Police close pass campaign met with the usual 'but cyclists' complaints; Cycling dictator back on the bike; Don't text while cycling; Is this the coolest jersey money can buy?; Fabio Jakobsen is back; Vote for Jumbo-Visma Tour kit + more on the live blog

Sure - but even if it does get added to the Highway Code, that won't make it law.

(The 1.5m predates the proposed HC changes - it's come from various road safety campaigns that have coalesced around it, particularly popularised by the close pass mat campaign.)

"Sure - but even if it does get added to the Highway Code, that won't make it law."

all true but semantic, because:

a) failure to comply with the Highway Code may constitute evidence of a general offence, such as driving without due care and attention; but

b) you have to find one or more police officers, the CPS and a court to care enough to pursue the case.

Of course it's semantic, but, when it comes to the law, semantics do tend to matter quite a lot.

I will hold up my hand and state I last looked through the HC in '92  just before my driving test (pre theory and hazard perceptions, just the examiner asking me five questions in the car at the end of the lesson). I probably briefly covered it in 2005 or so when the Mrs was learning but it is only recently on this site that I have had the most exposure (mostly on cycling of course).

And this is why I will back any party that proposes mandatory retests every 10 years. (usual caveats on other policies not being facist/ racist/ flat earthist)

As an aside, it would be interesting to find out re-pass rates for those who are required to take an extended test to regain their license after criminal activity. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I will hold up my hand and state I last looked through the HC in '92  just before my driving test (pre theory and hazard perceptions, just the examiner asking me five questions in the car at the end of the lesson). I probably briefly covered it in 2005 or so when the Mrs was learning but it is only recently on this site that I have had the most exposure (mostly on cycling of course).

No time like the present:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

It's good to go through it.  It's also good to follow up the references to the various legislation, because that is where the real power lies in law.

For what it's worth, I recall the stress of doing my driving test.  I'm not sure I want people to fac e that on a regular basis, or the collective hardship that a lot of people would face from suddenly losing their licences any time an error led to a fail.  But I do think that regular CPC - just like HGV and PSV drivers face - should be mandatory.  I know HGC/PSV drivers criticise it, but if it the programme of available course programmes was well designed to cover things we should know, it has some value.  Cycle awareness training is often free as a CPC course, for example.  Attend a course in person, verify your identity, pass the attitude test for the course, and you get the credit.

I also think that GPs and other health professionals should have a duty to report unfit drivers to DVLA, with a robust process for limiting, suspending or removing licences on health grounds.

I disagree about GPs etc having to report anything - that's not their job and shouldn't be. Otherwise, there's a disincentive for people to go and get checked up for something if they suspect that it might lead to getting a license revoked. It's better if people feel free to discuss private health matters with their GP in strict confidence and if people are unfit to drive on the public roads, then that's for the police (or public with cams) to detect and enforce.

That is fair enough.  However, looking further, it turns out there is a duty, if a patient continues to drive after being diagnised as unfit to do so.

So a doctor, whose first duty is to preserve life, should allow people who have a history of blackouts, cataracts, mounting befuddlement or other conditions that could cause them to be a danger to themselves and other people because otherwise they won't go to the Doctor. And we should hope they get detected quite by accident before they do cause deaths.  

At worst case that attitude can cause 21 people to be killed or seriously injured in one incident (although there were medical failures anyway in that one) but I'm sure the widow in the other story today and many others over the years would disagree.

Doctors have enough to do without having to worry about what their patients decide to do. They should definitely let the patient know that their condition can affect their driving but it should be down to the patient to contact the DVLA and some harsh penalties for neglecting their duty.

The best idea would be to have periodic re-tests of drivers and maybe include a simple eyesight test. That way you can include a questionnaire covering the most common issues and get the driver to declare that they're good to drive.

I daresay that poor driving skills are a far bigger cause of collisions than diagnosed medical causes so having better enforcement of driving standards deals with road safety far more effectively.

So if they shouldn't have to worry about what a patient decides to do, well if it is taken out of the patients hands, then they don't have to worry. 

As an hypotehtical, would you be against a Doctor calling the Police if a patient came in suffering from some mental episode, states that they have a knife in their bag and feel that they need to knife someone because the voices in their head tells them to? Or should they tell them to voluntarily go to the Police station or voluntarily go and get checked in at the nearest mental speclist establishment. Or If they present with Self harm, do they ask them to voluntarily go to the hosptial? 

And with the modern computer systems, it wouldn't be hard to mark a code against the patients records that auto refers them to the DVLA and lets them process the for a follow up Medical with approved Doctors to test suitability and then fully remove or leave them with the license depending on results of that. After all, that is what alot do now with mailouts etc. 

I'd imagine anyone would call the police if confronted with someone threatening violence with a knife, so that's a bit of a straw man argument, and I'm not aware that doctors would enforce a hospital visit for someone self harming.

The issue is whether putting an additional onus on doctors to ensure that patients are safe to drive prevents more RTCs than it prevents people from visiting the doctor as they're concerned about the doctor shopping them in.

Well the scenarios are covered  in the Section 12 of the Mental Health Act which a GP can invoke if he believes a patient is a danger to themselves or to others through a mental act, why can't something similar be introduced for physical issues.

And yes, if mandatory reporting is brought in there is a danger people might not go to the GP/Opticians if they are having issues that might remove their license. But why then is that different to them going but then not self reporting? At least with the former the GP's conscience is clear when he sees a report of a lorry driver causing 21 casulaties on the news. We have evidence the current system is a problem. Lets see about fixing some of those issues first and then try to curb others that might come up if they do.

Yes, aresholes will arsehole and let their health deteriorate but others will go in under their own will of self preservation first and it just means their selfishness ofnot caring for others by not self reporting is not their option anymore. 

"I'd like to die like my old dad, peacefully in his sleep, not screaming like his passengers."

I think ultimately my point is that it's only a tiny amount of cases where the patient has a diagnosis that would entail a permanent driving ban and that they continue driving. In other cases, it might be a temporary condition, so it'd seem unnecessary to invoke the DVLA for when a patient shouldn't drive for a couple of weeks (e.g. sprained ankle).

I think it's messing around at the edges when what we need is quicker detection of poor driving and tougher enforcement - that covers almost all cases and would save more lives.

I was only talking about the scenarios where the Doctor states you shouldn't drive anymore and need to hand over the license to the DVLA / tell your employer. I doubt they do that for a broken arm or sprained ankle. They do for failing eyesight, slowing reactions or unexplained sudden blackouts and other delipidating illnesses though. 

I also mentioned that the DVLA would do a final medical check to confirm the eligibility to drive (2nd opinion). I would hope that the reviews could be expedited for some rather then others depending on the seriousness of the nature. (Similar to urgent hospital referral rather then routine referrals depending on patient)

And it is not an either all. I would also like the last line as well (and as stated you and me regulalry Retests) but the people who this part affects might drive well for most of the time and then have the episode so why not leave have it in as well to make it as safe.

As many of the comments show, it is not a lack of awareness on the part of many close-passing motorists, they actually believe they are justified. Until they unwittingly kill the loved one of a friend or colleague and are faced with the full monstrosity of their self-justifying bile, the grieving mother asking them "why?", what was so important about their ten seconds that justified another person's lifetime, they won't get it. Maybe not even then. Sovereign in your own car, it does things to the psychology of people. Well meaning police campaigns will only scratch the surface, for some it will even harden their attitudes. I don't know what the answer is.
Edit
This sort of thing might be part of the answer:
https://twitter.com/KatyCycles/status/1379892084216369166?s=20

I often get the feeling a lot of it is frustration/anxiety that cyclists actually force drivers to drive carefully and think about how they are driving.

There's also the issue of drastically overestimating time-savings of overtakes,. I used to routinely keep track of the average speed of my car journeys (usually a 35 minute mostly M-way drive to my place of work on days when I couldn't cycle). My average speed was very rarely more than 30mph, and often closer to 25mph. As a fit cyclist I usually tap along at 15mph. It would require a driver to be stuck behind me for over a minute for my presence to have delayed their journey *a single minute* of their time (even assuming that they don't subsequently stop at a set of traffic lights/junction/to pick up a coffee). In urban areas, I'm nearly always quicker on my bike than a car would be. If you use a bike computer actually pay attention to how long drivers wait behind you - it's rarely more than 10 seconds. Drivers threaten the lives of cyclists because of the MGIF mentality, not because overtaking is actually a pracitcal or necessary thing to do.