Perhaps the rider was positioned further from the curb than really necessary? Maybe cycle wheels should be positioned no further than 1 metre out from a curb?
Perhaps there isn’t space to allow 1.5 and the width of the car within a single lane. Perhaps if they were closer to the kerb they would have been squeezed into it and injured. Perhaps you should keep your thought to yourself?
@@Cous1nJack If you have to ask the question... Telling someone to keep their thoughts to themselves is somewhat contradictory to your last comment, don't you think?
@@makecyclingsafeagain6575 I report a lot of texting drivers and I get no end of NFA. I however have started e-mailing my local MP and intend to start making more of a fuss. This sh*t has to stop.
@@makecyclingsafeagain6575 I have startred to beep and make folks jump,, record the reaction. EP policy makes it almost impossible to report texting drivers but I have a plan..... Three years ago my wife died of cancer and we have a 14 year old son. He freeks out about me having two wheels.
Comments here saying far too close, after looking at the footage and the shadows of both car and bike it was definitely closer than the new rules define but not close enough to cause the cyclist a problem. In fact it was a far bigger gap than cyclist fly through when cars are stationary in traffic. So if they are able and willing to at speed negotiate a certain sized gap between vehicles then I see no problem with a car passing them with an even larger gap. The two metre rule is a nonsense, most roads would put the car driver on the opposite side of the road and if there were parked cars their vehicle would be squarely in the opposite lane. The main issue here is the speed of the overtake and the ability to stop the manoeuvre if an unsafe situation suddenly arises.
Consider the difference between a chosen risk in which a person can see the unfolding picture vs having danger forced from behind. Add to this max 100kg vs >1000kg
@@bustestlucloc4630 bikes, horses, cars, lorries, tuktuks are all traffic. All have the same right to use the road. There doesn’t need to be a conflict- creating distinction about bikes and ‘passing traffic’
And what do you find near kerbs,yes drain cover,gravel,glass,pot holes,that's why cyclist don't cycle near kerbs,plus if the driver had waited till there was a gap in on coming traffic,problem sorted,think before you ink.
@@Cous1nJackI think horses are unpredictable creatures,today I approached a large horse on an A road ,very slowly,all of a the horse start walking sideways,in my mind they should not be on major roads.
I see a lot of these especially post rule change and have little sympathy as riding on the road necessitates close passes (closer than the rules say) and cyclists need to be able to handle these appropriately. This however really was far too close (unnecessarily so) and far too fast. Shocked the police did nothing, this car driver will kill someone someday unless he is taught a lesson. Hats off to the cyclist for not losing their cool.
NFA? - seriously?? That was incredibly fast & close. I find ExtraEyes pretty good but they’ve let you down there.
@Julian-pp4ho they've gone significantly downhill lately, not sure why. Very strange.
How can they justify NFA at that speed and proximity
@walsallcyclecam1445 beats me. I asked the question and compared to less close, less fast passes that were actioned. No response.
@@boostar155Exactly when is he allowed to complain? At that speed it’s not going to be after the guy has hit him.
Perhaps the rider was positioned further from the curb than really necessary? Maybe cycle wheels should be positioned no further than 1 metre out from a curb?
Perhaps there isn’t space to allow 1.5 and the width of the car within a single lane. Perhaps if they were closer to the kerb they would have been squeezed into it and injured. Perhaps you should keep your thought to yourself?
@@Cous1nJack He's as entitled to an opinion as you are. Don't be so rude.
@@bustestlucloc4630 who was rude? As you said, we’re both entitled to opinions. As are you.
@@Cous1nJack If you have to ask the question... Telling someone to keep their thoughts to themselves is somewhat contradictory to your last comment, don't you think?
@@bustestlucloc4630 it not even your post to comment on. Get a grip.
That NFA I suspect was down to the video quality not being good enough. Essex Police have some funny decision making at best.
@@IThinkItsMe they have not struggled with similar videos I've submitted. There's definitely been a shift in policy lately.
@@makecyclingsafeagain6575 I report a lot of texting drivers and I get no end of NFA. I however have started e-mailing my local MP and intend to start making more of a fuss. This sh*t has to stop.
@IThinkItsMe I understand Essex are really bad at dealing with those. It explains why I see drivers using their phines with complete impunity.
@@makecyclingsafeagain6575 I have startred to beep and make folks jump,, record the reaction. EP policy makes it almost impossible to report texting drivers but I have a plan.....
Three years ago my wife died of cancer and we have a 14 year old son. He freeks out about me having two wheels.
@@IThinkItsMe I'm sorry to hear about your wife. Essex Police policy on phone use seems at odds with their commitment to Vision Zero.
Comments here saying far too close, after looking at the footage and the shadows of both car and bike it was definitely closer than the new rules define but not close enough to cause the cyclist a problem.
In fact it was a far bigger gap than cyclist fly through when cars are stationary in traffic.
So if they are able and willing to at speed negotiate a certain sized gap between vehicles then I see no problem with a car passing them with an even larger gap.
The two metre rule is a nonsense, most roads would put the car driver on the opposite side of the road and if there were parked cars their vehicle would be squarely in the opposite lane.
The main issue here is the speed of the overtake and the ability to stop the manoeuvre if an unsafe situation suddenly arises.
Consider the difference between a chosen risk in which a person can see the unfolding picture vs having danger forced from behind. Add to this max 100kg vs >1000kg
Police obviously had the same thinking that I have.
@@pdservices6681 Perhaps the police realise that far too many resources are wasted by cyclists complaining about often minor and questionable issues.
@@bustestlucloc4630 issues nonetheless. What if it was your child on the bike.
You’re probably right and this was obviously one of those they considered a waste of time.
Cyclist get nearer kerb otherwise it creates an unnecessary obstruction and interferes with passing traffic.
The. Cyclist. Is. Traffic.
@@Cous1nJack He wrote 'passing' traffic.
@@bustestlucloc4630 bikes, horses, cars, lorries, tuktuks are all traffic. All have the same right to use the road. There doesn’t need to be a conflict- creating distinction about bikes and ‘passing traffic’
And what do you find near kerbs,yes drain cover,gravel,glass,pot holes,that's why cyclist don't cycle near kerbs,plus if the driver had waited till there was a gap in on coming traffic,problem sorted,think before you ink.
@@Cous1nJackI think horses are unpredictable creatures,today I approached a large horse on an A road ,very slowly,all of a the horse start walking sideways,in my mind they should not be on major roads.
I see a lot of these especially post rule change and have little sympathy as riding on the road necessitates close passes (closer than the rules say) and cyclists need to be able to handle these appropriately. This however really was far too close (unnecessarily so) and far too fast. Shocked the police did nothing, this car driver will kill someone someday unless he is taught a lesson. Hats off to the cyclist for not losing their cool.