Jeremy Vine video of lorry close passing a police cyclist

[Cowsham]

I couldn't see the video as I'm not a twit...

There's no need to have a Twitter account to watch it. It plays in a web browser.

Jonathan

Oh yes so it does -- and had a look there -- that daft policeman while talking to Jeremy vine at the end of the video doesn't check over his right shoulder but cycles out over the white cycle lane guide line. --- and this is a cycling safety officer ???

[Vorpal]

It is not enough simply to say the Waitrose lorry driver committed an offence. We have to recognise and acknowledge that the police cyclist was riding without the care and attention that was appropriate having regard to his position on the edge of the lane, and did not show sufficient consideration for other persons using the road.

Finally, just telling people not to drive or ride badly is not enough. Good driving and riding are about much more than simply not making mistakes. They are about getting people to recognise and understand the pro-active behaviours that contribute to good driving and riding - that in turn will encourage them to try to do the same things themselves when driving or riding.

While I think that this is fair, it also risks the general public being held to the same standard that you want to hold the police officer to. I'm not sure that is reasonable. A youth going to school, a visitor on a hire bike, someone on their first city commute, all have the right to cycle safely, there. We cannot ever expect perfect behaviour from everyone using the roads. And the onus is on the professional driver, the operator of a HGV to take special care of the vulnerable road users around them.

That said, It's clear to me that the problem is one of infrastructure.

The possibility of an HGV and cyclist being in such close proximity should be eliminated or greatly reduced.

[Psamathe]

So it comes down to the fact that the police officer was not q this cyclist so the close pass is OK? Just so I know the truth of what you're saying. I've not heard you say that the waitrose driver is wrong to and technically did close pass a road user that was more vulnerable. Out I missed it.

If you could answer the question over whether the driver was right to pass the cyclists as they were riding?

The video was posted as a example of a close pass experienced by this group event. On this one point is it close pass and as such isn't a good manoeuvre by the driver at best and at worst a motoring offence?

Who are you directing your question to?

Ian

[Psamathe]

It is not enough simply to say the Waitrose lorry driver committed an offence. We have to recognise and acknowledge that the police cyclist was riding without the care and attention that was appropriate having regard to his position on the edge of the lane, and did not show sufficient consideration for other persons using the road.

Finally, just telling people not to drive or ride badly is not enough. Good driving and riding are about much more than simply not making mistakes. They are about getting people to recognise and understand the pro-active behaviours that contribute to good driving and riding - that in turn will encourage them to try to do the same things themselves when driving or riding.

While I think that this is fair, it also risks the general public being held to the same standard that you want to hold the police officer to. I'm not sure that is reasonable. A youth going to school, a visitor on a hire bike, someone on their first city commute, all have the right to cycle safely, there. We cannot ever expect perfect behaviour from everyone using the roads. And the onus is on the professional driver, the operator of a HGV to take special care of the vulnerable road users around them.

That said, It's clear to me that the problem is one of infrastructure.

The possibility of an HGV and cyclist being in such close proximity should be eliminated or greatly reduced.

I would agree with you as regards the issue being about infrastructure. To me (and I'm no expert) the cycle lane looks wide enough to have a separation zone (plus maybe some bollards of that raised stuff on the road).

There are many aspects to the video and one that troubles me is it being used to highlight to non-cyclists about "close passes" - many drivers (me included) will then comment on the cyclist's position, how they had plenty of room had they moved further from the line and end result is, as a campaign video it will be counter productive; particularly as other (non-celebrity) cyclists seem to be routinely posting youutube videos with some horrendous examples where non-cycling public would go "OMG, poor cyclist".

I could legally cycle down the middle of a lane on the A140 (which is busy and has just one lane in each direction). And whilst I've never considered it, I could build-up a really long queue of traffic behind me and as a cyclist, not being subject to rule 169 (my understanding based on articles read) I could insist on my right to do what I'm doing quite lawfully and not pull in to let traffic past. Would that make my behaviour "right"?

The operation of our infrastructure depends on users behaving in a reasonable manner.

Ian

[Stevek76]

It wasn't a cycle lane, was a general traffic lane. Albeit a fairly narrow one due to the apparent desire to cram 4 traffic lanes plus reasonable footways into a narrow road.

As well as the infrastructure there is also the overlapping issue of the general suitability of 40/44t hgvs in the middle of cities...

[slowster]

While I think that this is fair, it also risks the general public being held to the same standard that you want to hold the police officer to. I'm not sure that is reasonable.

The standard that applies is the same to both, and it most certainly is 'reasonable', because that very word is in the relevant part of the Road Traffic Act:

If a person rides a bicycle or tricycle, not being a motor vehicle, on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine...

That said, It's clear to me that the problem is one of infrastructure.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you develop and implement road cycling safety strategy with the infrastructure you have, at least in the medium term.

A youth going to school, a visitor on a hire bike, someone on their first city commute, all have the right to cycle safely, there.

Our rights as individuals do not exist in a vacuum; we all have a responsibility to other road users (including other cyclists) to cycle safely.

We cannot ever expect perfect behaviour from everyone using the roads. And the onus is on the professional driver, the operator of a HGV to take special care of the vulnerable road users around them.

And we cannot expect perfect behaviour from HGV drivers. We all make mistakes. The more common it is that cyclists ride like that police officer, the greater the frequency with which serious accidents and fatalities will occur, whether as a result of a collision with an HGV, another motor vehicle or another cyclist etc.

I have pointed out that both the HGV driver and the police cyclist committed an offence, solely because many people were saying that it was just one or the other that was at fault, exempting the other from any responsibility to have acted differently.

However, although I have made reference to the law in determining that both were responsible, I am not suggesting that either in this particular case should be prosecuted or subject to any other statutory enforcement action, because I don't think that will help to make cycling in London safer, which is what actually matters. And the likes of Jeremy Vine promoting a deeply flawed portrayal of this event, will not help. We need to correctly identify and understand what went wrong, in order to determine how best we (collectively and as individuals) can reduce the risks of it occurring. One part of the solution is high profile campaigns by police to tackle close passes, including driver awareness courses and prosecutions where appropriate. Another part of the solution is promoting good cyclecraft and making people aware how it makes cycling safer.

[Pebble]

It wasn't a cycle lane, was a general traffic lane. Albeit a fairly narrow one due to the apparent desire to cram 4 traffic lanes plus reasonable footways into a narrow road.

As well as the infrastructure there is also the overlapping issue of the general suitability of 40/44t hgvs in the middle of cities...

the waitrose wagon was no where near that weight, 32t gross max probably running much lighter. 4x2 pulling a short tandem would give great manoeuvrability in tight loading bays often associated with town and city supermarkets.

Nothing wrong with the wagon, our lifestyles demand vast amount of goods being easily accessible. The issue is with the uncaring driving of the wagon. When the driver seen the group of incompetent cyclists he should have hung back.

[Psamathe]

...
Nothing wrong with the wagon, our lifestyles demand vast amount of goods being easily accessible. The issue is with the uncaring driving of the wagon. When the driver seen the group of incompetent cyclists he should have hung back.

How was the driver to know the cyclists were incompetent? If any assumptions are to be made I'd expect a Police cyclist on a Police bike wearing Hi-Viz plastered with "Police" could be assumed to be a competent cyclist.

Whilst it is reasonable for a driver to give a clearly "unsteady" cyclist more than enough room I would question about drivers and cyclists basing how they drive/ride on their assessment of the competence of the other vehicle driver/rider. Very little information in a very brief time cannot give any reasonable assessment of competence.


Ian

[Nearholmer]

Slowster, you have put it very well.

[Cowsham]

I agree on the infrastructure bit of Vorpals post and would happily pay a tax to fund a separated cycle path or even shared use path.

[LancsGirl]

If a large HGV passes very close to me then what I always do is take my right hand off the handlebars, lift my right arm high in the air, close to the HGV, and wave it about meaninglessly. All while the HGV is still passing me. Because in such close proximity to a large passing vehicle, keeping control of my bike isn't important, obviously. I'd much rather make a pointless gesture.

[thirdcrank]

I've still not watched the vid but as a general point, offences of dangerous and careless driving/ cycling are not some sort of division of blame. Drivers and cyclists may be prosecuted for their own conduct. As an example, there was a recent report of a driver being prosecuted for driving into a protester who glued themselves to the road - even though that was probably some sort of obstruction offence. The point is that that didn't justify the driver driving into the person lying in the road.

This divvying up of blame seems to give a clue why it's so hard to convict drivers of causing death by dangerous driving

[Cugel]

I agree on the infrastructure bit of Vorpals post and would happily pay a tax to fund a separated cycle path or even shared use path.

There's a large danger in pushing for cycling infrastructure - it's the perfect excuse to ban cyclists from many roads. Even when there isn't a ban, yer red-faced motoring fellow will give you a punishment pass inclusive of the yell that , "You should be on the cycle path". He won't care that the cycle path is cluttered with tyre-shredding debris and pedestrians as aggressive as himself, nor about the fact that the cycle path doesn't go where you want to go.

I'll bang me drum now.

There's a marvellous cycling infrastructure already available called "the roads". I use them all the time! There is an issue with them here and there in that aggressive loons driving motorised weapons are allowed to have a go at you and, if they get you, receive only token penalties, if any. So let the existing law, which is quite clear on these matters, really, deal with those aggressive loons. Mind, this will need polis in transport able to apprehend the rascals - and a willingness of The Beak to punish the blighters.

I have to say, though, that in my 62 years of cycling, I only ever got knocked off by a car-loon once. It was on 1/6/80, about quarter of a million miles ago.

But think of the other advantages of enforcing a much better and considerate standard of driving! Far less death and mutilation of not just cyclists but also car-borne folk, pedestrians, horses, hedgehogs, dogs & cats and perhaps even a few million bees. (Definitely lots of flying beetles and even flutterbys). Also, the pollution will go down by tons (millions of tons of various particulates that are giving us all an early death).

*********
Still, if you have £794,791,456 available to build a useful cycling-only infrastructure and another similar-sized wodge to maintain it ......

**********
It may be, though, that events bring about a large reduction in the motorised loon danger. No one will be able to afford a car or the fuel before much longer. It was like that when I was a bairn, you know, just a hundred years ago.

Cugel

[Cugel]

If a large HGV passes very close to me then what I always do is take my right hand off the handlebars, lift my right arm high in the air, close to the HGV, and wave it about meaninglessly. All while the HGV is still passing me. Because in such close proximity to a large passing vehicle, keeping control of my bike isn't important, obviously. I'd much rather make a pointless gesture.

I like to do gestures too, although mine generally have one or perhaps two points. On the other hand, I mostly do a third gesture, which is a wave of thanks and acknowledgement to considerate folk. I notice that it pleases them; and I imagine a subsequent brain process in their wee noggins that basically goes, "Ahhh, aren't those cyclists nice".

Well, I can hope.

Cugel

[Jdsk]

I've still not watched the vid but as a general point, offences of dangerous and careless driving/ cycling are not some sort of division of blame.

Yes, and misunderstanding that point causes a lot of unnecessary confusion in threads such as these. Criminal acts, ordinary consideration for others, and negligence which might lead to compensation are very different and division of fault/ blame/ responsibility is only relevant to one of them.

Jonathan