Driver banned and appeal denied for close pass on cyclists

Rotor

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50082056



About time it was taken seriously. 'Punishment passes' are highly dangerous.

Heliflyguy

Yet I can be in a car travelling up to 25 mph and cyclists will happily pass on my left or right close enough to be considered too close if it were the other way round.

I don't condone the actions of the driver or any that put lives of other road users at risk but unfortunately it seems a lot of cyclist don't like slowing down and staying with the flow of the traffic.

Car_54

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Yet I can be in a car travelling up to 25 mph and cyclists will happily pass on my left or right close enough to be considered too close if it were the other way round.

Possibly. But in any collision between bike and car the cyclist will almost always come off worse.
There is a big difference between a cyclist deliberately putting himself at risk, and a driver putting the cyclist at risk - whether through malice or incompetence.

Rotor

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Yet I can be in a car travelling up to 25 mph and cyclists will happily pass on my left or right close enough to be considered too close if it were the other way round.

I don't condone the actions of the driver or any that put lives of other road users at risk but unfortunately it seems a lot of cyclist don't like slowing down and staying with the flow of the traffic.

But that's just empty whataboutery. I do many things in my life that I know increase risks to me and still do them. I drink above the recommended guidelines, I eat too much salt , I used to go paragliding - They're risks I choose to take whereas dangerous driving is imposed on me by someone not at risk themselves

Johno100

[quote=[Deleted User];76432065]Possibly. But in any collision between bike and car the cyclist will almost always come off worse.
There is a big difference between a cyclist deliberately putting himself at risk, and a driver putting the cyclist at risk - whether through malice or incompetence.[/QUOTE]

That comes down to the laws of physics, heavy metal things versus soft squashy things usually only ends one way.

Rotor wrote: »

But that's just empty whataboutery. I do many things in my life that I know increase risks to me and still do them. I drink above the recommended guidelines, I eat too much salt , I used to go paragliding - They're risks I choose to take whereas dangerous driving is imposed on me by someone not at risk themselves

No, you've also made a choice to use a 19th century play thing as your chosen mode of transport around relatively fast moving motor vehicles. Take some responsibility for that choice as well as what you eat and drink.

spadoosh

Johno100 wrote: »

That comes down to the laws of physics, heavy metal things versus soft squashy things usually only ends one way.



No, you've also made a choice to use a 19th century play thing as your chosen mode of transport around relatively fast moving motor vehicles. Take some responsibility for that choice as well as what you eat and drink.

Do you think like this outside of the roads?

Ie, if youre walking down the street and someone attacks you as you walk past, youd take responsibility for it because you chose to walk past? Or is the specifically in relation to 19th century play things?

Johno100

spadoosh wrote: »

Do you think like this outside of the roads?

Ie, if youre walking down the street and someone attacks you as you walk past, youd take responsibility for it because you chose to walk past? Or is the specifically in relation to 19th century play things?

No, because that is someone trying to deliberately hurt you. But I would think like that if I was wandering around a rail marshalling yard where big heavy trains were being shunted.

Rotor

Johno100 wrote: »

That comes down to the laws of physics, heavy metal things versus soft squashy things usually only ends one way.



No, you've also made a choice to use a 19th century play thing as your chosen mode of transport around relatively fast moving motor vehicles. Take some responsibility for that choice as well as what you eat and drink.

Wow , well this has taken an unexpected direction. So it's the cyclists fault because they're vulnerable! There's a certain logic there I suppose - no point doing a dangerously close pass if it's not dangerous.

Do you apply this neanderthalic logic to other vulnerable groups or just your known pet hate of cyclists?

Is it womens' own fault if they're sexually assaulted for being weaker, on average , than men. They're vulnerable and they know it yet they still insist on going outside?

Johno100

Rotor wrote: »

Wow , well this has taken an unexpected direction. So it's the cyclists fault because they're vulnerable!

Yes, because they've made a choice to use that mode of transport.

Rotor wrote: »

Do you apply this neanderthalic logic to other vulnerable groups or just your known pet hate of cyclists?

Is it womens' own fault if they're sexually assaulted for being weaker, on average , than men. They're vulnerable and they know it yet they still insist on going outside?

Don't be silly. You seem quite happy to take responsibility for what you eat, drink and your leisure pursuit but you suddenly become the sacred cow when you are out on the road on your pushbike and it is up to everybody else to look out for you because you're 'vulnerable'.

Rotor

Seriously Johno is there no one you know and love or just like and respect that rides a bike? because they'll meet people with your attitude and consequently and however timorously and deferentially they ride will be in much greater danger that they need be.

The car in the OP was 2 inches away!! I veer more than 2 inches hundreds and hundreds of times every ride - it's part of the natural rhythm of cycling . Just plain dumb luck no one was seriously injured as , luckily the judge agreed

parking_question_chap

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Yet I can be in a car travelling up to 25 mph and cyclists will happily pass on my left or right close enough to be considered too close if it were the other way round.

I don't condone the actions of the driver or any that put lives of other road users at risk but unfortunately it seems a lot of cyclist don't like slowing down and staying with the flow of the traffic.

Speaking as a motorist and a cyclist.

The 1.5metre rule is advisory. A driver can pass a cyclist leaving less than 1.5m and pose no danger to the cyclist, and create no sense of danger. On the flip side cyclists can pass cars leaving less than 1.5m and again posing no danger to self or car. Indeed there are many roads where its just not possible to allow 1.5m, else drivers would be crashing into cars on the other side of the road.

I am often passed closely and it doesnt bother me as long as the driver does not suddenly cut in front and have to slow down due to traffic.

As long as police only prosecute depending on the merits of the individual incidents I think this is fair to both motorists and cyclists. Turning to the incident at hand, I dont think anybody can condone passing a cyclist and only leaving 2 inches.