I saw this a few moments ago, discussion of introducing a new close pass law to fine drivers £100 if they do not give cyclists sufficient room when passing. I was amazed by how many people are hurt on bikes each year, and these are just the ones that get reported, how many close calls are there as well:
"Recent figures released by the Department for Transport showed there were 18,450 pedal cyclist casualties in the year ending September 2017, of which 3,750 (20 per cent) were killed or seriously injured. Around 100 cyclists are killed in the UK every year"
I guess the key to this and its success will be the video camera evidence we can all conjure up after a close call.
Will there be similar fines for cyclists who dodge in and out of lines of traffic, do not signal when changing direction, ride at night without lights and ignore red stop signs ?
Not sure if you are for or against this proposal John?
I'm against stupid, reckless driving AND cycling.
You need to get into your Oxford commas mate.
If I had put a comma before the " and " it would have read that I'm against stupid, reckless driving, and I'm against cycling. Which I'm not.
A few years back the police response to an increase in cyclist casualties was a focus on fining cyclists for not having lights, jumping red lights, etc (although there was no evidence that these were contributory factors) and these exercises still happen.
So, yes for some of the above.
There already are fines for at least two of those. And the premise of your criticism, that you can only address one problem if you also address every other problem, is silly.
Did you paste this from the comments section of the Mail Online?
This can be done under existing law (driving without due care) where police -- who can capture *evidential* video, private citizens have a much lower (though not zero) chance in that regard -- can be deployed. But Austerity??
Introducing a specific 'close-pass' law has no chance, I consider, in the current parliamentary timetable. Brexit, anyone.
John D points out one aspect of the thousands of anti-social behaviours. But selectively.
Andrew reminds us of that appropriate campaign (December 2016?) to challenge cyclists not using lights or otherwise not observing the law.
Me? I use public transport now, mostly, though I still drive when I need to, but I regularly cycled in London for a 30 year period, so I see both sides. And yes, I was close-passed many years ago and ended up on the road, fortunately only scuffed. But I was more resilient and flexible then, I doubt I'd be injury-free now.
I'm not convinced the campaign was appropriate in the context. None of the incidents that prompted the crackdown were related to cyclists not having lights or jumping red lights, the crackdown was just so the police could be seen to be doing something, not necessarily something effective.
I've no issues with cyclists being pulled up for those things and being fined but, as your ABD link says, the approach should be evidence based. A crackdown on those causing the accidents rather than the victims would have been more appropriate.
In terms of the law itself, I'm not sure it's necessary. The effort would be better spent on educating drivers (if you spend all your time cocooned in a metal box you're probably not aware of how scary being close passed at 40mph is) and pushing for more convictions using existing legislation.
Selectively perhaps, but in this context, looking for balance and fairness between the treatment of cyclist v motorist.
It's easy to quote numbers but, of the 18,450 casualties, how many were the result of the cyclist's recklessness ?
Ah, victim blaming. You see reckless cycling and presume that they end up as part of the statistics. Actually, the cyclists that end up dead are the ones cycling slowly and carefully, in London women figure disproportionately in the death statistics.