“Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”: Hi-vis police officer close passed by lorry driver

Well that brings up some interesting discussion points:

1) When setting off, how much control do you have?

2) Does magic paint overrule 1.5 metres?

3) How good does a rider have to be before they are allowed on the road? Given the amazingly low standard of driving in the UK, doesn't #cyclelikeyoudrive apply?

I'd really like a definitive answer to no. 2 because on our local cycle lane the width you are given clearly is not based on safe passing but on whether there is oncoming traffic - yes, drive the line, no, give cyclist space.

For 2) where the road is multi lane and the lanes go in different directions, can it be considered to be overtaking with respect to the HC?

If you look at the relevant sections it is all about having to use a different lane to the one you are in to pass someone in an overtake https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

hirsute wrote:

For 2) where the road is multi lane and the lanes go in different directions, can it be considered to be overtaking with respect to the HC?

If you look at the relevant sections it is all about having to use a different lane to the one you are in to pass someone in an overtake https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

I would argue it's clear that yes, you are still "overtaking" according to the HC even if you are in another lane. One of the bullet points under R163 discusses traffic queueing in different lanes, and certainly implies that passing traffic in another lane falls within the definition of "overtaking". See also R264, R267 and R268 - they are in a section about motorways, but again it is clear that moving past traffic in a different lane is considered overtaking. 

I would also mention that the lanes in question didn't "go in different directions". The left hand lane is marked straight and left, with an additional informational arrow informing that the left turn takes you onto the A10 - it is not a mandatory left-lane-turns-left. https://goo.gl/maps/6hzmAYCLNobUZDFH8  

In that case, I picked out the wrong still from the video where there was just a left arrow.

I found it rather ironic that he did that literally just after saying the driver would get "Undue care and attention" then drifted across into the next lane without looking, right in front of a taxi that has to take avoiding action. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Did he? Seems the lane went from 2 - 3 at that point and he stayed in lane and taxi driver stayed in lane. 

srchar wrote:

Crap positioning by the police officer ...

Which is irrelevant. As good police officers on Twitter often point out, it is the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle overtaking to do so safely, not the opertor of the vehicle being overtaken to facilitate it. If a cyclist is riding in a "crap position" that doesn't absolve the overtaker of their responsibliity. 

The bottom line is that motor vehicles should give cyclists 1.5m of clearance at up to 30mph and more at higher speeds, regardless of how good or bad the cyclist's position on the road is. 

It's not like every car we have to deal with on the roads always positions themselves in the perfect position after all. 

If that was a single lane of traffic and the lorry was travelling in the opposite direction, would the cyclist position himself that close to the edge of their lane? Doubtful, and in that case nobody would be saying that the lorry driver was at fault, even though it would be even more dangerous.

I don't know what the opposing traffic was like (in London, usually pretty bad) but assuming the lorry couldn't pull out because there were cars coming the other way, the positioning of the cyclist was blocking 2 entire lanes of traffic for no good reason (eg because they were using the right-hand lane for navigating a junction). He looked like he was off in his own little world and not paying attention to the road around him (you know, lack of 'due care and attention'...) a point he would later prove by drifting across into the next lane without looking or indicating, right in front of a taxi, forcing them to take avoiding action (something cyclists are still required to do like other motor vehicles).

I know a bike is unlikely to do more than scratch a car/lorry (and certainly not hurt the driver, unless the evasive action caused a crash with another vehicle) and doesn't excuse close passes, but it seems rather hypocritical to complain at someone else's bad driving after causing the situation and then weaving across lanes.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

srchar wrote:

Crap positioning by the police officer ...

 

The bottom line is that motor vehicles should give cyclists 1.5m of clearance at up to 30mph and more at higher speeds...

Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn't have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can. 
 

Why can't all forces agree on the interpretation of a rule/law, and uphold any breaches of that interpretation?

Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn't have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can

Although I only know about Lancashire Police, what Cheshire probably mean is that if the close-passers have to squeeze right next to you because of oncoming traffic, or even if they just feel like it although the other lane is clear, then if they didn't kill or injure you, then it's OK

Just a warning letter in essex for this

https://twitter.com/MrJasonJay/status/1529374098408755200

and a letter in sussex for this

https://twitter.com/BTNSharkBike/status/1425175199121612804

AidanR wrote:

I can't help but think that if this had been submitted as footage to the police instead of happening to a police officer, they wouldn't have dreamt of prosecuting.

Exactly.  It hardly seems fair that this driver is prosecuted when tens of thousands of worse incidents happen every day, and are submitted to the police but no further action happens.

I have to agree here. The police cyclist had a very odd road position. Ultimately the lorry should have hung back as the lanes were very narrow and the cyclists quite spread out, but there are much worse close-passes to worry about. At least there was the option for the cyclist to move to the left.

hirsute wrote:

Not really sure what they wanted the driver to do when he is going slow and steady in his lane. Are they really saying he can't continue in his own lane (straight on) regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left ?

He can continue in his own lane without overtaking - the cyclist isn't stationary. If (for example) I'm driving my car round a bend and there's an HGV in the lane to the left and in front of me, and my lane is clear, I don't overtake and say 'I was in my lane!' - I hold back and give the lorry driver the space they need.

Wasn't quite what I asked though - 'regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left'

Also my other question - What do they suggest happens at traffic lights where one lane is red and one green? Does this mean the lorry driver or car driver has to sit there on green until there are no cyclists in the other lane ?