Jeremy Vine video of lorry close passing a police cyclist

[slowster]

This happened last week and there have been a couple of articles in Cycling Weekly and Road.cc. CyclingUK has reportedly been asked for comment, but has not (yet) made a statement. The Twitter video is embedded in the Road.cc article below.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/wait ... vine-video

https://road.cc/content/news/petition-c ... deo-293227

I think this is an interesting case, and it has given me some pause for thought. I think what matters is less who was in the wrong in this particular case, and more what wider lessons can be drawn from it.

It would be interesting to know what the judgement of HGV driving examiners would be, and likewise of Bikeability instructors.

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating.

TBH, I can’t see what the lorry driver could have done differently in terms of where he was in the lane - his lorry filled all of it, and he appeared to have it in the centre of the lane. He didn’t appear to be going at excessive speed either. Whether he should have looked at the situation as he approached and thought “No, too tight, I’ll hang back until there’s more room to pass these cyclists.” I’m not sure.

The cyclist? Right at the edge of his lane. Not “wrong” as such, but possibly a bit “brave”.

It’s not what I would call a “close pass”, which to me implies getting very close when there is plenty of room to do otherwise, usually accompanied by excessive speed. But, it sure as heck was “passing close”.

Lesson? Keep some distance in from the outer edge of a lane where the next lane could legitimately be “filled almost to overflowing”, because one twitch could bring you into contact with a passing vehicle.

[yostumpy]

^^^^ agree with this. The Police cyclist at the rear , was , considering that he had the WHOLE lane to play with, was well out of position, may be needs to take a ‘cycling proficiency test’ . He may ride a bike, but me thinks he’s not a proper cyclist. Totally agree it’s a bit trumped up. Jeremy does always appear to be a bit of a whinger.

[thirdcrank]

I've not watched the vid but I'm uncomfortable with the implication that only proper cyclists can expect to be safe on the roads. The bigger the vehicle, the greater the potential for its driver to cause harm.

[Jdsk]

I don't think for a moment that a short answer is going to resolve this, but here goes:

Keeping a vehicle inside the white line does not absolve a road user from the guidance to leave at least 1.5m when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30 mph. (Rule 163.)

With that canard out of the way... what's next?

Jonathan

[Vorpal]

I have difficulty understanding why there is any question about this. If that was a narrow cycle lane, instead of a 'normal' lane most here would agree that that was far too close. Ok, the police officer could have moved in in his lane a little, but I don't think that his position was unreasonable for cyclists riding two abreast in the same lane. A motorcyclist would have been in a similar position. The lanes are admittedly narrow there, but the goods vehicles before & after the Waitrose lorry managed to give them more space.

If I were following a cyclist that close to my lane, whether they were in another lane or not, I would either move over, or wait behind until I could give them more space. I do so regularly on a route near here that has cycle lanes. I seldom use them myself because other drivers pass uncomfortably close.

If there is a lesson in this, it is that much of the infrastructure in the UK, especially in cities, is entirely unsuitable for such a wide variety of vehicles to share.

[thirdcrank]

I'm saying that road users have a personal responsibility towards all other road users. If somebody else is doing something apparently unsafe, that doesn't absolve them from that responsibility.

As an example, yesterday I saw three people on the footway of a narrow residential road also used as a busy access to the M62. Two were cyclists, but not "real" cyclists and the third was on a scooter. In fact, all three were little bigger than toddlers and I think they had probably disobeyed instructions limiting their range. Anyway, one shouted to the other two to come back and both turned to do so, but the little girl with the scooter lost her balance and the scooter fell into the gutter. Predictably, she leant over to retrieve it. The road is subject to a 20mph limit. The first approaching driver continued past this little girl within a few inches at perhaps 30mph. Luckily, no wrecks and nobody drownded... I was able sigh with relief. The driver of the car had plenty of time to stop before reaching the girl and at sub 20mph would have had more time still.

It's possible to argue that small children and other vulnerable users should not be allowed to play near roads. Be that as it may, IMO others using the road still have a personal responsibility for their own actions.

[Jdsk]

TBH, I can’t see what the lorry driver could have done differently in terms of where he was in the lane - his lorry filled all of it, and he appeared to have it in the centre of the lane. He didn’t appear to be going at excessive speed either. Whether he should have looked at the situation as he approached and thought “No, too tight, I’ll hang back until there’s more room to pass these cyclists.” I’m not sure.

If I were following a cyclist that close to my lane, whether they were in another lane or not, I would either move over, or wait behind until I could give them more space

Yes. If the driver couldn't pass with sufficient clearance they should have held back.

Highway Code Rule 163:
you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

The cyclist? Right at the edge of his lane. Not “wrong” as such, but possibly a bit “brave”.

Ok, the police officer could have moved in in his lane a little, but I don't think that his position was unreasonable for cyclists riding two abreast in the same lane.

Riding in that position is not an explicit breach of the Highway Code or the legislation. But there's more to it than that.

It's hard to assess the longitudinal clearance between the people on bikes with this sort of photography. I wouldn't ride in the position that he chose because there are virtually no escape routes if something unexpected were to happen.

Jonathan

[slowster]

In my opinion,

- the driver of the articulated lorry is guilty of the offence of driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

- the police officer is guilty of the offence of riding a bicycle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

I don't agree with the argument that because the lorry stayed within its lane, the rules and law regarding close passing etc. a cyclist in the adjacent lane do not apply.

However, using the road with reasonable consideration for other road users is a two-way street (pun intended). Just as the lorry driver should drive with consideration for the cyclists in the adjacent lane, so too the cyclists should ride with consideration for road users in the lorry driver's lane. There was more than enough space in the lane used by the police cyclist for him to enable the lorry to pass him with 1.5m clearance. The police cyclist failed to provide that clearance because a) he positioned himself close to the edge of the lane, and b) having done so he did not pay sufficient attention to traffic in the adjacent lane.

This particular incident is interesting because it raises some important wider questions:

- What is the training for HGV drivers for this scenario? If the guidance and instructions issued to HGV instructors and examiners deems such driving by the Waitrose lorry driver to be acceptable (or if it is widespread that instructors/examiners ignore that aspect of the Highway Code in these sorts of circumstances because they consider them impractical and compliance would be unrealistic), then that is indicative of a serious problem with the training and testing of drivers of the largest and potentially most dangerous vehicles on the road. Waitrose is one of the UK's most ethical employers, and I suspect it aims for the highest standards for its HGV drivers. I am sceptical of the comparison with the lorry which preceded the Waitrose lorry and stayed further within the lane: that lorry looks narrower, and is not articulated.

- The police officer is a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. He should be someone who is trained to ride to a high standard, and is seen to do so. Instead his standard of riding and roadcraft is woeful. We all occasionally make mistakes, but this was an event with a high media profile, with a celebrity and one of the most senior UK road safety police officers present. An incident in this type of situation is likely to be recorded on camera and publicised, so the police officers need to be on their game to ensure that they don't embarass themselves or the force. That officer is not competent to be a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. His lack of attention and poor positioning were bad, his behaviour in throwing up his arm was unprofessional (from what I have seen, police motorway drivers and motorcyclists would not make gestures with their hands or arms - they are highly trained professionals who maintain full control of their vehicles at all times, even under extreme pressure). His comment that the lorry driver will 'get undue care and attention for that', is typical of a road user who fails - or refuses - to recognise that they themselves made a mistake, and decides that the other person was entirely to blame, saving them the need to analyse and re-consider their own behaviour. And the latter is important, because people who do not do that will not improve and will continue to drive/ride badly and make the same mistakes.

Accepting that the Waitrose lorry driver performed a close pass, and that such driving needs to be prevented, we need to follow that to its logical conclusions:

- HGV etc. driver training and examination must reflect that.

- If an HGV etc. in a narrow lane must not drive past a cyclist riding close to the edge of their lane, conversely the cyclist must ride with consideration of such vehicles, and where possible position themselves so they are not so close to the edge of their lane.

- Despite the recent changes in the Highway Code regarding close passing and the hierachy of road users, and the publicity given to them, the majority of people's driving and cycling behaviour is strongly influenced by past and present habituation. In London especially people are used to driving and cycling like that, and do so because the vast majority of other road users drive and cycle like that - it's very difficult to swim against those tides.

- Things are therefore unlikely to change without very substantial expenditure on much more widespread enforcement by police (of both drivers of HGVs etc. and of cyclists) and information campaigns. As thirdcrank has so often pointed out, roads policing has virtually collapsed. Moreover, as this case shows, some of the police cyclists are not even competent enough to ride their own bike safely, let alone able to make the sort of judgement needed by someone to enforce road traffic law.

[DaveReading]

In my opinion,

- the driver of the articulated lorry is guilty of the offence of driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

- the police officer is guilty of the offence of riding a bicycle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

I don't agree with the argument that because the lorry stayed within its lane, the rules and law regarding close passing etc. a cyclist in the adjacent lane do not apply.

However, using the road with reasonable consideration for other road users is a two-way street (pun intended). Just as the lorry driver should drive with consideration for the cyclists in the adjacent lane, so too the cyclists should ride with consideration for road users in the lorry driver's lane. There was more than enough space in the lane used by the police cyclist for him to enable the lorry to pass him with 1.5m clearance. The police cyclist failed to provide that clearance because a) he positioned himself close to the edge of the lane, and b) having done so he did not pay sufficient attention to traffic in the adjacent lane.

This particular incident is interesting because it raises some important wider questions:

- What is the training for HGV drivers for this scenario? If the guidance and instructions issued to HGV instructors and examiners deems such driving by the Waitrose lorry driver to be acceptable (or if it is widespread that instructors/examiners ignore that aspect of the Highway Code in these sorts of circumstances because they consider them impractical and compliance would be unrealistic), then that is indicative of a serious problem with the training and testing of drivers of the largest and potentially most dangerous vehicles on the road. Waitrose is one of the UK's most ethical employers, and I suspect it aims for the highest standards for its HGV drivers. I am sceptical of the comparison with the lorry which preceded the Waitrose lorry and stayed further within the lane: that lorry looks narrower, and is not articulated.

- The police officer is a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. He should be someone who is trained to ride to a high standard, and is seen to do so. Instead his standard of riding and roadcraft is woeful. We all occasionally make mistakes, but this was an event with a high media profile, with a celebrity and one of the most senior UK road safety police officers present. An incident in this type of situation is likely to be recorded on camera and publicised, so the police officers need to be on their game to ensure that they don't embarass themselves or the force. That officer is not competent to be a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. His lack of attention and poor positioning were bad, his behaviour in throwing up his arm was unprofessional (from what I have seen, police motorway drivers and motorcyclists would not make gestures with their hands or arms - they are highly trained professionals who maintain full control of their vehicles at all times, even under extreme pressure). His comment that the lorry driver will 'get undue care and attention for that', is typical of a road user who fails - or refuses - to recognise that they made a mistake, and decides that the other person was entirely to blame, saving them the need to analyse and re-consider their own behaviour. And the latter is important, because people who do not do that will not improve and will continue to drive/ride badly and make the same mistakes.

Accepting that the Waitrose lorry driver performed a close pass, and that such driving needs to be prevented, we need to follow that to its logical conclusions:

- HGV etc. driver training and examination must reflect that.

- If an HGV etc. in a narrow lane must not drive past a cyclist riding close to the edge of their lane, conversely the cyclist must ride with consideration of such vehicles, and where possible position themselves so they are not so close to the edge of their lane.

- Despite the recent changes in the Highway Code regarding close passing and the hierachy of road users, and the publicity given to them, the majority of people's driving and cycling behaviour is strongly influenced by past and present habituation. In London especially people are used to driving and cycling like that, and do so because the vast majority of other road users drive and cycle like that - it's very difficult to swim against those tides.

- Things are therefore unlikely to change without very substantial expenditure on much more widespread enforcement by police (of both drivers of HGVs etc. and of cyclists) and information campaigns. As thirdcrank has so often pointed out, roads policing has virtually collapsed. Moreover, as this case shows, some of the police cyclists are not even competent enough to ride their own bike safely, let alone able to make the sort of judgement needed by someone to enforce road traffic law.

Sorry, but there's no place for reasoned posts like yours in this thread.

Please decide which individual (driver or cyclist) was the villain and which was the saint.

[mjr]

Just as the lorry driver should drive with consideration for the cyclists in the adjacent lane, so too the cyclists should ride with consideration for road users in the lorry driver's lane. There was more than enough space in the lane used by the police cyclist for him to enable the lorry to pass him with 1.5m clearance. The police cyclist failed to provide that clearance because a) he positioned himself close to the edge of the lane, and b) having done so he did not pay sufficient attention to traffic in the adjacent lane.

Are you saying that people may only cycle single file even in a 2.5m wide lane, in order to facilitate overtakes by large vehicles? Because enabling 1.5m clearance to the lane line while also allowing
oneself the normal close-pass-mat 0.75m to the kerb to avoid drains and stuff isn't enough for even 42cm road handlebars.

If so, why should cyclists be punished like that for some drivers being unwilling to wait?

[pete75]

In my opinion,

- the driver of the articulated lorry is guilty of the offence of driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

- the police officer is guilty of the offence of riding a bicycle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

I don't agree with the argument that because the lorry stayed within its lane, the rules and law regarding close passing etc. a cyclist in the adjacent lane do not apply.

However, using the road with reasonable consideration for other road users is a two-way street (pun intended). Just as the lorry driver should drive with consideration for the cyclists in the adjacent lane, so too the cyclists should ride with consideration for road users in the lorry driver's lane. There was more than enough space in the lane used by the police cyclist for him to enable the lorry to pass him with 1.5m clearance. The police cyclist failed to provide that clearance because a) he positioned himself close to the edge of the lane, and b) having done so he did not pay sufficient attention to traffic in the adjacent lane.

This particular incident is interesting because it raises some important wider questions:

- What is the training for HGV drivers for this scenario? If the guidance and instructions issued to HGV instructors and examiners deems such driving by the Waitrose lorry driver to be acceptable (or if it is widespread that instructors/examiners ignore that aspect of the Highway Code in these sorts of circumstances because they consider them impractical and compliance would be unrealistic), then that is indicative of a serious problem with the training and testing of drivers of the largest and potentially most dangerous vehicles on the road. Waitrose is one of the UK's most ethical employers, and I suspect it aims for the highest standards for its HGV drivers. I am sceptical of the comparison with the lorry which preceded the Waitrose lorry and stayed further within the lane: that lorry looks narrower, and is not articulated.

- The police officer is a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. He should be someone who is trained to ride to a high standard, and is seen to do so. Instead his standard of riding and roadcraft is woeful. We all occasionally make mistakes, but this was an event with a high media profile, with a celebrity and one of the most senior UK road safety police officers present. An incident in this type of situation is likely to be recorded on camera and publicised, so the police officers need to be on their game to ensure that they don't embarass themselves or the force. That officer is not competent to be a member of the Met's Cycle Safety Team. His lack of attention and poor positioning were bad, his behaviour in throwing up his arm was unprofessional (from what I have seen, police motorway drivers and motorcyclists would not make gestures with their hands or arms - they are highly trained professionals who maintain full control of their vehicles at all times, even under extreme pressure). His comment that the lorry driver will 'get undue care and attention for that', is typical of a road user who fails - or refuses - to recognise that they themselves made a mistake, and decides that the other person was entirely to blame, saving them the need to analyse and re-consider their own behaviour. And the latter is important, because people who do not do that will not improve and will continue to drive/ride badly and make the same mistakes.

Accepting that the Waitrose lorry driver performed a close pass, and that such driving needs to be prevented, we need to follow that to its logical conclusions:

- HGV etc. driver training and examination must reflect that.

- If an HGV etc. in a narrow lane must not drive past a cyclist riding close to the edge of their lane, conversely the cyclist must ride with consideration of such vehicles, and where possible position themselves so they are not so close to the edge of their lane.

- Despite the recent changes in the Highway Code regarding close passing and the hierachy of road users, and the publicity given to them, the majority of people's driving and cycling behaviour is strongly influenced by past and present habituation. In London especially people are used to driving and cycling like that, and do so because the vast majority of other road users drive and cycle like that - it's very difficult to swim against those tides.

- Things are therefore unlikely to change without very substantial expenditure on much more widespread enforcement by police (of both drivers of HGVs etc. and of cyclists) and information campaigns. As thirdcrank has so often pointed out, roads policing has virtually collapsed. Moreover, as this case shows, some of the police cyclists are not even competent enough to ride their own bike safely, let alone able to make the sort of judgement needed by someone to enforce road traffic law.

A cyclist riding within a cycle lane is partly to blame for a close pass? That's gonads.

As for what you say about police motorcyclists not a hand from the bars. I saw one do it the other day. I was inside the outside lane of the Bedford bypass on Monday and about to overtake a group of slower moving vehicles. I saw a police motorbike rider coming very quickly in the same lane, no blue lights though, so pulled in to let him pass. He waved with his left hand to thank me.

[slowster]

Are you saying that people may only cycle single file even in a 2.5m wide lane, in order to facilitate overtakes by large vehicles?...

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that having positioned himself close to the edge of the lane, the police cyclist did not pay sufficient attention to traffic in the adjacent lane.

[slowster]

Please decide which individual (driver or cyclist) was the villain and which was the saint.

Villain:

Jeremy Vine, for the harm that he does to matters of public debate and interest by his partisanship and lack of critical thinking. He is arrogant, self-satisfied, and patronising, much of which is demonstrated by his tweets on this incident. I agree with those who call for the BBC to get rid of him. Not however because his actions were reported as having possibly contributed to the Waitrose lorry driver being suspended (untrue), but because he is a mediocre broadcaster/journalist and has reduced a flagship high quality radio programme to dross which exploits culture-wars type confrontation and shallow argument. Jimmy Young epitomised Lord Reith's guidelines: inform, educate, entertain. Jeremy Vine epitomises much of what is wrong with the BBC.

Villain:

DCS Andy Cox, because he too has rejected criticism of the police cyclist as 'victim blaming', and deliberately avoided raising and facing the real issues.

Saint:

The police sergeant in the video. None of the comments I have read about the video have mentioned him. Watch the video and pay close attention to what he does .