Cycling UK Forum

.

gaz wrote:

reohn2 wrote:PS,what of the same rule applying to GE voters?

Yes, you can appoint a proxy to vote on your behalf at a General Election. Since your proxy will cast your vote by putting a cross in the relevant box it's important that you trust your proxy to act as instructed and vote as you would yourself.

Proxy isn't discretionary,it's entrusting someone to drop the ballot paper you've marked into the ballot box for you,you'd obviously choose someone you could trust to do that for you,not so discrectionary.

PS: Thanks to TC for getting us back on topic, there I go straying off again .

I agree and still think there's no need whatsoever of the cycle 0.75m marker from the edge of the roadway/kerb.
My reason for that is that it can be misconstrued by motorists to mean a cyclist shouldn't be further out than that distance.
I accept that those errant motorists instructed by police on the road will be made aware of it being a minimum,but if motorists only ever see the photos from WMP on the net they won't understand it and take certain things for granted.
A simple nationwide message via roadside signs such as I posted up thread,and a continuous drip feed in the media that cyclists have as much right to the road as anyone else,would get the message home to motorists across the nation,and not by individual police forces who's senior officers think it worthwhile or not.

TBH IME bullying against cyclists by motorists is treated as a joke by most police forces due IMHO to their lack of resources,which is another matter but leaves them plugging an increasing number of dykes with a limited number of fingers,thanks to continual reduction in funding by national government.
This should be a national cycling promotion backed up by enforced law and not just some be kind to your local cyclists program.
Like TC I want more respect given to cycling by motorists and police forces alike and a general clampdown on those motorists who continue to bully cyclists,I'm not sure this campaign will have the desired effect YVMV.

Im thinking that if you want posters or mats like the ones suggested, you just need to add the words "at least" in front of each measurement.
Also thinking that the measuremebt from kerb ought to be to the cyclists left edge.

And, while having more publicity on safe distances is good, some extra inforcement would also be nice.

Bez wrote:...
Firstly, the issue of why a mat is required and how it's used. It's used in a specific deployment of officers whereby an area (a car park or suchlike) is dedicated to an officer who runs through the education with any drivers pulled over. It's not carried around in a car and used on an ad hoc basis. This means two things: firstly that each force only really needs one mat (you could debate the term "need", but visual methods work well and the operation would be much diluted without it), and secondly that anyone using it will or should have received training on how to deliver the education. A parked police car is also used, to discuss what happens when cyclists approach parked vehicles etc.......

Except now the mat is being used by CTC/CUK for PR/spin/Press Releases, etc. where there is no Officer present to provide the "education" that goes along with it. Many are seeing it and being incorrectly "educated". CTC/CUK are pushing it to as much of the press as they can to get their name-up there showing the totally misleading, unqualified "mat" with the bike positioned at the 0.75m line and the car giving only an estimated 1.25m gap.

So not a criticism of the Police but what CTC/CUK are using it for now or how they are presenting it without the associated "education". That said I don't think omitting the 0.75m markings and increasing the 1.5m to a gap rather than centreline would destroy the message from the Police.

It was an initial idea and good on WMP for doing it. But then others should come along and say "well done but it could be improved by ...". Organisations like the CTC/CUK, but all they have done is blindly copy, jumping on an existing bandwagon - no thought to making it better for purpose.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

Bez wrote:...
Firstly, the issue of why a mat is required and how it's used. It's used in a specific deployment of officers whereby an area (a car park or suchlike) is dedicated to an officer who runs through the education with any drivers pulled over. It's not carried around in a car and used on an ad hoc basis. This means two things: firstly that each force only really needs one mat (you could debate the term "need", but visual methods work well and the operation would be much diluted without it), and secondly that anyone using it will or should have received training on how to deliver the education. A parked police car is also used, to discuss what happens when cyclists approach parked vehicles etc.......

Except now the mat is being used by CTC/CUK for PR/spin/Press Releases, etc. where there is no Officer present to provide the "education" that goes along with it. Many are seeing it and being incorrectly "educated". CTC/CUK are pushing it to as much of the press as they can to get their name-up there showing the totally misleading, unqualified "mat" with the bike positioned at the 0.75m line and the car giving only an estimated 1.25m gap.

So not a criticism of the Police but what CTC/CUK are using it for now or how they are presenting it without the associated "education". That said I don't think omitting the 0.75m markings and increasing the 1.5m to a gap rather than centreline would destroy the message from the Police.

It was an initial idea and good on WMP for doing it. But then others should come along and say "well done but it could be improved by ...". Organisations like the CTC/CUK, but all they have done is blindly copy, jumping on an existing bandwagon - no thought to making it better for purpose.

Ian

I agree - people have relied on the 'visual' as an eye catching thing to try and send a message, and, like jokes, if you end up having to explain it, it was probably flawed from the start.

Someone In another place pointed out the simple difference in message:

FWIW I personally agree that the mat is a bit counter-productive when taken out of context. (As per one of the articles above I think anything placing significant emphasis on a specific measurement is unwise and yes, I would probably prefer a modified mat.)

That said, I can fully understand the decision not to change what WMP are doing, given the robustness of their success.

I must admit I've not seen Cycling UK's use of the mat in PRs etc.

.

Is close passing now over then?

Reference has been made to the robustness of the success of this in Brum. The only data I've seen are in the original link:

Incredibly, driving behaviour in the local area changed overnight, with a 50 per cent reduction of reported close pass offences in less than three months.

I hope that statistical analysis is robust. I'd still really like to hear from anybody riding in Brum with first hand experience. It must seem like a different place. I also hope there will be plenty of feedback in the coming months if this initiative spreads. If anybody wants to check what's happening in their own area and has missed the title, it seems it's generally referred to by the WMP's name Operation Close Pass. My local force is one of those named as saying they will do it but there's nothing on their website about it. Perhaps they are waiting for their mat before they start carpeting drivers.

PH wrote:



Steady rider wrote:
This process helps Council to gain a majority even if most members did not support their view.
Those members had the choice what to do with their vote, didn't they?

The members where asked to support a motion, some did not directly support or oppose the motion, some chose a route to give their vote to someone else. This could have been a vote of confidence in the other person or the person representing a group. Most members failed to vote at all, perhaps 90%. A proportion gave their vote to a proxy. A proportion answered directly if they wished to support a motion or not. If there are say 10 motions, it is an easier process for some people to tick a box for 'Chair' as the proxy and not to consider the 10 motions, they may see it as supporting the club. If a jury had 5 members who said we support the Chair and give their vote to the Chair, how would the person say serving a 10 year jail sentence feel? It would not be acceptable. The proxy votes mainly come from people who have not attended the AGM, they have not asked questions directly of the person presenting the motion, or been able to question the Chair or Council on their opposition to a motion.
In the above case they claimed that 1.5m may be insufficient clearance, and this is true in some circumstances and the proposer never suggested 1.5m was a maximum clearance. Now within 12 months Cycling UK are asking for donation to pay for mats with 1.5m displayed. Very shoddy carry on.
Cycle Clips report

'Too Close for Comfort'. As I type, we have just reached our £12,000 target -

It just shows how wrong they were to advise not to support Motion 14 in 2016.

thirdcrank wrote:Reference has been made to the robustness of the success of this in Brum. The only data I've seen are in the original link…

It was me that used that phrase and I meant it in the context of enforcement: the fact that 100% of public reports were considered prosecutable and the fact that thus far 100% of prosecutions have been successful. That context may not have been clear and if so then apologies.

It'll be another 6 months until the 2016 casualty data are released, and I don't know anything about Birmingham's travel counts so don't know when it'll be possible to measure increased uptake.

I personally don't expect to see dramatic changes in either of those metrics, I expect this to be the necessary beginning of a slower climate change: it's the change in enforcement attitudes and metrics which is dramatic. But we shall see.

I position the bike on the road where it's most suitable to ride for the given conditions, now I find that the organization, that is supposed to exist to work towards improving the lot of cyclist, seems seems to be promoting the opposite.
This measure is giving the motorist the perfect excuse for close passes as the cyclist was riding to far out in the road. If the gullies fail to get us them the cars will.

.

reohn2 wrote:Proxy isn't discretionary,it's entrusting someone to drop the ballot paper you've marked into the ballot box for you,you'd obviously choose someone you could trust to do that for you,not so discrectionary.

You may be mixing it up with the way postal votes work as you (or anyone you entrust it to) can drop the already completed postal ballot at a polling station instead of posting it.

I'm nominated proxy for my son (he's working abroad at the moment) - you get given an unmarked ballot paper at the polling station to vote however you see fit (which should, of course, be in line with any preference they have given) just like a normal personal vote. There is nothing that prevents me from voting in a different way to his known wishes if I decided to do so (which I wouldn't do ). Some votes (such as the referendum) he told me how he wanted his vote to go, others (local council by-election) not.

RickH wrote:I'm nominated proxy for my son (he's working abroad at the moment) - you get given an unmarked ballot paper at the polling station to vote however you see fit (which should, of course, be in line with any preference they have given) just like a normal personal vote.[...]

However, the CUK situation is very different because one nominated proxy in a government election or referendum would probably struggle to cast 881 votes in the time that polling stations are open, as you have to do the checklist and ballot paper shuffle for each one, and I think you have to go to the registered polling stations of each nominator.

Oh well - it's hit the crowdfunding target. Let's see what happens next