Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

[ChrisP100]

....
Expected? I've been cycling for many, many years and expect close passes. Any experienced cyclist knows they're to be expected.
The last close pass I had, on Monday evening, the vehicle was coming in the opposite direction. Transit pick up, driver on the phone, going too fast round a bend and drifted onto my side of the road. Missed me by about six inches. No harm done apart from a scare. Could have been bad but I'm bothered about what was rather than what could have been.

I agree they are to be expected but given our society e.g. burglaries are to be expected but that does not mean tolerated and ignored.

On the roads my safety comes from a combination of my own judgement and that of other road users, a balance. When a driver makes a close pass that balance swings to my safety being much more dependent of the abilities of the driver. Close pass from an inattentive driver is very different from a close pass from a capable attentive driver short of road space. In teh case of an inattentive drive missing you comes down to luck and chance and taking such risks should be my choice not that of a poor driver. Undoubtedly some close passes will be inattentive drivers. If it is widely known that passing laws are enforced and failures punished driver is more likely to pay attention to a cyclist.

Some vehicles can make passes with more than 6" and despite not actually making contact with you still cause significant danger from turbulence. Domestic oild delivery tanker at speed are particularly bad for turbulence (as are car transporters, those they are comparatively rare).

Ian

I have been close passed by a double-decker bus at about 6 inches on a national speed limit single carriageway A-Road. Not because the bus driver was inattentive, but because they'd not taken into consideration the inattentive driver coming the other way who was all over the road and they ended up misjudging the gap. In fairness the bus could have held back a few seconds, but they didn't and I got squeezed. Luckily I'd left wiggle room on the inside, but the turbulence from the bus was pretty rough.

[pete75]

....
Expected? I've been cycling for many, many years and expect close passes. Any experienced cyclist knows they're to be expected.
The last close pass I had, on Monday evening, the vehicle was coming in the opposite direction. Transit pick up, driver on the phone, going too fast round a bend and drifted onto my side of the road. Missed me by about six inches. No harm done apart from a scare. Could have been bad but I'm bothered about what was rather than what could have been.

I agree they are to be expected but given our society e.g. burglaries are to be expected but that does not mean tolerated and ignored.

On the roads my safety comes from a combination of my own judgement and that of other road users, a balance. When a driver makes a close pass that balance swings to my safety being much more dependent of the abilities of the driver. Close pass from an inattentive driver is very different from a close pass from a capable attentive driver short of road space. In teh case of an inattentive drive missing you comes down to luck and chance and taking such risks should be my choice not that of a poor driver. Undoubtedly some close passes will be inattentive drivers. If it is widely known that passing laws are enforced and failures punished driver is more likely to pay attention to a cyclist.

Some vehicles can make passes with more than 6" and despite not actually making contact with you still cause significant danger from turbulence. Domestic oild delivery tanker at speed are particularly bad for turbulence (as are car transporters, those they are comparatively rare).

Ian

If the police put as much effort into catching and prosecuting close pass drivers as they do into catching and prosecuting burglars it means the 1.5 metre rule will be unenforced. Get burgled and it's a struggle to get a crime number for the insurance claim never mind any further action.

[pete75]

Perhaps the thing that's now bizarre is that if they don't miss, it's quite likely that they will not suffer any sanction. Let's remember that dangerous and careless driving are defined by what's expected (my wording.) At least, expecting five feet passing space defines what's expected in this context.

===================================================
Re Al's suggestion, the technology we need is the irony detector.

Expected? I've been cycling for many, many years and expect close passes. Any experienced cyclist knows they're to be expected.
The last close pass I had, on Monday evening, the vehicle was coming in the opposite direction. Transit pick up, driver on the phone, going too fast round a bend and drifted onto my side of the road. Missed me by about six inches. No harm done apart from a scare. Could have been bad but I'm bothered about what was rather than what could have been.

Re the bit I've highlighted, that doesn't make them right. Apart from anything else, not all riders benefit from the depth and breadth of your experience. And to paraphrase Tony Hancock, "It may only be a scare to you, but it could put a lot of people off cycling."

Hmmm I could do without the sarcasm regarding experience but you know as well as I do that close passes will never stop. The best you can do is realise they will happen, realise when one is happening and keep the bike stock steady in a straight line if no room to manoeuvre to give yourself more room.

[Cugel]

(snip) ..... regarding experience but you know as well as I do that close passes will never stop. The best you can do is realise they will happen, realise when one is happening and keep the bike stock steady in a straight line if no room to manoeuvre to give yourself more room.

This is an interesting principle for arranging a society - don't bother with laws and their enforcement but accept that bad actors will act badly, including towards oneself; and somehow avoid them.

Of course, such a situation did once pertain and not that long ago. One might gain the protection of a local baron or other forceful fellow but only in exchange for much labour and an agreement to be sword-fodder on a regular basis, as the baron pursued his grievances with the other barons. Is that the sort of society you hanker for - or will accept should it be thrust upon you? Bokum and his spivs are sort of heading that way, so ..... maybe, eh?

But hang on! Does your attitude in this matter - don't apprehend and punish miscreant drivers but merely adjust our behaviour to their lethal thrusts - mean that you yourself prefer to behave in various matters as do these lethal driver fellow!? Must we steer clear of you if we should be unlucky enough to spot you comin', as you may perform a potentially injurious act so we'd better be capable of somehow avoiding your stabs and cuts?

This seems the logic of your position. Of course, you may not do logic. Or you may be nice as a pie.

Cugel, admittedly a runner-away when the drunken hard lads are coming my way. (But I'd still have The Beak order their goonies cut off).

[thirdcrank]

Hmmm I could do without the sarcasm regarding experience but you know as well as I do that close passes will never stop. The best you can do is realise they will happen, realise when one is happening and keep the bike stock steady in a straight line if no room to manoeuvre to give yourself more room.

I'm not being sarcastic about experience - just going by what I've picked up from your posts.

Going back a long time on this forum and before, close passing has been a real concern. (My own first experience was when I was knocked off as a 13 year old when the Great North Road went through Wetherby. Luckily, the the HGV only ran over my back wheel, before the driver continued without stopping.) That concern has been reflected in online petitions, the crowd-funding of mats etc. One of my own misgiving has been that it would be difficult to prove a minimum distance given the possible loopholes. The best we've had before was the vague wording of the HC and an illustration.

This case offers hope, if nothing more, that close passing is being tackled in the light of the new HC.

Back to the apparent sarcasm, I'll be more cautious in future.

[Vorpal]

Some years ago, I was passed by a bus on a country road at close to the speed limit of 50 mph. The bus came within about 1/2 metre (20 inches). I could easily have touched it, if I had reached out.

That may not seem so bad, but the turbulence in it's wake nearly put me in the ditch, even though I was expecting some turbulence, having had experience with busses on this route before.

I managed to regain control, though I had to stop, and the driver of the car behind was also able to stop.

It came out ok, other than a scare, but it so, so easily could have been otherwise.

I did write to the bus company & tell them what happened, and my experience on that route was better after that. My colleagues who cycled the same route also thought the the bus drivers took more care around cyclists. The council have since installed a segregated path, there.

[thirdcrank]

Phew. I thought that was going to be a moderator's yellow card. :wink:

[pete75]

(snip) ..... regarding experience but you know as well as I do that close passes will never stop. The best you can do is realise they will happen, realise when one is happening and keep the bike stock steady in a straight line if no room to manoeuvre to give yourself more room.

This is an interesting principle for arranging a society - don't bother with laws and their enforcement but accept that bad actors will act badly, including towards oneself; and somehow avoid them.

Of course, such a situation did once pertain and not that long ago. One might gain the protection of a local baron or other forceful fellow but only in exchange for much labour and an agreement to be sword-fodder on a regular basis, as the baron pursued his grievances with the other barons. Is that the sort of society you hanker for - or will accept should it be thrust upon you? Bokum and his spivs are sort of heading that way, so ..... maybe, eh?

But hang on! Does your attitude in this matter - don't apprehend and punish miscreant drivers but merely adjust our behaviour to their lethal thrusts - mean that you yourself prefer to behave in various matters as do these lethal driver fellow!? Must we steer clear of you if we should be unlucky enough to spot you comin', as you may perform a potentially injurious act so we'd better be capable of somehow avoiding your stabs and cuts?

This seems the logic of your position. Of course, you may not do logic. Or you may be nice as a pie.

Cugel, admittedly a runner-away when the drunken hard lads are coming my way. (But I'd still have The Beak order their goonies cut off).

It's not the logic of my position at all. You're drawing a very big and very wrong assumption in thinking I behave in the way you describe. What I'm saying is that close passes will happen regardless of the law on the same, that cyclist need to be aware of this and have ideas on how to deal with it. It's when I'm not passed that concerns me. Have suffered that but one and spent three weeks in hospital as a result.

You're naïve in the extreme if you think laws will stop others doing bad things to you - do you really ride along thinking 'Close passes are illegal and therefore I'll never encounter one'.

You appear to be of the hang 'em, flog 'em, lock 'em up and throw away the key school of thought following the logic of your remark about castration. What you need to realise is that it's not the harshness of punishment but the likelihood of being apprehended that is the greatest crime deterrent.

[al_yrpal]

I and Steady Rider put forward a motion at the CTC annual meeting a few years ago to lobby for the introduction of a close passing recommendation such as we have now. This was stymied by the twerp in charge at the time who held all the proxy votes. After that they tried the looney mat idea which went nowhere.
Its of great satisfaction to me that the HC now incorporates our recommendation.

Having cycled a lot in France I was well aware of how their existing close passing law made one safer and it seemed common sense to me that if motor vehicles couldnt get close to you collisions would be reduced.

At the time the rejection simply felt like we were victims of the 'not invented here' syndrome.

Al

[Psamathe]

...
You're naïve in the extreme if you think laws will stop others doing bad things to you - do you really ride along thinking 'Close passes are illegal and therefore I'll never encounter one'.
...

I think there are more options than just "stop/never" vs "just expect it to happen and accept it". Would I prefer have 1 dangerous close pass or 3 dangerous close passes? Obvious answer. Cases like that referenced by OP if well publicised can affect driver behaviour with out uniformed Police standing on every corner. If car drivers become aware that some cyclists carry recording devices and that Police prosecute based on those recordings then some drivers might start giving cyclists a bit more consideration on the road which my guess would reduce accidents. (as in reduce not "stop" nor "continue unabated").

Ian

[Psamathe]

I and Steady Rider put forward a motion at the CTC annual meeting a few years ago to lobby for the introduction of a close passing recommendation such as we have now. This was stymied by the twerp in charge at the time who held all the proxy votes. After that they tried the looney mat idea which went nowhere.
Its of great satisfaction to me that the HC now incorporates our recommendation.

Having cycled a lot in France I was well aware of how their existing close passing law made one safer and it seemed common sense to me that if motor vehicles couldnt get close to you collisions would be reduced.

At the time the rejection simply felt like we were victims of the 'not invented here' syndrome.

Al

Without knowing the motion, etc. I can well believe it being rejected by said individual who I regard as having done CTC a lot of long term damage.

Ian

[Cugel]

(snip) ..... regarding experience but you know as well as I do that close passes will never stop. The best you can do is realise they will happen, realise when one is happening and keep the bike stock steady in a straight line if no room to manoeuvre to give yourself more room.

This is an interesting principle for arranging a society - don't bother with laws and their enforcement but accept that bad actors will act badly, including towards oneself; and somehow avoid them.

Of course, such a situation did once pertain and not that long ago. One might gain the protection of a local baron or other forceful fellow but only in exchange for much labour and an agreement to be sword-fodder on a regular basis, as the baron pursued his grievances with the other barons. Is that the sort of society you hanker for - or will accept should it be thrust upon you? Bokum and his spivs are sort of heading that way, so ..... maybe, eh?

But hang on! Does your attitude in this matter - don't apprehend and punish miscreant drivers but merely adjust our behaviour to their lethal thrusts - mean that you yourself prefer to behave in various matters as do these lethal driver fellow!? Must we steer clear of you if we should be unlucky enough to spot you comin', as you may perform a potentially injurious act so we'd better be capable of somehow avoiding your stabs and cuts?

This seems the logic of your position. Of course, you may not do logic. Or you may be nice as a pie.

Cugel, admittedly a runner-away when the drunken hard lads are coming my way. (But I'd still have The Beak order their goonies cut off).

It's not the logic of my position at all. You're drawing a very big and very wrong assumption in thinking I behave in the way you describe. What I'm saying is that close passes will happen regardless of the law on the same, that cyclist need to be aware of this and have ideas on how to deal with it. It's when I'm not passed that concerns me. Have suffered that but one and spent three weeks in hospital as a result.

You're naïve in the extreme if you think laws will stop others doing bad things to you - do you really ride along thinking 'Close passes are illegal and therefore I'll never encounter one'.

You appear to be of the hang 'em, flog 'em, lock 'em up and throw away the key school of thought following the logic of your remark about castration. What you need to realise is that it's not the harshness of punishment but the likelihood of being apprehended that is the greatest crime deterrent.

So .... the law notion is ineffective as bad fellows will just ignore it? Of course that is true of a portion of people but I feel that the vast majority who might be tempted to break the law but don't take that path act that way because they fear the consequences of breaking the law. If that isn't the case, then we might as well dispense with the law. And that's what you seem to be suggesting.

As you say, a cyclist is wise to develop the skills to anticipate loony drivers and to deal with their antics as best we can, requiring certain skills, a calm approach to potential dangers and so forth. Loony drivers are currently a fact of life. But you seem to be saying that, because you and some other skilled cyclists manage to avoid being maimed or killed by some bad driving then everyone riding a bike should be like you. That's about as likely as all drivers obeying the law.

Of course, many more drivers could be made to obey the law if the law (the existing law, not new law) was applied much more vigorously. And many cyclists might avoid thrills and spills if they took the time and made the effort to learn how to ride a bike better than a lot of them do. Such changes to behaviour could be encouraged in all sorts of ways. Your stance seems to be that the current poor behaviours on the road are just how the world works and no one can improve the situation. Or, if anyone needs to improve it ain't drivers ('cos they won't) so it ought to be cyclists who improve.

I say: nonsense.

*************

As to the hang 'em, draw 'em and quarter 'em thing - I would be much more draconian than that with bad drivers. I'd take away their license and their car forever! I would just give their goonies a nasty and meaningful look.

Cugel

[thirdcrank]

Part of the support for rules against close passing came from people's experience of riding in places like Spain

viewtopic.php?p=1168400#p1168400

[pete75]

Of course, many more drivers could be made to obey the law if the law (the existing law, not new law) was applied much more vigorously. And many cyclists might avoid thrills and spills if they took the time and made the effort to learn how to ride a bike better than a lot of them do. Such changes to behaviour could be encouraged in all sorts of ways. Your stance seems to be that the current poor behaviours on the road are just how the world works and no one can improve the situation. Or, if anyone needs to improve it ain't drivers ('cos they won't) so it ought to be cyclists who improve.

I say: nonsense.

*************

As to the hang 'em, draw 'em and quarter 'em thing - I would be much more draconian than that with bad drivers. I'd take away their license and their car forever! I would just give their goonies a nasty and meaningful look.

Cugel

What I'm saying is that close passes will always happen regardless of the law and cyclists will always have to deal with them. That is not nonsense.
Personally I think they're getting more frequent and, in many cases, deliberate. This is in part due to the hatred being whipped up against cyclists by the sort of newspapers your hang 'em, castrate 'em, flog 'em co-conspirators read.

[cycle tramp]

If the police put as much effort into catching and prosecuting close pass drivers as they do into catching and prosecuting burglars it means the 1.5 metre rule will be unenforced. Get burgled and it's a struggle to get a crime number for the insurance claim never mind any further action.

Clearly we can see that (in some cases) this is not true as the title of this thread and content suggest