- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lorry driver close passes police officer (Twitter, Jeremy Vine)“Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”: Hi-vis police officer close passed by lorry driver
Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigations, has reminded motorists that they have “a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users”, after footage posted by broadcaster Jeremy Vine showing a lorry close passing a police officer received a backlash from angry drivers.
BBC Radio 2 and Channel 5 presenter Vine was riding with cycling officers from the Metropolitan Police as part of Cox’s latest fundraising campaign for RoadPeace.
In May 2021 DCS Cox raised over £50,000 for the road crash victims charity after completing a 200-kilometre run, the largest amount raised for the organisation by an individual fundraiser.
This year, the former lead for Vision Zero at the Met is aiming to complete 30 miles of physical activity (walking, running or cycling) a day for a week, as he aims to “amplify victim's voices and bring road danger reduction to the forefront of national conversation, and prevent the needless deaths and injury on our roads”.
Each route starts at a police station and travels to people affected by road death and injury, who will tell their stories and, Cox hopes, help shed light on the five people killed every day on the UK’s roads. The campaign has currently raised over £64,000 for RoadPeace.
> Popular 'cycling Twitter' cop runs 200km to raise record £43k+ sum for RoadPeace
During yesterday’s ride, Cox’s ambition to increase public awareness of the need to reduce road danger was inadvertently aided by the driver of a Waitrose lorry who, as can be seen in Vine’s video below, passes one of the police officers – decked out in hi-visibility clothing emblazoned with ‘Police’ on the back – with little room to spare.
Out cycling with HIGHLY VISIBLE police officers — and a massive @waitrose truck actually close-passes one of the @MetCycleCops! Take a look and see his reaction.
> Event: raising awareness and funds for @roadpeace with @AndyCoxDCS and colleagues https://t.co/MDUcPBKUYK pic.twitter.com/n8IEqsQSRM
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 21, 2022
According to the officer on the receiving end of the close pass, the lorry’s wheels were “touching the line” as he passed the group of cyclists.
“He thinks you’re on one side, he’s the other side, so he’s fine,” replied Vine in the footage.
“He’ll get undue care and attention for that,” the officer confirmed.
Despite the officer’s assertion that the lorry driver should have given the cyclists more space or waited until it was safe to pass, since the video was posted online last night many Twitter users have leapt to the defence of the motorist, who they claim “stayed within his lane”.
“He stayed within his lane, the cyclist should have been more aware,” one user tweeted. “JV cycles around London looking for trouble. JV you are promoting a negative narrative against me and my fellow cyclists with your anti-motorist agenda.”
Just don't overtake in your truck if it's not safe. This is really, really simple.
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
Another said: “I’m a big supporter of road safety and cyclists’ rights, but there has to be reason on both sides. A [very] busy road, lots of big lorries – cyclists should cooperate by dropping to single file or keep away from lane line.”
Another remarked that the officer’s “road positioning was selfish and asking for trouble. He put himself in danger.
“No large vehicle could pass him with decent space without going onto the wrong side of the road. For a big truck, near a junction, that would be dangerous.”
Victim blaming AGAIN
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
This would be an unacceptable overtake. "Staying in your lane" is nothing to do with it. https://t.co/2Pn4nJ0PAI pic.twitter.com/ptyWhsh2Fm
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 22, 2022
Vine responded to a number of the tweets, which he claimed were “criticising a police officer for trying to keep vulnerable road users safe.”
“When you pass a vulnerable road user, distance from the line is not the issue,” the broadcaster wrote. “It is distance from the cyclist.”
It shouldn't have overtaken with so little room to pass. That's what the experienced police officer made clear. pic.twitter.com/rnqI2QxpHm
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 21, 2022
Another user claimed that the antagonistic replies to Vine’s video “show that some British drivers are dehumanised.
“As long as they are ‘in their lane’ it doesn’t matter if they endanger the life of another human being.”
Ultimately it took DCS Cox, who in his previous role as a Met Superintendent built up a solid reputation on Twitter for schooling those spouting anti-cyclist rhetoric on the platform, to add some much-needed perspective to proceedings.
“The point lost by so many commenting on this thread is… Drivers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users,” he tweeted. “That way everyone gets home safely, alive.”
You can donate to DCS Cox’s latest campaign for RoadPeace at his Just Giving page.
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Martin1857 1 hour 59 min ago
I did a Cytech 2 course some years back with a mechanic from Wiggle who told me that he'd seen bikes in Halfords with the forks mounted back to...
- Backladder 2 hours 37 min ago
I don't disagree with you about drivers but surely the whole point of manslaughter is that there wasn't an intent to kill and what I saw on the...
- leedorney 2 hours 54 min ago
NEVER understood narrow shoes, never still I ever, Lakes all the way, even the Lake 333 is possible to get in wide, these no, poor show Decathlon,...
- jbuckx2 2 hours 59 min ago
Your right, it's not finished, but if this was road works (for motorists) would this be acceptable? ...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 9 min ago
Well that's some pretty spectacular nonsense you've got going there. Everyone I know who uses Zwift is also a keen road rider with multiple bikes...
- David9694 3 hours 27 min ago
and we're all left squabbling over drivers' leavings as ever...
- Backladder 3 hours 45 min ago
But how many drivers are they actually locking up, they can barely be bothered to fine them!...
- Mr Hoopdriver 4 hours 3 min ago
Typically, for dodging a £2.00 ticket on the railway, fine will be £50.00 + prosecution costs of £hundreds. Same for private hire drivers picking...
- Backladder 4 hours 10 min ago
I think queues of traffic might be very vulnerable to a cyclist swinging a U-lock at their windows! Bring on the revolution!
Add new comment
56 comments
Well that brings up some interesting discussion points:
1) When setting off, how much control do you have?
2) Does magic paint overrule 1.5 metres?
3) How good does a rider have to be before they are allowed on the road? Given the amazingly low standard of driving in the UK, doesn't #cyclelikeyoudrive apply?
I'd really like a definitive answer to no. 2 because on our local cycle lane the width you are given clearly is not based on safe passing but on whether there is oncoming traffic - yes, drive the line, no, give cyclist space.
For 2) where the road is multi lane and the lanes go in different directions, can it be considered to be overtaking with respect to the HC?
If you look at the relevant sections it is all about having to use a different lane to the one you are in to pass someone in an overtake https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html
I would argue it's clear that yes, you are still "overtaking" according to the HC even if you are in another lane. One of the bullet points under R163 discusses traffic queueing in different lanes, and certainly implies that passing traffic in another lane falls within the definition of "overtaking". See also R264, R267 and R268 - they are in a section about motorways, but again it is clear that moving past traffic in a different lane is considered overtaking.
I would also mention that the lanes in question didn't "go in different directions". The left hand lane is marked straight and left, with an additional informational arrow informing that the left turn takes you onto the A10 - it is not a mandatory left-lane-turns-left. https://goo.gl/maps/6hzmAYCLNobUZDFH8
In that case, I picked out the wrong still from the video where there was just a left arrow.
I found it rather ironic that he did that literally just after saying the driver would get "Undue care and attention" then drifted across into the next lane without looking, right in front of a taxi that has to take avoiding action. 🤦🏼♂️
Did he? Seems the lane went from 2 - 3 at that point and he stayed in lane and taxi driver stayed in lane.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, for me. Crap positioning by the police officer, impatience on the part of the lorry driver.
The real issue here is that you have very large articulated lorries driving through town centres and mixing with cyclists in very tight spaces.
Which is irrelevant. As good police officers on Twitter often point out, it is the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle overtaking to do so safely, not the opertor of the vehicle being overtaken to facilitate it. If a cyclist is riding in a "crap position" that doesn't absolve the overtaker of their responsibliity.
The bottom line is that motor vehicles should give cyclists 1.5m of clearance at up to 30mph and more at higher speeds, regardless of how good or bad the cyclist's position on the road is.
It's not like every car we have to deal with on the roads always positions themselves in the perfect position after all.
If that was a single lane of traffic and the lorry was travelling in the opposite direction, would the cyclist position himself that close to the edge of their lane? Doubtful, and in that case nobody would be saying that the lorry driver was at fault, even though it would be even more dangerous.
I don't know what the opposing traffic was like (in London, usually pretty bad) but assuming the lorry couldn't pull out because there were cars coming the other way, the positioning of the cyclist was blocking 2 entire lanes of traffic for no good reason (eg because they were using the right-hand lane for navigating a junction). He looked like he was off in his own little world and not paying attention to the road around him (you know, lack of 'due care and attention'...) a point he would later prove by drifting across into the next lane without looking or indicating, right in front of a taxi, forcing them to take avoiding action (something cyclists are still required to do like other motor vehicles).
I know a bike is unlikely to do more than scratch a car/lorry (and certainly not hurt the driver, unless the evasive action caused a crash with another vehicle) and doesn't excuse close passes, but it seems rather hypocritical to complain at someone else's bad driving after causing the situation and then weaving across lanes.
Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn't have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can.
Why can't all forces agree on the interpretation of a rule/law, and uphold any breaches of that interpretation?
Cheshire Police have made it clear that a driver doesn't have to give 1.5 metres of clearance, as long as they give you as much room as they possibly can
Although I only know about Lancashire Police, what Cheshire probably mean is that if the close-passers have to squeeze right next to you because of oncoming traffic, or even if they just feel like it although the other lane is clear, then if they didn't kill or injure you, then it's OK
Just a warning letter in essex for this
https://twitter.com/MrJasonJay/status/1529374098408755200
and a letter in sussex for this
https://twitter.com/BTNSharkBike/status/1425175199121612804
I reported a close pass to Cheshire Police, with video footage, and received the following reply:
"Having reviewed your footage I feel the most suitable outcome is to issue the registered keeper of the vehicle with a vulnerable road user warning letter which informs them of the nature of the incident and advice on vulnerable road users as given in the updated Highway Code.
Please bear in mind that your footage is the only independent evidence I have to review and I can only go from the perspective that gives which isn’t always a true reflection on what occurred. Obviously you were there at the time and experienced the incident and may feel it occurred differently but I have to be able to evidence using your footage that any offences can be clearly seen to any other party to have been fully made out beyond any reasonable doubt.
I should point out that this letter has been issued because of the location and speed of the pass not being ideal. Due to the road being very narrow and like this for some distance the driver was always going to be limited with this and the size of their vehicle as to the distance they could reasonably leave, it’s difficult to ascertain from the footage but the vehicle does appear to have been over as far as they were able to be at the point of the pass.
The vehicle details are retained in case the vehicle comes to our attention in the future and the matter is now closed."
I've responded with the following:
"Thank you for letting me know the outcome of this incident, PC Hughes.
Whilst I agree that a letter to the registered keeper is a good outcome for this incident, I feel that I must mention my disappointment at your view that:
“…location and speed of the pass not being ideal. Due to the road being very narrow and like this for some distance the driver was always going to be limited with this and the size of their vehicle as to the distance they could reasonably leave, … the vehicle does appear to have been over as far as they were able to be at the point of the pass.”
The other option that they had, other than close passing a vulnerable road user, would have been to wait until there WAS a place where they could pass me in a safe manner? Looking at the footage, it’s approximately two minutes until I reach the end of the lane, where there is plenty of room to safely pass. Is two minutes really worth putting a vulnerable road user at risk for?
Hopefully the driver will take more care around vulnerable road users in future, and I’ll try riding primary in order to stop anything passing me where there is less room than recommended in the Highway Code to overtake."
They really are unbelievable.
DCS Cox needs to do his reminding to the Bad Cops! This Sid Hill Transport of Blackpool artic JO51 DHL travelling at well over 30 mph was NFA'd by Lancashire
The tone of the comments has a hint of "cyclists should cycle perfectly or else they deserve what they get."
Hardly #CycleLikeYouDrive
He should have been aware of the cyclist straying close to the edge of the L/H lane and been a bit more patient. Safety first, especially when you're in charge of such a monstrous vehicle.
I've a bit of sympathy for the HGV driver though: the lorry is basically the width of the whole lane and the cyclist was straying close to the edge of his lane. May have been a case for a little toot if the cyclist didn't ease back in - HC112 says "drivers should only use the horn when the vehicle is moving and they need to warn other road users of their presence".
I can't help but think that if this had been submitted as footage to the police instead of happening to a police officer, they wouldn't have dreamt of prosecuting.
Exactly. It hardly seems fair that this driver is prosecuted when tens of thousands of worse incidents happen every day, and are submitted to the police but no further action happens.
Poor road positioning by the Police officer does not absolve the HGV driver of their responsibility.
Can't wait for the comments when this appears in the DM with the ubiquitous headline "who do you think was to blame?"
Genuinely curious, does the law follow football (on the line is in) or rugby (on the line is out), i.e. if a vehicle is touching the white line is it deemed to have left its lane? One would think it quite important in cases such as this. I know a mate got a bus lane fine when turning left, with the camera evidence showing the very edge of his back left tyre clipping the very edge of the end of the bus lane marking, definitely not going over it, but I don't know if this applies in all circumstances.
Not really sure what they wanted the driver to do when he is going slow and steady in his lane. Are they really saying he can't continue in his own lane (straight on) regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left ?
Why would you be cycling so close to the edge of the lane anyhow?
Seems a bit one sided on the HC -
There is updated guidance for people cycling about positioning themselves which includes:
The updated code explains that people cycling in groups:
What do they suggest happens at traffic lights where one lane is red and one green? Does this mean the lorry driver or car driver has to sit there on green until there are no cyclists in the other lane ?
I have to agree here. The police cyclist had a very odd road position. Ultimately the lorry should have hung back as the lanes were very narrow and the cyclists quite spread out, but there are much worse close-passes to worry about. At least there was the option for the cyclist to move to the left.
He can continue in his own lane without overtaking - the cyclist isn't stationary. If (for example) I'm driving my car round a bend and there's an HGV in the lane to the left and in front of me, and my lane is clear, I don't overtake and say 'I was in my lane!' - I hold back and give the lorry driver the space they need.
Wasn't quite what I asked though - 'regardless of what happens in a lane for turning left'
Also my other question - What do they suggest happens at traffic lights where one lane is red and one green? Does this mean the lorry driver or car driver has to sit there on green until there are no cyclists in the other lane ?
The sooner we can replace these unsuitably sized vehicles in urban areas with the likes of Volta trucks, which put the driver at pedestrian/cyclist height, the better;
https://voltatrucks.com/
Pages