Hampshire police officers last week stopped both motorists and cyclists in the New Forest as part of the force’s Give Space, Be Safe campaign. The Bournemouth Echo reports that seven drivers were stopped for passing a plain clothes police cyclist too closely, while 15 cyclists were given advice and “high-visibility freebies.”
Sergeant Rob Heard said: “The week’s activities were a great success. We have seen a marked improvement with drivers giving plenty of space and time when overtaking cyclists.
He added: “A close pass not only presents danger to the cyclist but it’s also intimidating. Drivers should be allowing other road users as much room they would a car – but many seem to not know this, or choose to ignore it. Remember that any cyclist you overtake could be our police cyclist.”
New Forest defends its record on cycling following unflattering comparison to other national parks
Similar operations were also run in Portsmouth and Southampton. In all cases, motorists opted for roadside education using Cycling UK’s close pass mat rather than prosecution.
In Portsmouth, seven drivers were stopped for passing too closely when overtaking the police cyclist, while officers issued 15 cyclists with fixed penalty notices for not having lights and spoke with more than 150 about what lights and clothing they should have to ensure they are visible. Those fined can however avoid paying if they buy new lights from an approved cycle shop in the area within 28 days.
In Southampton six drivers were stopped, while 20 cyclists were spoken to – two for riding through red lights.
Explaining why a close pass operation had seen so many cyclists stopped, Heard said: “We have not only been targeting poor driving behaviour, we have also been targeting cyclists and other road users whose behaviour may make them more at risk of being involved in a collision.”
Add new comment
47 comments
this I have reported a few now. I get several close passes every bloody day in Southampton. Even with video they don’t follow up. Not in the publics interest dear boy!
You are clearly cycling in the wrong part. You need to cycle in the part where most drivers know that there are police about frequently so they give cyclists sufficient room.
It got into the local paper so people have read about the close passes. Hopefully some will have thought about their driving.
If they're stopping cyclists without lights I've no problems either. Would you rather they were given a free pass and sent on their way in the dark ?
They would so the driver who eventually runs them over wouldn't be prosecuted making it more difficult for that cyclist to claim compensation.
I would hope that the tickets were cancelled upon presenting proof that you now have satisfactory lights installed and working... that's what some forces do, give you a week to do so.
28 days - it says so in the article you didn't bother to read.
No and frankly how anyone could defend otherwise is beyond me
A close pass initiative which stopped nine times more cyclists than drivers. This was not a close pass initiative, it was a stop cyclists initiative, with a few token drivers stopped to make it look good.
Surrey and Hants police forces.
In urgent need of education re their reponsibilities and duties.
A flying visit from a neighbouring force with somewhat more enlightened ways should (ideally with Cycling UK to explain more fully how things work on the roads) might do the trick.
" seven drivers were stopped for passing too closely when overtaking the police cyclist, while officers issued 15 cyclists with fixed penalty notices for not having lights and spoke with more than 150 about what lights and clothing they should have to ensure they are visible. "
FFS they can't help themselves can they? No matter how they start out it always dengenerates into handing out tickets...
I find it difficult to believe that the ratio of cyclists not having the correct lights to drivers passing too close was that high. As for advising on clothing for cyclists, that's none of their fucking business. Would they tell the driver of a black car to get a fluorescent paint job on it?
[/quote] I find it difficult to believe that the ratio of cyclists not having the correct lights to drivers passing too close was that high. As for advising on clothing for cyclists, that's none of their fucking business. Would they tell the driver of a black car to get a fluorescent paint job on it?[/quote]
Oh I can, I'm a cyclist and a taxi driver in Portsmouth and the vast majority of people on bikes in the city, dont use lights.
Wholeheartedly agree. The wrong message is being sent out here. Call me cynical, but why couldn't they pull up drivers for other offences not related to close passing, just like they did to the cyclists?
The number of cars with disfunctional lights at the moment is insane, don't see or hear about them getting stopped?! Got overtaken last week at 9pm by a car with absolutely no rear lights, tried signalling a number of times by waving my hand over my stupidly bright lights but the driver was oblivious.
Close passes are dangerous to vulnerable road users, pedestrians crossing the road aren't required to wear lights, or hi-viz... So why target vulnerable road users who pose no danger to anyone?
And then there are the drivers who use spotlamps to dazzle everyone, which is illegal unless visibility is less than 100m, I think, but am willing to be corrected. Never seen anyone pulled over for this, but there are thousands of them out there.
Reminds me of the submission I sent to Viz Top Tips "Drivers, if you use spotlamps all the time during the hours of darkness, have you considered strapping a 14" flourescent pink dildo to the roof of your car so that we'll know in daylight too." Don't think they printed it.
I don't - still baffled on my daily london commute how many cyclists consider lights and optional extra. Frankly what excuse anyone could have not to use lights, it won't cut it with me. At least dutch and belgian police take no rubbish from folks not having lights, it's a guaranteed 60EUR fine and a walk home !
So you're telling us that cyclists are nealry 10 times more likely to cause accidents than motorists... Great job!
Pages