. About 1 in 22 current passes are within 1m (5% roughly)according to research, in a built up area. Driver know when they are passing close, so they will make adjustments to generally be 1.0+m away or wait for a suitable place to pass safety. About 95% of passes currently leave 1.0m or more when passing.

[thirdcrank]

What seems obvious to me about something like this is that if it's going to work, at some stage a successful prosecution has to be a realistic option.

The worst-case drivers, ie those who will not accept they are wrong, will be laughing at anything less: it's absurd to suggest that only those prepared to listen to advice should be the subject of any sort of action. Cyclists won't gain from a belief that "they can't touch you for it."

The first problem is that if you routinely abandon any sort of investigation of all but the most serious of crashes, then it's arguably perverse to bother about near misses. That's particularly so with the current definition of careless driving. In the last couple of years we've had at least two media releases about extending the fixed penalty system to careless driving offences. (Once when the idea was floated, then when it came into force.) On both occasions, "overtaking cyclists too closely" was given as an example of when these tickets might be issued. What as been the reality?

There's no specific offence of passing a cyclist too closely, although there have been suggestions that it should be introduced, but as soon as specific distances are mentioned, you need to define "distance between what?" so, 1.5m cyclist's riding line to vehicle door is quite a bit closer than rider's elbow to vehicle door mirror. We've had that discussion with these mats, even though they aren't part of new legislation. Then you need to establish how the evidence will be gathered ie how do you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the passing distance, however it's defined, was under 1.5m? One almost inevitable possibility is to assume say 10% waggle room and suddenly, rider and car are cheek-by-jowl. One thing for sure is that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt. The idea of a sliding scale related to speed is rational but IMO just makes enforcement that bit more difficult. (More complicated and you need to be able to prove accurately the speed.)

I've no idea of how these schemes work elsewhere. I could imagine it's a lot easier in somewhere like France where establishing what happened is the aim, rather than "guilt" and I fancy any wrangling is answered by sticking to the point.

[Barks]

A cyclist is pefectly at rights to take up any position within their lane. Therefore you could define a close pass as any overtake where the driver has not passed in the opposite (or outside lane on a dual carriageway) just as they would have to do for any other vehicle. This gives a clear indication that you cannot pass when there is an approaching vehicle from the opposite direction and completely allows cyclist to ride two abreast without angry rants from drivers. This also has the advantage of a clear demarcation when film or witness evidence is available, and, where impact has occurred in the cyclists lane, an obvious measure that the driver has encroached where he should not have. Any impact on a cyclist who is riding within his/her lane inevitably implies that the driver would be considered to be driving dangerously rather than carelessly. Please let's stop the idea that a minimum passing 'distance' would in any way be enforceable - we need a clear unequivocal message.

[Steady rider]

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... /cyclists/

It provides an outline of details that could be used to format UK legislation.

In the case of Queensland, they have the 1.0m and 1.5m requirement. The USA has probably 15 to 20 variations on passing requirements. One slight disadvantage to the mat approach is showing 1.5m, if legislation is passed it could be different, say 1.0m and 1.5m+ for higher passing speeds. The mat is indicating a passing clearance of about 1.2m and has a general rule it may be OK for many road situations. Introducing legislation first and educating drivers with a suitable mat that reflected actual legislation is potentially a more accurate approach. If legislation was a long time in arriving the mat approach could still result in prosecution for careless driving. Legislation for precise distances could potentially cut out most prosecution for careless driving and result in fines via the post, saving on court proceedings.

The passing speed would probably be measured from a following police vehicle. The passing distance scaled from a video recording, e.g. number plates are usually 520mm long, scaling may be feasible to within 20mm depending on the quality of photographic evidence. The police guidelines would probably allow a vehicle to pass at perhaps 100mm below the legal requirement before issuing a ticket, e.g a pass at 930mm may not be processed unless the police officer considered it was warranted, e.g wide road, no other traffic nearby and driver chose to pass at 930mm when they could have passed at say 1.5m clearance.

The Police and DfT could work out the details with CTC assisting.

[thirdcrank]

Barks

It's easy to lose sight of the fact that in enforcement, there's a difference between the wider theory and the reality of a defended prosecution when every aspect of a charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and a properly represented defendant isn't going to make any concessions in the wider interests of society. At that point it's not generalisation but a point by point assessment of everything. "The balance of probabilities" doesn't come into it. One bit missing and the case is gone - no case to answer. I'm not arguing this one way or the other, just trying to show how things are in reality.

Even in the days when an accident being reported to the police usually meant one party or the other would be prosecuted, near misses were quite a different matter.

Steady rider.

I could easily imagine a system, possibly based on GPS, which would prove the speed of all concerned, their relative positions and probably a lot more. I cannot imagine it being introduced.

[Steady rider]

The WMP seem to be introducing it in one form and other forces can also. Cyclist will provide more and more recordings of close passes. The police are in part responsible for road safety, it is a part of their job where they can save lives. Close passing does result in endangering people with some deaths and some of the 20000 injured cyclists each year are due to close passing. Cyclists soon donated £12000 for the mats, they may not stand by and let deliberate close passing continue when fair legislation can be introduced to deter dangerous and careless driving.

[Barks]

Barks

It's easy to lose sight of the fact that in enforcement, there's a difference between the wider theory and the reality of a defended prosecution when every aspect of a charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and a properly represented defendant isn't going to make any concessions in the wider interests of society. At that point it's not generalisation but a point by point assessment of everything. "The balance of probabilities" doesn't come into it. One bit missing and the case is gone - no case to answer. I'm not arguing this one way or the other, just trying to show how things are in reality.

Thirdcrank - I was not thinking about a situation based on probabilities, just simply that the Law would state that overtaking of any vehicle you would need to be in the opposite lane. Having your wheels in the same lane as the vehicle you are overtaking would be an offence, period. If it led to some form of collision then a prosecution of dangerous driving would then have a clear definitive opportunity for judgement when the evidence is presented (I.e. Oh you knocked the cyclist off his bike when you overtook him and did not move across into the opposite lane).

My concern with specifying some form of distance to be from a cyclist would be open to all manner of subjective opinion so that in reality we would be no further forward when 'beyond reasonable doubt' would need to be proved.

I also think that this would benefit all road users, except for the impatient self centred individuals who are almost certainly those most likely to attempt close passes or worse, punishment passes.

[thirdcrank]

As I write - 0735 13 3 1917 - some £13,700 has been pledged, with over three weeks still to run. I don't know what "pledge" means in these circumstances, but assuming that money is guaranteed, then there might be enough raised for every force to get two mats. That says something about the donors.

I still find it hard to believe that if there was any real general interest in this scheme among police forces, then the cost of the mats would be an issue. It's relatively trivial. That's relative to the cost of detailing a couple of experienced PC's with a car and pedal cycle to operate each mat.

I'd be confident that this has the capacity to attract more publicity eg beaming PCC taking delivery of a mat, pics in local rag when it's used, tweets, and certainly some interest if a case goes to court. Let's keep our collective fingers crossed. As members discover what's happening locally, it would be good if they posted about any real progress (rather than expressions of interest etc.)

So far:-
West Midlands introduced it.
South Yorkshire have written to say they have no plans to do so.

I don't claim this is comprehensive.

I also think it would be good if anybody from the areas where it's operating gave their experience.

[Steady rider]

http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160503- ... rime-wales
it looks like parts of Wales may be more inclined to support measures to embrace road safety.

In Queensland their overall road safety improved by introducing a passing law. It probably makes drivers take a bit more care, being prepared to wait if necessary.

Barks » 12 Mar 2017, 10:20pm
Thirdcrank - I was not thinking about a situation based on probabilities, just simply that the Law would state that overtaking of any vehicle you would need to be in the opposite lane.

no one is proposing this as a general rule but sometimes using the opposite lane is appropriate. It is not specifically required to introduce a passing law or to deter close passing. A passing law would simply require you leave no less than a prescribed clearance, possibly related to passing speed or speed zone.

[MikeF]

I was not thinking about a situation based on probabilities, just simply that the Law would state that overtaking of any vehicle you would need to be in the opposite lane. Having your wheels in the same lane as the vehicle you are overtaking would be an offence, period.

What's a lane?? - think about it.

My concern with specifying some form of distance to be from a cyclist would be open to all manner of subjective opinion so that in reality we would be no further forward when 'beyond reasonable doubt' would need to be proved.

Yes. That's the problem.

[MikeF]

I do not cycle on the road ..........

Then where do you cycle and how do you ever "get anywhere"? I couldn't leave my house unless I cycled on a road - I could walk I suppose - or go by car.

[mjr]

I do not cycle on the road ..........

Then where do you cycle and how do you ever "get anywhere"? I couldn't leave my house unless I cycled on a road - I could walk I suppose - or go by car.

Maybe Cyril Haearn is like me and moved to a home on a cycle track that connects to other destinations. I do ride on roads but it'd be possible to ride to shops, hospital, leisure centre and so on by only using cycle tracks, cul de sacs and roads narrow enough that overtaking is physically impossible... if rather indirect and slightly cussed.

[Psamathe]

...
I still find it hard to believe that if there was any real general interest in this scheme among police forces, then the cost of the mats would be an issue. It's relatively trivial. That's relative to the cost of detailing a couple of experienced PC's with a car and pedal cycle to operate each mat.
.....

I would agree. As you say, cost of Officers, body cams, Police car, etc. will quickly dwarf the cost of a mat, particularly as the cost of a mat is spread across every time it is used whereas the car, officers, etc. are a recurring cost. So e.g. after 10 days use the staff, etc. costs become significant and the mat cost completely irrelevant.

And I see campaigning for a law and exactly what that law should be as very different things. 1st you have to campaign for a law and get the law makers to agree that one is needed and that they'll proceed to step 2 - what the law should be. Getting the lawmakers to agree to a law is the bigger battle and you don't need to argue about 1.5m or more in some places to get there. It's the 2nd stage when what the law should be when experts, public, British Cycling can have their input and the exact law is discussed and established.

CTC/CUK have decided they cannot be bothered to start even the 1st part (campaigning that there should be a law) so we need a cycling organisation that does take this issue seriously (clearly CTC/CUK are not such an organisation).

Ian