Yoga for Cyclists, part 18: Arms

Do you mean drives at you on a single track road? > Personally I would love to see the rules changed to “encourage” drivers to reduce their speed considerably if they have to pass a cyclist within 1.5m. Have to pass? If I'm driving on a single track road and there's a cyclist approaching, I can't allow a 1.5m gap to pass them. This does not mean I have to pass them with less than a 1.5m gap. I simply don't pass them. I pull over as far as I can to the left and stop. If there's only a metre, or only half a metre or only 15cm, it doesn't matter - I'm stationary, so no longer passing anyone. The highway code talks about passing but most people seem to think it's only about overtaking, when logically, passing in opposite directions increases the relative speed and requires a larger gap.

Good, you have claimed you have the video which you say would undoubtedly convince the police. So show it, or it didn't happen and you're a sad troll git driver making things up. A still of the cyclist shaking his fist alongside another cyclist will suffice for a start! signed: TrollFinder General

The offence the cyclist supposedly committed is 'due care and attention', the definition of which is: "If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence." Looking at that definition and the footage, I am struggling to see how either of the two 'tests' would apply: Firstly, the video demonstrates that the cyclist is paying attention, you can see they move back to their lane when they see the oncoming car and you can hear that they stop pedalling. Only when they are happy that the car driver's speed and position are ok and there's a gap, do they continue. Secondly, the video demonstrates that nobody was inconvenienced. The driver didn't need to change speed or direction at all.

@mctrials23 this is a great post and gets to the crux of the cyclist's offence. Legislation states: "Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling. If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence." I'm in agreement with the magistrate that the cyclist is guilty of the charge above for two reasons: Firstly, he fails to yield priority to the car. This is already discussed eloquently by yourself. Secondly, he passes extremely close to the parked car, potentially putting a more vulnerable road user in danger. While this is listed in the highway code rule 67 as "take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened, and watch out for pedestrians stepping into your path", it's also present in rule 68 under careless cycling generally. The 1200 quid others are upset about will be due to means-adjusted fine in court. Cyclist would have had the option of paying a much smaller fixed penalty charge and declined. It's also disappointing that someone else on this thread has sought to minify the gravity of brushing past a parked car. It not only endangers the cyclist himself, but imagine if a small child or person had suddenly opened the door to get out and a collision had ensued. There's simply no need to risk it.

No, your eyes are deceiving you because of the microscopic font! It says 'cyclists can get stuffed - by order of Lancashire Constabulary' and 'if you can read this you're a cyclist and I claim my £5’

@leedorney Fulcrum, campag and now Shimano all have replaceable cup and cones In there top end wheel. I really make it a no brainer you get the best of both worlds the ease of replacement of cartridge with the smooth rolling and adjustability of cup and cone. Though id be weary of Shimano here, how long are they going to support this? campag/fulcrum have built around the same bearing platform now for a few years now and support older wheels. Shimano have habit of dropping support for thing very very quickly. and the same goes for the spokes of these wheels.

@wtjs Its something campag and fulcrum have been doing for a little while now. The speed 57s I have, the cup and cones can be full replaced. So not a new Idea and its something a feel is missed In the reviews of these products as people fear coup and cone. I had no idea going in and only found out when my wheels unfortunately became a bit notchy, boo boo on my part. R0/RS-150 USB overhaul kit front and rear specific. 70 quid for ceramic as well! so not bad at all for the overhaul. But you need a shop that can work on them it a little different to drifting out cartridge bearings and is something I wouldn't want to do aat home

Of course, as frustrating as it is to interested readers, they don't *need* to say what they mean to the general public at all, but thank you for this detail - I was slightly surprised it was all or nothing. I wonder if the cyclist declined a FPN, or if it was never offered.

Yes, not clear how the "road.cc understands" (based on what?) bits and the "police spokesperson" bits join up. Means testing of fines is still subject to the statutory maximum, so would only ever reduce the £1,000 fine. Same for a guilty plea - can get a third off the fine for guilty plea at first opportunity, reducing as you get closer to trial.

@stiplady I agree, no evidence that the driver of the volvo was contacted/made a complaint about the cyclist's behaviour. Which is odd, because I thought the "victim" needed to make a complaint in order for the police to prosecute someone*: https://road.cc/news/cycling-live-blog-1-july-2026 (scroll down to "Cycle Sundays are back!") https://road.cc/content/news/phone-driver-caught-camera-cyclist-smashes-car-311171 *For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually think this; it's clearly just another BS excuse police forces come up with to avoid doing their jobs. Although I do think it is highly relevant in this case - if the police's argument is that the oncoming driver was inconvenienced by being "forced to hug the kerb" it would seem essential to have testimony from the driver to that effect. My reading of the video is that the volvo driver moved slightly to the left _before_ the cyclist started to pass the car, in order to give the cyclist space to do so. The cyclist only proceeded past the parked car once it was clear that there was sufficient space to do so without causing the driver to further alter their speed or direction of travel. There's an important distinction between the driver being forced to hug the kerb because the cyclist was proceeding, versus the cyclist proceeding because the driver had already moved over to give them room to do so.