That last clip proves how you cannot reason with stupidity.

i have a friend who has a very similar close pass on video during a work commute and the Police have been very keen to peruse and look to prosecute down here in Surrey.

Another bad one here. Same police force different tone though. I suppose at least they talked to the driver on this one but apparently if the driver sounds the horn its up to the cyclist to get out of the way

The most significant point in this seems to be the cyclist was actually being safe and passing the parked cars at a SAFE distance.

This is the exact point I’m making about cyclists leaving a safe gap… and it being required not just “advised” or “good practice”

The police seem to be arguing the cyclist is somehow in the wrong by following what is only “advice” and passing the parked cars safely… when the cyclist did everything to be safe but the police fall back on this not being anything but “advice” and then trying to imply that by leaving a safe gap they were somehow complicit to the driver deciding to overtake when there most obviously want room.

If I was cycling down that road no way would I go into the door opening space… where win a moment a door can be opened and either you get flung into a car, swerve into one to avoid the door or get flung UNDER a car.

Going back to what Saern said

 actually think I get where he’s coming from, because I feel the same when I am driving in traffic with bikes weaving in and out. I get nervous, not because I’m worried about them scuffing my wing mirrors, but because I know that they are far more vulnerable than me

As a driver I am nervous behind a bike that hasn’t left a gap should a door open or is passing other cars who may not know they are there.  The last thing I want is for the cyclist to feel they must pull to close to cars they are passing due to idiots like the officer in that video then using that as an excuse not to prosecute the driver who not only passed to close but tried to force the cyclist into the danger zone.

Quite honestly self defence kicks in here…

Personally, in such a situation I just double my safety margins and, if necessary, let the bike clear off ahead of me and become someone else’s problem. Defensive driving isn’t just about protecting yourself on the road…

I’d still be cringing on behalf of the cyclist if they pass cars without a safe distance. I’d just be making sure if they do get flung into the road it’s not me running over their head.

Looks a closer pass than the first?

This is an downside of defensive cycling, for some motorists it’s an invitation to push a close pass.

In the second video how can it be ‘obstruction’ when he has every right to be where he was?

Someone educate me please..

In the second video how can it be ‘obstruction’ when he has every right to be where he was?

Someone educate me please..

<div></div>
<div>That is the difference between having the right and following best practice and him actually meant to be in the safe zone.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The whole thing rests on guidance (highway code) because the drivers “best practice” is to stay on their side of the road where possible (and other guidance says to leave room) … but non of that is actually LAW… just guidance left to some potential idiot (the officer on the phone) to interpret as they see fit.</div>
<div></div>
<div>I “have a right” as it were to cross a road… and cars have an obligation not to hit me but that is not the same as the law that states they must stop if I am on a Zebra.</div>
<div>If I’m not on a Zebra they can interpret not hitting me .. they can stop or they can swerve or they can argue that they just went straight into me to avoid hitting other road users because I jumped in front of them.  In the same way it’s best practice to check your mirror before opening a door into a cyclist but that won’t somehow prevent them from serious death or injury if someone doesn’t follow it and a the same time the same police officer would presumably blame the cyclist for cycling too close to parked cars.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The next time someone sends in a video of a close pass the same officer is then free to do a 180 and again blame the cyclist for not cycling right next to parked cars… and so on.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>If I am on a Zebra they they MUST stop at any point I am on the Zebra. It’s clear and its law.</div>
<div></div>
<div>In the last video the police officer is arguing they were both doing more or less what they were supposed to do according to contradictory best practices… no-one was hurt in this instance and it saves a lot of paperwork.</div>
<div></div>

Best Practice….

Don’t cross the centrelines or solid whites? Good idea

Give Cyclists the same space you would a car/motorbike

Don’t overtake where it isn’t safe

None of those contradict do they, it all just adds up to a safe passing policy.

By the way people want to fill it with but, except, unless, if, might etc. you can see why an actual fixed rule would come in. Nobody thinks the rules apply to them.

In contrast when I’ve seen people out on horses people treat them like they are passing unstable nuclear land mines, slow as they can, miles away and almost silently. Maybe bikes need a horse escort.

That second clip is pretty horrendous. Shame the criteria wasn’t ‘deviation from line’ in that one, as he is clearly pushed slightly inward by the speed and proximity of the pass. But I guess SYP just make up the criteria as they go along in favour of whatever blarney the driver is using.

Surprised that the officer even bothered to go along for a cosy chat with the driver, but you can imagine how it went – sorry to bother you sir, but we’ve had a complaint about your driving, no I can’t see what’s wrong with it either, he’s clearly just one of those cyclists who complains about everything, but I have to discuss it with you, did you watch the Blades at the weekend, thanks for the biscuits, I’ll be on my way.

Very similar to the punishment pass I had off a Fedex driver the other day, albeit a bit closer. Moving out for parked vehicles, holding my line despite a gap in the vehicles I ‘theoretically’ could pull into (trying to avoid being boxed), driver decides he’s coming through regardless.

sorry to bother you sir, but we’ve had a complaint about your driving, no I can’t see what’s wrong with it either, he’s clearly just one of those cyclists who complains about everything

Does seem to be the case. There’s video evidence there, the cop is watching it with them and completely agreeing with the driver who says “He was in my way”. Cop is clearly not a cyclist, never has ridden a bike on the road, has not had any training as to how cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) should be treated and is thick as shit.

As I said earlier, pointless reporting it. Take it into your own hands, or just thank **** you weren’t actually hit.

Best Practice….

Don’t cross the centrelines or solid whites? Good idea

Give Cyclists the same space you would a car/motorbike

Don’t overtake where it isn’t safe

None of those contradict do they, it all just adds up to a safe passing policy.

They do when the police want them to….

The point is not to look at this as anti-cyclist but anti-work and anti-KPI’s…

The cyclist is the one making the complaint… so they are the one blamed so they drop the complaint the lazy/overworked?? officer doesn’t have to do any follow-up work… and the incident never occurred so doesn’t affect the KPI’s.

It’s no different to many other things… I once watched a motorbike go past a car and throw a brick through the window… my friend called the police who then started asking if it was HIS car… when he said no they just increasingly threatened him with hassle like having to go to the police station and file a report etc. if he insisted on reporting it.

By the way people want to fill it with but, except, unless, if, might etc. you can see why an actual fixed rule would come in. Nobody thinks the rules apply to them.

Because they are not rules but best practice and inconsistent.

As I was saying a SAFE passing distance is a SAFE passing distance it doesn’t matter if you are in a car or a on cycle..

The video illustrates this…. be you on a bike or in a car driving inside the door opening zone is unsafe.

In a car, bus or on a cycle… passing closer than is safe at a speed is the same.  That it’s the cyclist that comes a cropper is not relevant BECAUSE otherwise drivers will not get it but also because its simply the case.  Cyclists need to swerve but so do cars and buses and vans…. If a cyclist is 30cm away from your car then that swerve if a kid runs into the road or any other unexpected event is not possible without hitting a cyclist.

In contrast when I’ve seen people out on horses people treat them like they are passing unstable nuclear land mines, slow as they can, miles away and almost silently. Maybe bikes need a horse escort.

If you speak to horse riders they will doubtless disagree but therein lies the part of the problem….

I’m blown away by the last clip. Are these police forces not accountable to anyone?

They cannot get away with that surely? And I’m talking about the police. They have just blamed the victim for being in the way – when they were exactly where they should be, and is recommended for their own safety.

Kudos to both cyclists for staying cool and maintaining a reasoned and rational conversation in the face of complete stupidity.

both cyclists

Same bloke innit. He has practice. Really don’t know how he can be arsed, but there you go – gets nice vids for his channel, I suppose.

I’m blown away by the last clip. Are these police forces not accountable to anyone?

Yes, they are accountable to KPI’s.

The driver did nothing illegal… at least nothing that can’t be argued with.  It’s simply easier for them that “nothing happened” as it doesn’t affect their KPI’s or involve extra work.

There is no law that say’s 1.4m… there is just guidance … and that guidance cannot be universally applied so the police can simplify their lives by ignoring it.

Do you realistically think as an example that 1.4m can be enforced?

If a cyclist passes a car at <1.4m then slows down so the car then passes them for example …. I don’t think its reasonable to blame the driver for the cations of the cyclist… which is why there should be a universal rule and clear when it doesn’t apply.

Its like I cross the road and a car swerves uncomfortably close to me.

If I’m on a Zebra then its clear cut…. if I’m crossing elsewhere “close” can be argued..so the police will often just take one that can be argued and simplify their lives and KPI’s.  Ultimately unless someone actually gets hit its just easier for the police to pretend nothing happened.

If the law actually properly supported and enforced the cyclist riding safely then there is no possibility of discussion.  It’s like theft from a shop…. it can be clear as day that someone stuffing stuff down their pants is planning to steal it… but they haven’t actually stolen it until they try to leave without paying. (At least so far as I know its not a crime to act like your about to steal)

Anyone watching the video can see that the motorist is WAY in the wrong and the cyclist does everything correctly.  You don’t NEED to be a cyclist to have this pointed out…. but that isn’t the point to police forces driven by KPI’s and budgets.

The only way this will change other than a fundamental change in policing and police funding is by making the law clear.  The cyclist must be required to have a door clearance passing parked cars and minimum distance from other cars and then any move by a driver that compromises that is not arguable.

Equally drivers need a VERY specific set of conditions (like when it’s OK to pass on the left) where 1.4m does not apply and anything else is a non arguable prosecution.  e.g. it may be OK to define when travelling <5mph … or when travelling <40 mph and the cyclist is in  physically separated lane. (These are just examples)