|
Thanks everyone for their input so far, although I strongly resent the above post stating " my offending" I am trying to establish if I have offended,.
I am being prosecuted purely on the basis that I passed too close, to be prosecuted for ANY offence there has to be a law which one has broken, I'm not talking about highway code recommendations , that is what they are, a recommendation, everyone knows for example to be charged with breaking the speed limit, or having bald tyres, or the myriad of other things are well defined in law, and quite right to be prosecuted, but my question is what in law is considered too close, a foot, a yard,3 foot, etc, with no defined measurement of the actual minimum amount of space how can you face a charge, of driving without due care and attention based on being of "too close"
I should add that I considered my pass wasn't too close at all, I'm not in any rush to find a cyclist or anyone else under my front wheels, the fact remains I cannot find ANY reference in law as what constitutes "too close" so if there is no law, "law" being the operative word here, how can an offence be committed is simply all I am trying to establish
|
|
If you are confident that you have done nothing wrong then I'd take it all the way to court. Presumably the cyclist will have to attend to give evidence, then we'll see how much of a big man he is once his identity is revealed to all and he hasn't got his go-pro to hide behind...
|
|
|
|
"Driving without due care and attention for other road users" is the likely charge - it's then up to the court to decide.
Personally, I'd take the awareness course and learn from it - none of us drive perfectly.
|
|
The irony of this is there was a campaign to get a dedicated cycle track constructed following a local man being run down and killed, and yet the cyclists routinely ignore the facility.
I am not anti cyclist, but for the life of me I cannot understand why they don't use it, even though it is their prerogative not to, the fact remains that so far at least no one on here has been able to answer one simple question, at what distance passing a cyclist constitutes an offence, thanks
Edited by ekka on 09/10/2018 at 09:29
|
|
There's no "law" on what is a safe following distance or a safe speed to go round a bend. It's down to what is appropriate for the speed, weather, road conditions etc. A sort of reasonable test. Passing a cyclist is the same imo. What might be OK at 20mph would be downright dangerous at 70mph.
1 metre is an absolute minimum at low speed, but on a dual carriageway, I'd change lane.
Edited by Chris M on 09/10/2018 at 09:42
|
|
The highway code states that when passing a cyclist you should give it as much room as you would when passing a car. This is my view is rather inadequate. What is actually means is that you actually draw an outline of a car around the cyclist and pass accordingly.
The laws in Europe are much better, generally in build up areas at least 1m clearance, outside of this 1.5m.
I am a regular a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver who has got advanced driving and riding qualifications.(RoSPA Gold & IAM National Observer) The number of times I have been almost brushed by 2 tons of metal travelling at 30 mph when cycling is to many to count. It is a most unpleasant experience. How would the OP like it if suddenly a 2 tone brick was to pass inches past him at high speed, any slight deviation meaning instant death. The sudden noise and something large appearing in your immediate vision is terrifying and there is nothing you can do
Saying that my experience is that most motorists are careful and considerate when they pass me on my bicycle. I do not ride like a road warrior and mainly use my bike to get the 4 miles to work and back. I will use cycle lanes where they are provided and footpaths when posted as dual use to ease traffic flow. Living in Cambridge which is one of the most popular Cities to cycle in does help. Most of the time I can cover the 4 miles quicker on a bike than in a car
I think the OP should take the awareness course and become a better driver because of it. Also the HC needs to be updated to give much clearer advice.
|
|
|
|
|
"... the fact remains that so far at least no one on here has been able to answer one simple question, at what distance passing a cyclist constitutes an offence..."
Presumably there is no distance specified in law. The Highway Code says that drivers should “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.” (Note: "at least".)
Apparently there is a move to introduce the specification of 1.5 metres, after a trial in Cambridgeshire.
I don't think anyone can really comment on the OP, as we don't have the video available and even if we did, unless his driving was egregious, we would have a range of views on whether it was acceptable.
Despite the fact that he feels aggrieved by the perceived unfairness of what has happened, in purely practical terms the advice must be to suck it up and move on; the alternative - to contest the charge - is likely to prove very expensive and may not achieve anything.
|
|
There is no perceived unfairness, it is unfair on so many levels, we now have a situation where one group of readily identifiable road users through a system of registration who have undergone a driving test, have their vehicles checked for road worthiness, are insured, but can now routinely have footage welcomed by the police, ( mind you it saves them the trouble of actually patrolling our roads of course ) by another set of road users who remain anonymous to other road users and do pretty much what they like, if people do not agree that is completely inequitable I don't know what is.
|
|
"There is no perceived unfairness, it is unfair on so many levels..."
That is your view - it is not an accepted or provable one. Therefore it is "perceived".
And leading off into a rant about cyclists does you absolutely no favours. I did have some sympathy for your position; now I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
correct
the militant cyclists do the general cycling public no favours
and for what its worth the car drivers who leave the least room for cyclists, in my experience, are themselves members of the cycling community
|
|
|
|
|
The irony of this is there was a campaign to get a dedicated cycle track constructed following a local man being run down and killed, and yet the cyclists routinely ignore the facility.
I am not anti cyclist, but for the life of me I cannot understand why they don't use it, even though it is their prerogative not to, the fact remains that so far at least no one on here has been able to answer one simple question, at what distance passing a cyclist constitutes an offence, thanks
You are prospectively being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of up to £2,500 and 9 points. Clearly "due care" covers a wide range of seriousness right up to "very". I doubt very much if insurers treat it as lightly as an SP30 or two.
If you have been offered an awareness course instead, it suggests to me that your alleged offence has already been judged to be at the lower end of the seriousness scale.
You would have to be a complete idiot not to take it, whether or not you believe you are 'guilty'. Those telling you to fight it are not concerned with your best interests. Not only will you avoid the time and expense of a court appearance, you will receive no fine, points, conviction or consequent insurance penalties and you will end up knowing a lot more than you apparently know now about passing cyclists.
To answer your question, there is no statutory distance for passing clearance as far as I know. If you base your defence on that alone then you will fail. Some forces educate on 1.5m. which I am certain you will have found with the most cursory Google search. Evidence will be a matter of judgement (opinion). Many cases have been brought solely on the verbal evidence of a police officer. In this case there is video, presumably that will be adduced and then the court can form its own opinion. Speed will be relevant - if you passed at 30+then I'm sorry, a couple of feet would not have been enough (in my judgement).
"I missed him so I am not guilty" or "Ha ha, there is no minimum distance in law, so you can't convict me!" will not work.
|
|
|
one simple question, at what distance passing a cyclist constitutes an offence, thanks
As others have said there is no distance set out in statute. There may be decided cases on the subject but I've not got time to research that.
To prove the offence the prosecution would to show your driving fell below that of a careful and competent driver. It might be thought that a careful and competent driver would know and heed the Highway Code recommendation to give cyclists as much room as a car.
To put it bluntly no amount of huffing and puffing over cyclists ignoring lanes, being unregistered or uninsured etc etc is going to help you. I appreciate it feels unfair, I thought the same when I got a summons for passing a red light in Leicester. In a car before you think anything else!!
Bottom line is you have two choices. First is to take the course, learn from it (because you will) and absorb the cost; no points though some insurers will take it into account. Secondly you can defend it in court. If you're found guilty you'll get a fine considerably more than the cost of course and points that WILL affect your insurance and possibly ability to hire vehicles, use courtesy cars or drive on duty at work.
Your call.
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that I considered my pass wasn't too close at all, I'm not in any rush to find a cyclist or anyone else under my front wheels,
Perhaps the perceived 'offence' was that you were thought to have cut in a bit early, despite giving plenty of space while overtaking ?
|
|
NO I didn't cut in at all,
I'd add that it is unfair on so many levels, we now have a situation where one group of readily identifiable road users through a system of registration who have undergone a driving test, hold a driving license, have their vehicles checked for road worthiness, are insured, but can now routinely have footage welcomed by the police, ( mind you it saves them the trouble of actually patrolling our roads of course ) by another set of road users who remain anonymous to other road users and do pretty much what they like, if people do not agree that is completely inequitable I don't know what is.
|
NO I didn't cut in at all,
I'd add that it is unfair on so many levels, we now have a situation where one group of readily identifiable road users through a system of registration who have undergone a driving test, hold a driving license, have their vehicles checked for road worthiness, are insured, but can now routinely have footage welcomed by the police, ( mind you it saves them the trouble of actually patrolling our roads of course ) by another set of road users who remain anonymous to other road users and do pretty much what they like, if people do not agree that is completely inequitable I don't know what is.
I suppose unqualified and unlicensed pedestrians should be ignored too.
Cyclists do not generally "do what they want" they are far too vulnerable for that and they know it.
You are on a loser here - the presumption if there is one will always go in favour of the vulnerable road user. If there is any relevance to the motorist being trained, tested and licensed then it is that we are expected to take proper care around those vulnerable road users.
I'm beginning to hope you do go to court, perhaps it is the only thing that will bring you to your senses. Do the course if you haven't left it too late.
|
|
|
|
I was driving along Woodhead pass over the weekend, there was a tailback of aprox one mile behing a gang of cyclist who were riding two abreast and in my opinion are asking to be wiped out on one of the many bends... tractors are required to pull over if they create a queu of traffic behind, oh and just to add to the fun most were dressed in Death Wish Black.... Not an ideal colour choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
