In the “why didn’t I think of that” department, the City of London has come up with an innovative and direct way to deal with drivers that overtake bikes at a distance of less than the regulated 1.5 meters.
As reported by City Lab, “the city’s Metropolitan Police is going low key, with plain-clothes police officers pedaling through the streets on bikes to monitor and reprimand drivers’ behavior. The main goal is to crack down on so-called close passing—that is, drivers overtaking bikes at a distance of less than 1.5 meters (just under 5 feet)… Motorists caught engaging in driving that compromises cyclists’ safety will be given the choice between prosecution or a 15-minute roadside safety training session. The operation won’t cover a very large area of London’s roads at any one time. By introducing the idea that cyclists on the road might just have a police badge in their pocket, however, it may have a far greater effect than punishment alone. “
This operation was first trialled in the West Midlands near Manchester where two plainclothes police officers nabbed 130 motorists in nine hours, booking eight for safety offences, and revoking one driver’s license.
And what of the impacts of the plain clothes bike patrol ? Since the commencement, there has been a 50 per cent reduction in vehicle/bicycle collision. This has been achieved with little expense save for a “roll up” mat, which is used to illustrate the safe 1.5 meter “safety” zone passing distance around a cyclist.
The plain clothes police cyclists have been so effective, there are plans to undertake this operation in another 16 cities in Great Britain.
I would like to see the same tactics used to enforce cycling rules undervthe MVA that they ride in single file. I constantly see cyclists, especially road racers in huge packs, riding two, three, four and even five abreast. When I was driving and encountered this, I have met them at their next stop and politely pointed out the law only to get some rude or totally hostile response.
there is 2 kinds of traffic law.
one is to make the road safer
the other one is to make the road more comfortable for a certain type of user at the expense of others…
the plain cloth police here enforce the first type of law.
you want the second kind of law enforced for your own benefit…
Two abreast cycling is legal in most jurisdictions in North America Unfortunately, not here. However, if lanes are narrow (less than 4 metres) then one would have to pass a person riding a bike in the adjacent lane. In fact, if riding on a narrow lane, a person riding a bike can legally “take the lane” for safety reasons. In such a case, it is to the drivers benefit if a group of riders is bunched up, since it would be very difficult if not impossible to safely pass a large group if they were riding single file.
In Seattle, the police were doing a crackdown on riders not stopping at stop signs. In protest, a group of riders strictly followed the rules, riding single file and stopping at stop signs. At four way stops, they yielded the right of way where required. This caused huge traffic congestion since it took so long for the group to get through the intersection. Is this what we want?
And should be. It’s silly to tell people that they can sit next to each other in a 3 ton vehicle moving at 50km/h, but that two people on 20lb vehicles moving at 20km/h is dangerous.
It is safer NOT to ride single file. Cyclists are more visible when riding side by side and passing them requires a place safe enough for the passing car to move into another lane altogether.
Single file is strictly for the benefit of impatient motorists.
Drivers that have to go wide to pass two-abreast cyclists and then perhaps suddenly see a bus or a large truck heading towards them from the opposite direction will inevitably take the softer option and veer to the right to avoid a head-on. It’s instinctive.
I’ll bet you would. Competent drivers wouldn’t pull out if they couldn’t see that it is safe to pass. I wouldn’t count you among them.
Editor’s note: please note editorial policy. NO name calling.
I am in favour of the police adopting a “broken windows” approach to traffic enforcement, and they can improve safety through communication and education. I’m sure people on this blog can point out motorist, cyclist and pedestrian behaviours that can be targeted. If the primary approach is communication and education, everyone wins. The monitoring of behaviour could also be combined with other analysis to support building safer intersections where necessary, where most accidents take place.
Years ago, the VPD had a bike patrol. Since then, I have only seen one officer on a bike in the last year. I gather, there are a few police on bikes now It would be great if there were more, since this would make police more effective and would help to make drivers less hostile toward those riding bikes.
The VPD have a bike patrol, and members of that team assisted with the Bike the Night ride held last year. The VPD also has a targeted enforcement team (on bikes), focused on ticketing those who create unsafe situations for pedestrians and cyclists. That can be cyclists endangering pedestrians, or drivers turned right illegally across bike lanes, as examples.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
> Motorists caught engaging in driving that compromises cyclists’ safety will be given the choice between prosecution or a 15-minute roadside safety training session.
This is actually kind of fascinating. Modern theories of punishment say that the severity of the punishment is less important than convincing the criminal that they will be caught. Using this plainclothes model combined with a punishment that just forces the driver to stop and be aware that they did something wrong, they manage to be effective, while not unduly hurting drivers pocketbooks (and in so doing making them more hateful towards cyclists).
Now if only Vancouver would follow suit, instead of using fines so huge that cops will often just choose not to enforce them.