Live blog: Record breaking cyclist who beat cancer wins Pride of Birmingham award, how SF police deal with bike thieves+ more

@eburtthebike Well there's (at least) a third thing - we're letting too many people drive who should never have been on the roads in the first place.

@chrisonabike Something to do with existing in a liminal world between cooperation and competition where every action has multiple meanings, even to the same person, perhaps?

I have given my thoughts on this in the forum thread "Derbyshire: action on close pass reports only in “exceptional circumstances”". My first attempt with links was submitted on 30/10/26 and is STILL AWAITING MODERATION so I resubmitted replacing the links with descriptions. It is copied below : Gloucestershire Constabulary is way ahead. They never took any action on close passes but in September 2024 they started sending out advisory letters to close passers. Note that in Gloucestershire an advisory letter merely asks the driver to refresh their knowledge of the highway code and is not a warning letter. search : close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer on roadcc for the article I have had action taken for a close pass since. In one I am convinced that action was taken because an oncoming driver was inconvenienced. near-miss-day-of the day 946 In the other I suspect someone on the team slipped up and the driver was sent a NIP. I was told afterwards that the driver was going to go to court to challenge the decision but changed their mind when shown the footage. near-miss-day-931 The link also shows that a very similar close pass a year later was back to advisory letters and I have had many similar outcomes since. Some on here think advisory letters are a waste of time and I agree that for some drivers it will be as water off a ducks back, but I have noticed a distinct improvement in driving around me since the policy started. I think most drivers genuinely think they have done nothing wrong but a letter from the police is a real wake up call. In answer to your question then in Gloucestershire someone has to be inconvenienced for action to be taken. Inconveniencing an oncoming driver is one possibility but having to swerve or brake to avoid being hit is another. Obviously this rarely happens with a close pass, especially those at speed which are the most dangerous, you simply don’t have time to do anything. As far as I can make out being frightened out of your skin doesn’t count as inconvenience either. They now seem to have stopped sending even advisory letters for close passes as they are short staffed.

If the police are overwhelmed with evidence showing dangerous driving, then that shows that the dangerous driving is endemic: the graveyards and hospitals are full of the victims. If it is endemic, then one of two things must be true, or both: the detection rate is not high enough, and/or the punishment is not sufficient to deter. So in this case, we have the victims providing the evidence, in most cases all the officers need to do is view that evidence. If the officers don't have time, then the process should be automated, possibly by AI. If the driver disputes it, then a real person could view it, but if they consider the driving to be dangerous, the driver should pay for the officer's time. Then we have the lack of punishment, or punishment which doesn't fit the crime, because it does not deter people from offending. The current system of points and fines is clearly not working, and something rather more effective has to be done, like confiscating the car for instance. ".......the Chief Inspector recommended that road users use a rear-facing camera and evidence their own speed at the time of the overtake." I fail to see what the speed of the vehicle being overtaken has to do with the overtaking vehicle passing too closely. Would it be ok if you were doing 5mph, or 25mph? Baffling.

In principal, driverless cars have the potential to be much safer than human drivers, by virtue of the fact that they should be intent on following the rules of the road, nor driving whilst drunk/drugged, never be tired, frustrated, irrational etc, etc. Another advantage is that mistakes can be corrected and rolled out across the entire fleet (try that with humans. Add to that the resulting reduction in car ownership, increased car sharing, and the sheer amount of street space given over to parked cars will plummet. The key factor, however, is how much of those principles the owning companies are prepared to commit to. (Altruism isn't their strong point)

I'm going to take a close look at some of the lights mentioned. For reference: I extensively used the following: - Nightrider lumina (don't recall the exact model): horrible temperature control and after 18 months it bricked up on me and they refused to honour the warranty, will never buy anything from them ever again; - Lezyne 1600 XXL, two issues, firstly the strap that attached it to the handlebar never kept in place really well over rough terrain. Secondly: a cop stopped me and although -to me riding the bike- it appeared well adjusted, he claimed I was blinding oncoming traffic. He actually held the bike so I could check for myself from inside his car and he was simply right: the light level on the ground was ok but indeed, I was blinding oncoming traffic. That's a hard no, it had to go even though he didn't fine me. I don't want to annoy/be a risk to other road users; - Then the Lupine: solid as a rock, mounted on a GoPro mount, USB-C charging, StVZO compliant...but alas not enough oomph considering terrain and desired speed; Thinking back, it somehow seems like a light I had on my bike back when I was riding long distance events (Audax, crazy distances but lower average speeds) might have been ideal, that was a Son Edelux and it ran on a Son hub dynamo. But I don't want to install a dynamo and again, lower speeds.

Well that all blew up quickly! A pause to savour: "cyclists have a dislike for linguistic accuracy and authentic meaning." Apparently it's something to do with the cyclic muscle movements - ah, no, that would affect runners and rowers also. Circular motion of the limbs?

@mattw Yeah, and Oxford Street will be full of unicorns and rainbows by then as well. 🤣

@stulemanski Actually I think they do, as long as there is good behaviour. Complete cycle bans are vanishingly rare in the Netherlands, which is the best comparison. In 10-20 years time there will be a mobility track, and there will be no real problems.

@Rendel Harris That assumes training, expertise, and the time to do a proper job including full consultation. This does not happen, and then rapid assumptions are made based on "me". That also happens with cycling groups who campaign for something and completely ignore eg tricycles or other varieties of vehicle, in favour of standard cycles. Both lived experience and professional experience are essential. This week I have been looking at a brand new £50k 3m-wide path upgrade in my local Green Flag Park, where the Council have spent perhaps £3k installing a 3 ply chicane with 1.5m gaps and 1.5m spacing between barriers at one end of it. The path also includes a 1-in-9 30m long hill. I have since been talking to a lady who is a wheelchair user and has a fully-trained assistance dog which walks alongside, who is thereby prevented from entering the park she pays for with her Council Tax. Those dimensions are unusable for most small mobility scooters, never mind other mobility aid users, and are flat out unlawful, and not in accordance with several sets of Government Guidelines. Yet when I complain I expect to be stonewalled to the door of the Court in the hope that I will get exhausted and go away. At the door of the Court they usually capitulate, and will have spent 7-10k on legal letters and compensation and doing what they should have done at the start. That £3k could have been spent sorting out perhaps 10 other anti-disabled barriers around our Green Flag Parks. Every complaint so far I have made has been met with "Does Not Meet Threshold for Action".