A genuinely good cycling initiative

[ClichéGuevara]

Police and council armed with cameras will be pulling drivers over today - here's why

Hull City Council has teamed up with the Local Police to target drivers who overtake too close to cyclists, making the roads a greater hazard for those travelling on two wheels.

The initiative will see specially-trained riders, wearing helmet cameras, on roads around the city filming anyone who breaks the rules.

A similar operation which ran in the West Midlands showed a "noticeable drop in cycle casualties" and it is hoped it will have the same impact in Hull.

Any driver found to be in breach of the Highway Code will be pulled over by the police and be given a training session on how to overtake safely.


Don't bother with the comments, you'll have read them before.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...-news/drivers-pulled-over-police-hull-3432671

 

[swee'pea99]

Excellent! Hats off to Hull plod.

 

[Drago]

Specially trained riders, eh? Trained by whom? To what standard? Airy sounding claims like that can come back to muddy the waters come the Court date.

And why must a rider be 0.75M from the kerb? What law of man, physics or safety makes that precise measurement appropriate in all circumstances?

I'm not sure if it's just poor reporting, or poor planning and prep by the dibble. I hope the former.

 

[swee'pea99]

Specially trained riders, eh? Trained by whom? To what standard? Airy sounding claims like that can come back to muddy the waters come the Court date.

And why must a rider be 0.75M from the kerb? What law of man, physics or safety makes that precise measurement appropriate in all circumstances?

I'm not sure if it's just poor reporting, or poor planning and prep by the dibble. I hope the former.

Does that count as a dibble quibble?

 

[DaveReading]

And why must a rider be 0.75M from the kerb? What law of man, physics or safety makes that precise measurement appropriate in all circumstances?

"Cyclists are also being asked to stay at least 0.75m from the kerb to make them more visible." (per the BBC).

 

[Slick]

Scottish police did a similar scheme up here recently backed up by a TV campaign. Never ever heard any feedback on how successful it was and the only stop I actually witnessed was police pulling over a cyclist.

 

[burntoutbanger]

Scottish police did a similar scheme up here recently backed up by a TV campaign. Never ever heard any feedback on how successful it was and the only stop I actually witnessed was police pulling over a cyclist.

The cyclist probably strayed too close to the kerb...

 

[Slick]

The cyclist probably strayed too close to the kerb...

Probably. I didn't see the exactly but whatever it was, it must have been pretty innocuous.

 

[steveindenmark]

What special training do you need to know what a close pass looks and feels like?

 

[winjim]

Specially trained riders, eh? Trained by whom? To what standard? Airy sounding claims like that can come back to muddy the waters come the Court date.

And why must a rider be 0.75M from the kerb? What law of man, physics or safety makes that precise measurement appropriate in all circumstances?

I'm not sure if it's just poor reporting, or poor planning and prep by the dibble. I hope the former.

This is how Durham police are interpreting the 0.75m advice. This is just downright irresponsible and dangerous.




Edit: I just read the report in the OP. Firstly, why do the local press insist on warning drivers about this? It's like when they publish the locations of the speed cameras. Secondly, where in the HC does it state 0.75m / 1.5m? That's operation safe pass advice, not HC rules, and certainly not law as they've implied with their use of the word 'must'. Lazy journalist scum.

 

[Drago]

Do Durham police realise their chaps bike has no rear reflector?

I am indeed concerned about their interpretation of the 0.75M guidance.

 

[winjim]

Do Durham police realise their chaps bike has no rear reflector?

I am indeed concerned about their interpretation of the 0.75M guidance.

Ha. I was too busy looking at that drain cover to notice the lack of reflector.

Which, slightly off topic, is a good example of how we should practise our observation skills*.






*blah blah, gorilla, blah blah, I know.

 

[DaveReading]

I am indeed concerned about their interpretation of the 0.75M guidance.

The 0.75m is irrelevant. The only measurement that matters is the clearance between the cyclist and the passing vehicle, regardless of where the bike is positioned on the road.

 

[G3CWI]

The implication is that cyclists should be within the 0.75m line denoted in the photo. That's just misleading. Happy with the 1.5m clearance though.

I am happy to see that the Police are taking action - they deserve praise for that!

 

[Drago]

The 0.75m is irrelevant. The only measurement that matters is the clearance between the cyclist and the passing vehicle, regardless of where the bike is positioned on the road.

It is very relevant. If you're riding beyond 0.75 M for legitimate reasons - pothole, drains, to avoid a dooring, positioning yourself to select a lane ahead or make a turn - the the ignoramus among the motoring masses will take that as an excuse to close pass. "You're not sticking to the advice", they will cry, "so it's your fault."

In a sense though you are correct. The 0.75M thing is irrelevant to the subject of close passing, and the feds are wrong to mention it in the same breath. They're even more wrong to picture a bicycle (without the BS rear reflector, so unlawfully on the road anyway) as they do, giving the visual impression that cyclists should ride inside that margin.

It should be irrelevant to the subject of close passing, but it isn't because the police have inadvertantly made it so. The genie is out of the bottle.