... how do you suggest police take action against this driver? As there was no collision, rule 144 was not broken. Is it an actual court prosecution under the TORUM act, s83, "Careless driving of motor vehicles"? If so I'd be ok with that if it was possible, but what is required for a successful prosecution, and what is the burden of proof? From what I've been told (not necessarily a reliable source though) police have a very hard time getting successful convictions for careless or dangerous driving charges. It shouldn't be that way. So what needs to change?
I won't quote the response verbatim, but broader parts of it I did agree with (taking a broader view than just that of close shaves). However their specific response to the above is that they favour enforcement of the existing "safe passing" requirements.
I have pointed out that the existing requirement in rule 144 only requires you to not have a collision, and if you do not collide then you have met the requirements of the rule, even if 1mm of clearance is given. This means the driver cannot be given a ticket, which leaves the option of a dangerous or careless driving charge, which are much more effort and much less likely to be successful (so the police don't). I disagree that it is "difficult" to prove a passing distance when you have video. Sure you won't be pinpoint accurate but you can certainly see that a pass of about 10cm clearance wasn't 1 meter.
I wonder if BQ has misunderstood rule 144? They have read the title of the rule but not the actual content? The title means nothing. Its like taking rule 77 "Giving way to buses" and deciding this means you always have to give way to buses, without reading the actual components of the rule. Or perhaps they mean rule 140(2). My understanding is that in court you could defend yourself against rule 140 by simply stating that you are a good driver, and that you calculated the pass was safe, and that as you did not hit the cyclist you were correct. Even though you missed by 1mm.
In another thread here in the last couple of days somebody said that on the motoring section of the OCAU forum, a user has been explaining that there is no minimum clearance required when passing a cyclist. So now there's a bunch of drivers who know that... we are even more stuffed.
What existing rules can be used? If police won't/can't go for careless driving, what else is there?