Forum menu
Should I report each and every occasion? I believe the officer is right in that there is barely a magistrate in the land that would prosecute that. That’s a fact unfortunately. Until there is a better infrastructure and more room for cyclists on our roads then this sort of thing will continue to happen.
If close passing isn't a problem then why do you need more room or better infrastructure?
If it's not reported then it doesn't happen.
Yes, the words and tone have a nasty edge.
Prosecution is clearly not going to happen, but a 5 minute call to the driver would be something.
I’m not defending the driver but there was an HGV approaching and if it’s a national speed limit road the closing speeds would have been quite high and maybe that was a consideration of the driver?
Because slowing down and waiting for a more suitable opportunity to overtake never entered the drivers head. That's what needs to change, the infrastructure is fine, it's driver attitudes that are the problem.
If SYP were willing, as many other forces are, to help get that message across, the roads would be a nicer place for everyone. Just because we've all survived a similar pass at some point, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it acceptable. If we are all encouraged to shrug and just carry on, nothing is ever going to improve for us.
Are we all aware of the risk pyramid? If we can shrink the base of that pyramid, then it won't get as tall, ie, fewer dead cyclists and drivers getting a slap on the wrist.
**** me some of the replies on here considering its supposed to be a cycling forum 😕 the driver was a ****. The police were ****s and if you disagree then you're even bigger ****s
Yes, maybe the officer could have spoken with the driver and that’s probably what should have happened but beyond that why create expectation for the courts and cps to dismiss it? Did you complain to SYP about your unhappiness and their response to your complaint?
the driver was a *. The police were * and if you disagree then you’re even bigger ****
Nah, that's not actually helpful. We can understand everyone's motives and point of view and remain civil while disagreeing.
Highway code is clear.
TJ - no it is not. It says something like “give at least as much room as when passing a car”. People pass cars with all sorts of different clearances depending on the circumstances (such as speed, available room, road position of the car, attitude of the driver, oncoming traffic); perhaps the HC was intentionally left vague to encourage a similar thought process, but what it is certainly not, is clear. On busy narrow roads people pass cars with well under 1.5m, whether they should or not is a matter for debate.
ironically earlier today a friend of mine liked a picture of a “roadmat” with the 0.75 and 1.5m measurements a bike and a police car. He lives somewhere in Yorkshire - but I don’t know which force it was (I can’t find the original post), he is definitely not a serious cyclist.
Yes, maybe the officer could have spoken with the driver and that’s probably what should have happened but beyond that why create expectation for the courts and cps to dismiss it?
A conversation with the driver may be all that is required. It's a very cheap and effective form of keeping people alive.
What threat do you think a cyclist poses to the safety of a driver if they pass closer than 1.5m? Do you think scratching someone’s paintwork is on a par with killing someone when deciding preventative safety legislation?
1.5m has got nothing to do with a car being scratched and everything to do with the cyclist getting hurt or killed...
Either 1.5m is safe or not.
If a bike can pass a car at a safe distance then a car can pass a bike at the same relative speed and distance.
Of course smacking wing mirrors is just going to add fuel to drivers but the simple point is a safe passing distance for a speed is the same regardless of a car passing a bike or a bike passing a car.
TJ and his 1.5M on every road law again. Didn’t we have this years ago? All roads are different, conditions, traffic and all that comes into account -roads I ride home on for example, I pass cars coming the opposite direction with a few cm to spare! Actually on the main road I do too and I’m on a cycle lane! 1.5m would mean I’d have to queue with all the numpty drivers wouldn’t it? Or is it ok for me to filter with less than 1.5m but not them to pass with less. Just a bloody nonsense.
That sums it up ... take a situation that happens thousands of times every day - not even on filters but just normal riding
Cyclist passes motorist the driver is doing 20mph in traffic ...the cyclist is doing 22 mph
The cyclist then slows down... perhaps due to a hill. It is now illegal for those want want the 1.5m rule enshrined in law for the motorist to pass the cyclist with the same relative speeds and the same gap.
The whole "but it's OK for me because I'm on a bike" simply reeks of special pleading.
A Citroen C1 is listed as 1.6m wide without mirrors a Mondeo 1.8m a typical road is not much bigger.
1.5m will in many places involve passing in a complete other lane or the other side of the road.
Whereas that may well be appropriate for higher speeds it's completely unworkable for traffic going 15-20mph which other than 20mph restricted zones is 90% of the time due to volume of traffic.
I’ve had experience of this today, with multiple dangerous close passes at speed by drivers and even motocyclists. There are too many people out there who don’t care about the safety of other road users.
I completely agree ... however my point is
Having reported a deliberate, life threatening manoeuvre to Police Scotland in the past, I can confirm they don’t appear to take it seriously.
It all goes back to 1.5m and a speed being safe or not and road users who don't respect their OWN safety.
It must be a decade ago now but I watched a whole pack of racing commuters shoot a red light... a good 20-30 of them in central London right in front of 4-5 police. I decided to ask why they didn't do anything... (I was early for work)... The officer was straight up to be fair .. he said something like "they have no respect for their OWN safety and to stop them I have to run into the middle of a busy road in front of them... I have kids at home and even supposing I did manage to stop one then nothing would happen - why would I risk my own life for someone who obviously has no respect for their own?"
This is a cop on traffic duty.... his view from observing "cyclists" as a group seems to be they are hell bent of dying. I disagree but based on my own observations I can see where that view comes from.
Your average motor driver observes the same things...
This is why a one-way blanket 1.5m rule won't ever work in anything close to our road infrastructure.
Punishment passes have nothing to do with cyclists not following rules, they happen because people have become impatient, entitled, hate filled arseholes in a society that provides lots of reinforcing messages for that sort of behaviour and seldom presents them with any consequences…
Agreed ... but it's a 2-way thing.
About a month ago I was on the Surrey hills A25 going up the big hill.... 3 roadies ahead and I was in no particular hurry at all... the road was coned off on one side and one way traffic lights... and 2 roadies did the sensible thing and just rode up the safe area. The other wove up the hill ... through 2-3 traffic light cycles causing a complete mess. Some of the cars had set off down and others were already inside the one way going up behind the cyclist we couldn't see when the lights had changed.
His 2 mates were embarrassed as hell.... there was just no need for this except to assert some sort of entitled, hate filled arsehole behaviour.
I’d be fine with the police actually enforcing current road traffic law for all road users, and if I rode at night without pedal reflectors I would have to accept the consequences, if that acceptance was the price of having them bother to persue drivers for punishment passing, driving and texting or the myriad of other offences I see people get away with every day that would be just fine. But they won’t they lack the money, people and will.
It's a start ... perhaps?
I still think there needs to be a whole set of public perception change though to demonstrate that this is 2-way.
I was riding some fire trails yesterday from a race start to a car park... riding a [b]very[/b] moderate speed. (Slow enough to be passed by people running).. YET despite me going about 5mph several walkers rushed to the side in an exaggerated manner as if I was going 25mph... giving me hard glares and a couple shouted abuse...
95% or more of these people were drivers....
I've no idea why except to speculate someone had previously been down the same fire trail at 20-25mph.... there is mountain bike rental at the place but the distinguishing feature is race numbers?
As far as their perception... (when it comes to public protests about having a race next year at the same place) who will they remember? The self entitled asshole blasting down the fire trail or our group coasting at 5mph?
This is why their needs to be some high profile dangerous cycling arrests and convictions made or the wider public will simply make their mind up from similar memories.
1.5m will in many places involve passing in a complete other lane or the other side of the road
OMG!
You finally got it.
1.5m will in many places involve passing in a complete other lane or the other side of the road.
Yes - That's a good thing though
2 roadies did the sensible thing and just rode up the safe area. The other wove up the hill … through 2-3 traffic light cycles causing a complete mess. Some of the cars had set off down and others were already inside the one way going up behind the cyclist we couldn’t see when the lights had changed.
His 2 mates were embarrassed as hell…. there was just no need for this except to assert some sort of entitled, hate filled arsehole behaviour
Interested here - This was for roadworks? was there a sign suggesting that they ride in the coned-off area? I'm seeing "bloody cyclists riding in the roadworks section - who do they think they are ?"
OMG!
You finally got it.
but also the same for you when overtaking or filtering past a car.
When commuting how often do you have the oncoming lane clear enough that you can enter it for the duration of filtering past a car ?
but also the same for you when overtaking or filtering past a car.
Which nobody sensible is actually suggesting are they.
https://www.rsac.tas.gov.au/campaign/new-road-rules-passing-cyclists/
Happening elsewhere, there was a noticeable improvement on it's introduction in Tasmania.
OMG!
You finally got it.
This just isn't possible in many places... (it is in the video) but that is the difference between having a universal rule and not.
Personally I find the officers assessment of this being non-viable to proceed as shockingly amazing ... and the fact that he didn't HAVE to deviate as absolutely crazy as neither the driver nor cyclist could know that in advance. There was no reason the driver couldn't have used the entire other lane in this instance on a NSL road with room to pass.
HOWEVER: my main point is for this to be enforced it needs more rule than 1.5m everywhere and apply in both directions. It also needs more structure for example on single lane roads, in the case of slow moving traffic <20mph etc.
Simply saying you can't pass a cyclist for 20 miles unless they decide to pull over into a passing place won't work and it still wouldn't be 1.5m anyway... and regardless of speed. Its the same as riding two abreast when it's dangerous... just because you can.
If I leave my mothers house I can cycle down single-passing places for 30 miles (after the first 100').. the only reasonable safe way is riding the corners to get maximum visibility of a car or tractor coming in the other direction. Riding 2 abreast is stupid as is trying to maintain 25mph around blind bends. Even going slowly there is a big chance of running into a tractor around a bend that might be stationary and running up into the hedgerows is not usual.
As I often ride this road with my kid I'm amazed just how many cyclists are ripping around as fast as they can two abreast who then squeeze past cars going n the opposite direction .. what worries me more is the attitude of these cyclists to the other road users.. including those trying to cycle safely. After they force a car to swerve into the hedgerow I have to deal with the SAME cars who are understandably pissed at being run off the road and then shouted at.
Whilst we rely on a best practice code rather than actually defining proper rules then we are at the mercy of assessments like the one on the video.
Whatever the rules are will need to be a compromise and take in more than only applies to cars.
Perhaps the automatic entitlement to two abreast needs looking at on single track roads with passing places? Perhaps vulnerable users should have to stop and let other traffic through? Perhaps cyclists jumping red lights needs to be taken seriously..? Perhaps some roads other than motorways need to be designated no cyclists even ??
Perhaps the rule doesn't apply when the cyclist is in a physically separate cycle lane?
(or if they do then lots of cycle lanes will make it impossible for a car to pass)
Whilst this is down to judgements like the officer in the audio on the video there will continue to be similar judgements.
A conversation with the driver may be all that is required. It’s a very cheap and effective form of keeping people alive.
This might well be good in debatable cases.... but the video isn't OR shouldn't be debatable case.
What makes it debatable is that 1.5m (or in this case 0.5m) isn't able to be applied universally in a single direction.
Yes – That’s a good thing though
It's a good thing when there is a lane or other side of the road....
Interested here – This was for roadworks? was there a sign suggesting that they ride in the coned-off area? I’m seeing “bloody cyclists riding in the roadworks section – who do they think they are ?”
No roadworks in sight .... just cones and traffic lights.
But at the end of the day if there were roadworks they can get off and push.
I nearly always thank drivers for proper overaking these days. Mad innit? They do something how they should and you thank them.
Perhaps the automatic entitlement to two abreast needs looking at on single track roads with passing places? Perhaps vulnerable users should have to stop and let other traffic through?
That is what passing places are for though, doesn't have to be for oncoming only. As usual there will be edge cases to any situation, passing on a single lane road should be done cooperatively and with consideration from both sides. Basing the rest of the UK's cycle/road policy on that situation would be foolish.
As with the Australian examples it's quite simple, cars to give 1m up to about 40mph and then 1.5m after that.
A bike passing a car - if your over 40kph/25mph then I'd be giving the 1.5m to the car, under that I probably wouldn't but would still be giving the car room. Filtering through traffic? Much the same as the when motorbikes do it.
1.5 m passing is possible and right everywhere. If you cant pass with 1.5 m clearance you cannot pass safely. imagine if it was a tractor. Yo would have to wait until the opposite lane was clear so do the same for a bike
I do find it astonishing how some folk on here still look at this from a drivers point of view not a cyclists.
Filtering is a completely different case AS THE CARS ARE STATIONARY
Perhaps the automatic entitlement to two abreast needs looking at on single track roads with passing places?
But I don't want to saw my car in half.
Perhaps the automatic entitlement to two abreast needs looking at on single track roads with passing places?
How many miles of road are we talking about here? Sounds like a complete red herring to be concentrating on these doesn't it as they are such a tiny % of the UK's roads and already have a don't be a dick clause in them
1.5 m passing is possible and right everywhere. If you cant pass with 1.5 m clearance you cannot pass safely. imagine if it was a tractor. Yo would have to wait until the opposite lane was clear so do the same for a bike
I do find it astonishing how some folk on here still look at this from a drivers point of view not a cyclists.
That is just your opinion ...
As with the Australian examples it’s quite simple, cars to give 1m up to about 40mph and then 1.5m after that.
Seems a far more workable solution.
I do find it astonishing how some folk on here still look at this from a drivers point of view not a cyclists.
The problem is entirely different... it seems some people only look at this with a cyclists point of view rather than a road user's point of view.
One one hand a driver should stop or go slowly when conditions dictate but for some reason cyclists should be free to cycle as fast as they like and not be inconvenienced by things like pulling over to let other road users
The thing I find amazing is everyone seems to agree that a car having to a stop and pull over or go more slowly is expected of drivers but for some cyclists shouldn't have to .. everyone else should do it but them
If you wish to overtake a car that is going slowly then wait until you have 1.5m of passing ... if that is your idea of a safe distance. If there is a separate cycle lane you choose not to use then there is your 1.5m that was taken off the road width. Sure you may have to go much more slowly... but surely that is OK.
One one hand a driver should stop or go slowly when conditions dictate but for some reason cyclists should be free to cycle as fast as they like and not be inconvenienced by things like pulling over to let other road users
It's part of the highway code that you use the road responsibly and allow others to pass if it's sensible to do so.
How often do you overtake cars?
The thing I find amazing is everyone seems to agree that a car having to a stop and pull over or go more slowly is expected of drivers but for some cyclists shouldn’t have to .. everyone else should do it but them
In general, a common sense rule is to favour the more vulnerable road user, unless there is a clear priority. In the same way that a cyclist shouldn't be blasting past horses on roads, or horses/pedestrians on BWs.
I've got no problem with slowing or stopping completely in those circumstances.
From a practical viewpoint, I've got no problem with being passed carefully at <1.5m by a car in many circumstances. The problem starts when you are getting close-passed at speed/carelessly, or the driver is chopping back in dangerously or trying to squeeze past very close against traffic or through narrowings, or at blind bends.
It's a shame that 'Don't be a Dick' isn't a legally enforceable standard.
Try driving and riding in North Devon where leaving 1.5 m gap would be impossible on some of the single track roads. Even closer to home around Surrey Hills, it would prove tricky. If you are stuck behind farm traffic, chances are you may be going slower than a push bike in some circumstances yet on the whole they are able to pull in at a convenient point and let traffic pass. Why can't a cyclist do the same if the situation necessitates?
Surely common sense shoud prevail? Plenty of times on a bike I've pulled off or take to a pavement as I can see the potential for clogging up traffic behind me and eliminate to possibility of an idiot driver taking a chance and hitting me or passing too close.
On the flip side I've seen plenty of instances of bad cycling including 2 abreast chain gangs on some of the narrow lanes around Newlands and Peaslake so surely these should also be enforced? Simple answer is it's very difficult to do so just like it is to enforce middle lane motorway hoggers.
@bsims, yeah, i meant 50ft. (Actually 49ft 4.5inches)
and yes, that’s exactly what i think, drivers expect my company to hold me responsible for any accident.
it’s a flawed train of thought though, all of our vehicles are fitted with cctv, I’ve had a fair few allegations made against me over the years, some of them serious, cctv has cleared me.
One allegation came in, they had every detail correct, the time, place, reg no, a description of the driver (which accurately depicted me).
it was me, at the time and place they mentioned, they also mentioned the (true) fact that two people got on the bus, and that they had a suitcase.
the piece de resistance though, was when they alleged that i had lit a cigarette, took a couple of puffs, then snuffed it out on the tyre of the bus.
i have never smoked in my life.
my manager told me this type of thing happens all the time, stories get embellished, or completely fabricated.
I wonder if the police get the same thing.
I do make it easier for cars to pass when its safe. I ride in primary almost allthe time. When a car comes up behind me I make sure they know I have seen them then when its safe to allow them to pass wave them thru
again - if you couldn't pas a slow moving tractor safely then you cannot pass a cyclist safely. Again on the devon roads - the same applies. the car driver does not have a god given right to get past - they have to wait until its safe.
I ride a fair amount on single track roads up north. Its only non locals who seem to have issues.
Folk should take the example of edinburgh ( lrt) busses. 20 years ago they used to be an utter menace. Some really good training was put in place for them and now they are the most courteous drivers out there. Never passing with less than 1.5 m, never passing then pullin in to a stop. Never following 2 feet behind you. What has happened I believe is that following the training meant they found their route suddenly became much less stressful and stopped all unpleasant interactions. cyclists found bus drivers being courteous and reacted with courtesy. Win win.
On a single track road I ride right in the centre - no car can pass until I say its safe. As soon as its safe I wave them thru stopping if needed.
if you couldn’t pas a slow moving tractor safely then you cannot pass a cyclist safely.
Would completely disagree with this. There may be certain stretches which are too narrow/unsighted to allow a safe overtake, or if you are travelling very quickly, but a perfectly safe overtake is possible on many of the lanes I ride on.
As above, I'm prepared to accept <1.5m if it is done carefully and courteously, which it almost always is.
That video,and some of the attitudes shown on here, are the reason I spend as little time as possible cycling on the roads.
As above, I’m prepared to accept <1.5m if it is done carefully and courteously, which it almost always is.
Which is where the Australian 1m below a certain speed comes in, which means the driver should slow down, however if the road is not wide enough to pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap what is the road width? Is it a road that is suitible to be doing more than 40mph with other traffic around?
I'd be more annoyed having to listen to the patronising, doesn't-let-you-finish, doesn't-understand-the-argument-being-presented policeman than I'd be annoyed at the driving.
Just for Steve: two articles to help explain why someone making their own decision to come relatively close to a steel cage is not the same as the person in the steel cage making the unilateral decision to come close to someone without a steel cage: not only are the vehicles massively (in every sense) different, but the owner of the decision is, too.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/newtons-laws/
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/karrs-choice/
And, while we're here, one on why (despite the above) the proposal of a distance passing law is not only far from a silver bullet, but potentially a significantly worse tool than is currently available.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/passing-laws/
It’s part of the highway code that you use the road responsibly and allow others to pass if it’s sensible to do so.
How often do you overtake cars?
I used to do it all the time when traffic is slowed down*...then I started driving more regularly and realised just how dangerous it is. Especially two people passing a car on either side at the same time.
I drove 22 miles back from a race yesterday.... it took me over 1.5 hours... I could have cycled back faster even though 10ish miles of that were at 40-70mph. The other 10 miles I'd bet my average speed was 10-15mph...I was really stopped, just going through heavy traffic. (I can't tell you exact splits... I know the distance and I now it took 1.5 hours)
I also got passed by tens perhaps hundreds of cyclists...I wasn't counting
tjagain1.5 m passing is possible and right everywhere
Nonsense. You've got this stuck in your head as right and just won't deviate, bonkers. TJ, you're bonkers.
Filtering is a completely different case AS THE CARS ARE STATIONARY
Always??
Bez's Newton's Law thing is interesting, but really it's irrelevant - the reason we don't like close passes is because it's dangerous and can be frightening.
The only reason drivers don't like "close passes" (ie. filtering) is because they don't like something without an engine making better progress than them. (Or they just irrationally "don't like cyclists" when in their car)
Just for Steve: two articles to help explain why someone making their own decision to come relatively close to a steel cage is not the same as the person in the steel cage making the unilateral decision to come close to someone without a steel cage: not only are the vehicles massively (in every sense) different, but the owner of the decision is, too.
The difference is mass merely poses the question of the latter ...
What I decide to do as risk on the road is not simply down to me. The fact the driver is in a 1.5Tonne steel cage just makes it more important that I don't run into them.
The passing difference doesn't really change because if I'm cycling through traffic at low speeds and get knocked off the real danger is being knocked under another vehicle rather than the collision (or backdraft) itself.
The reasons to pass a car safely on a bike are because you are the vulnerable one. Just as you may need to swerve on a bike so a driver may have to swerve in a car or bus to avoid hitting something or someone the cyclist hasn't seen.
I used to race cars down big hills on roads when I was young... now i race my bike down trails that are specifically for riding a bike down as fast as possible. That myself or friends weren't killed is a miracle as we would pass cars as fast as possible on blind bends... our favourites being Pendle Hill and Black Hill (being super local) and the drop into Malham. I remember the drop into Malham specifically because I nearly died... going round a blind bend with a car coming up the hill.
In non of these was I remotely able to stop ... even a sheep running out would have been serious and possibly fatal. Hitting a car going up the hill would have been very nasty and doesn't just affect me.
I'm a big boy, and I don't want anyone legislating I'm not allowed to take my bike off the road as fast as possible.
If I want to jump across a 10' gap on foot then again I don't want that legislating against but if that 10' gap is a railway then it's completely different.
What we do on roads (or railways) is an area that affects everyone. If someone wants to jump off a cliff or side a bike down a trail then that's one thing... if someone wants to jump in front of a train that's entirely another.
I never filter past moving cars and I would like to know it what cicumstances you think less than 1.5 m passing is safe.
The newton's law thing is stupid. Very big difference in the force carried by a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60mph, and that of a 60 kg cyclist travelling at 12mph.
I'm genuinely shocked at the ignorance displayed in the original clip. It surely shows a high degree of incompetence and would warrant a complaint?
If they were to say they didn't have the resources to pursue such claims, that wouldn't surprise me. But the police officer is suggesting that the cyclist must not veer off their line, in order to survive. And because the car did not directly cause the cyclist to move the few inches required for them to be killed, no crime is being committed.
The whole conversation completely ignores the fact, that the move was unnecessarily dangerous, and takes no consideration to the fact that something as simple as a pothole in the road, or a gust of wind could make a pass like that fatal.
The highway code used to encourage drivers to give cyclists enough room to 'fall in the road'.
The precedence being set here, is that any deviation from your line is your own fault.
That's without even mentioning the very real scenario of drivers misjudging these small distances.
Bez’s Newton’s Law thing is interesting, but really it’s irrelevant – the reason we don’t like close passes is because it’s dangerous and can be frightening.
The only reason drivers don’t like “close passes” (ie. filtering) is because they don’t like something without an engine making better progress than them. (Or they just irrationally “don’t like cyclists” when in their car)
The reason I don't like class passes is because it's frightening ...
Much as it seems some people don't want to see it I don't want to kill or seriously injure another road user.... what I don't like is them cutting me up and removing options to drive safely for other road users. If I have to swerve or jump on my brakes for ANY road user I get annoyed because it forces me to make unplanned moves. Regardless of if the car behind runs into the back of me and it's their fault... or not I just don't want to be in an accident when driving.
Whether they are making better progress or not really doesn't concern me.
I’m a big boy, and I don’t want anyone legislating I’m not allowed to take my bike off the road as fast as possible.
If I want to jump across a 10′ gap on foot then again I don’t want that legislating against but if that 10′ gap is a railway then it’s completely different.
I have no idea where you are heading now....
If you cause an accident by going faster than is safe then you will have to face the chance of prosecution.
The police could issue a ticket or raise a case using any of the laws they have now - same as mobiles you don't need a specific law to say somebody is not paying attention by using a phone, it just reinforces to drivers that it is bad. the 1.5m is there to give drivers a reference point that getting close to cyclists is bad.
Bez’s Newton’s Law thing is interesting, but really it’s irrelevant – the reason we don’t like close passes is because it’s dangerous and can be frightening.
It's simplistic rather than irrelevant: it explains the basis of why close passes are dangerous and frightening, which is that there's too small a margin between you and something which is heavy and fast enough to maim or kill you.
Without the mass or speed—say if someone gently wafts a feather six inches from your face—there is neither danger nor fear.
Equally there isn't when someone cycles past a steel cage that can be crashed into a wall at 40mph without even any injury to the occupants: the mild apprehension of a scratch in the paint or the selfish anger about someone else not having committed themselves to having to wait in a traffic queue are not the same 🙂
tjagain
I never filter past moving cars and I would like to know it what cicumstances you think less than 1.5 m passing is safe.
I'll find a video of me filtering past moving cars.
Less than 1.5m is safe when the circumstances dictate that it is safe.
I'd get annoyed about that close pass in the original video (just like I got annoyed when close passed by a tractor - "When big things close pass" in my history), but I wouldn't report it to the cops. Just no point.
Very big difference in the force carried by a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60mph, and that of a 60 kg cyclist travelling at 12mph.
It's nothing to do with the force unless the two actually collide.... the far more real danger is the backdraft or changes in sidewinds.
Passing a truck doing 20 mph at 30 mph still exposes the same side winds...pulling out from behind it the same back drafts.
The 2 tons becomes relevant if the next car you swerve into crushes your head like a pineapple.
The whole conversation completely ignores the fact, that the move was unnecessarily dangerous, and takes no consideration to the fact that something as simple as a pothole in the road, or a gust of wind could make a pass like that fatal.
I completely agree ... more to the point neither the driver nor the cyclist could predict any of these.
In this case I'm astounded by the police conversation .... but then I'm not because the whole thing is left open to judgement. I personally can't see how the passing would have been OK with ANY road user including another car... hence why I think there need to be clear and reciprocal proper rules.
1.5m on THAT road is an absolute minimum... whether you are overtaking a car or a bike.
1.5m in traffic at 10mph seems too much