A cyclist in Swansea who was overtaken by a van driver just as they both headed into a roundabout says that the response from South Wales Police has left him wondering whether the force “just supports aggressive and inconsiderate driving” – and from the footage submitted to us as part of our Near Miss of the Day feature, it’s difficult to disagree.
Marcus, the reader who sent through the footage, told us: “This was submitted to GoSafe, but I was told that there would be no further action. Here is the response…
Thank you for your submission. Whilst you allege the van driver to be at fault for the incident, we are not of the same opinion. You are aware of the vehicle approaching, in a lane marked area where you are proceeding in lane 1 and the van is in lane 2. Whilst you advise you intend to move into lane 2 and you advise you are indicating, this does not give you an automatic right to cross into lane 2 simply because that is the direction you want to travel. You have effectively changed lanes into the side of a passing, correctly proceeding van. Please cycle with more care in the future.
Marcus said: “They are pinning this dismissal on the suggestion that I moved into the van’s lane, yet the lanes are only ‘separate’ for the last 5m or so, and I was into the lane before the van arrived.
“Obviously I am disappointed with this response. Am I right to feel wronged here? Should I just take it on the chin, learn from it and move on, or try and appeal, not that I think I even CAN appeal.
“I am aware that it’s “better to be alive than right”, but to me the response in this case just supports aggressive and inconsiderate driving.”
We’ve said before that there does seem to be some kind of postcode lottery in operation about how seriously police forces around the country take such footage … and certainly, we think that if Marcus lived in another area, action may have been taken against the driver.
The clip also underlines something we regularly see in the videos our readers send through to us – a motorist putting a cyclist in danger all for the sake of saving, what, one or two seconds in this instance?
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
60 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 646: Cyclist wonders whether police force “just supports aggressive and inconsiderate driving””
So this is my video above.
So this is my video above. Just to add a little bit of context; I was just popping to the local shop for some breakfast supplies last Sunday morning, and this is a section of road I use very often on the bike and in the car. Road fairly quiet, I looked behind in advance of the roundabout, saw there was a van in the distance but i judged I’d arrive at the roundabout before the van. I gave a good clear arm signal as I moved right ready to take the right turn lane. I saw the van still behind and assumed he would stay behind as I crossed the roundabout. Clearly I was wrong! Got to say I was disappointed by the GoSafe response. Genuinely interested to hear feedback from other riders about I ‘should’ have approached this, and whether any of you would do things differently. Clearly my choices put me at risk on this occasion.
I guess I would remove all
I guess I would remove all ambiguity and get myself fully across in advance of the van, who moved across well before you did. From what I saw you left it open to the van driver to squeeze past you on the outside. Of course you would then have found them overtaking you on the inside or possibly through the roundabout, so I’m not sure you can win against someone determined to treat you as an obstacle. A courteous driver would have eased off and given you the space to safely negotiate the roundabout, but as you learned, the police are not interested in that.
And they have a cycle carrier mounted!
I think you were unlucky that
I think you were unlucky that there was a pedestrian crossing at the same time. I suspect the driver was focusing on that, rather than you and you got lost in their peripheral vision.
They were also the sort of driver who was not slowing down for anyone!
But there was also the risk if they had slowed and maybe even flashed you across into the lane ahead of them, that the pedestrian could have taken that as a cue to cross the road in front of the bike.
I think being more assertive earlier on and fully taking the lane before the markings begin. Or being less assertive later on and conceding if a vehicle is not going to let you into the ahead lane. You could also possibly go ahead from the left turn lane (these arrows are just advisory), but of course that would have other implications from vehicles pulling out in front of you or passing you on the roundabout.
Going ahead from the left lane would probably have been the action of choice for me given the unfurling situation and otherwise light traffic.
I’m hesitant to critique
I’m hesitant to critique these videos too much as I know from personal experience that what it looks like on video and what it feels like on the road can be very different things, but as you ask I would have been across to the right-hand side of the lane while it was still single, aligned to hit the right-hand straight on lane dead in the centre when it appears, leaving the van driver in absolutely no doubt as to not only what I was doing (which you had already indicated) but that I was asserting my right to go first. I probably would have accelerated a bit too to increase the closing time between myself and the van as I moved across. From the video it looks as though the driver may have assumed from the fact that you didn’t move across that you were intending to let them go first – they probably shouldn’t have done, having seen your signal, but a lack of assertiveness in your manouevering was probably enough to sow doubt about your intentions.
It’s not often I agree with
It’s not often I agree with the police in regard to videos posted, but in this case I am in 100% agreement.
NMOTD is useful even when the
NMOTD is useful even when the cyclist doesn’t get it right. As Nelson Mandella apparently once quoted. “I never lose, I either win, or I learn”.
I’m in complete agreement
I’m in complete agreement with the police on this one. The van was certainly driving assertively but not illegally or inconsiderately: they could have let you across, but had no obligation to. This wasn’t a “near miss”, either.
If you wanted to get to the rounadabout in lane 2 ahead of them, you had plenty of time to move across into the lane earlier before the split started, which would have more clearly stated your intention — most drivers wouldn’t have had a problem with that.
Clear consensus emerging here
Clear consensus emerging here.
As you know the junction, you are aware of the lanes in advance. Moving early to take advantage of the right lane is key. You made reasonable early observations and that would have been the time to position right, before the single lane became two.
Having delayed, you then became aware of the van approaching, and its speed, and the lane having divided into two. At that point, you had a duty to give way to the van, regardless of your signalled intentions (the hierarchy of users doesn’t take precedence over marked priorities; it isn’t a licence to have priority). You should have continued in the left lane, adjusting speed if possible to change lane after the van had passed, continuing obervations of the junction and behind you (thereby alerting any other following vehicles that you are trying to manoeuvre).
What appears in the video is that you move into the lane around one second before the front of the van is level with your rear, that you cross the line to do so, and you do so within a few metres of the bollards to the right. This all gives the van driver very little time or space to do anything, at a time when his observation workload is increasing from assessing you to assessing the junction in addition. As much as drivers are advised to use the ‘2-second rule’; it follows that anybody moving into that ‘2-second’ field ahead of a driver takes that safety margin away, especially given the difference in speed.
You could possibly have used the left lane to continue on, noting that that is not specifically illegal but may be confusing and possibly obstructive to other road users. Otherwise, your options, having trapped yourself in the left lane are to stop and reset in a gap in traffic, or detour left and correct your route afterwards.
The police response is a bit curt, but they have at least explained what they saw in the video and fed back to you.
The only advice the van driver might be given is that, approaching a mini-roundabout, with a cyclist indicating right on the approach, he might consider dusting off a bit more speed (but that depends on camera perspectives – he was certainly not going fast, except actually going through a junction with conflict). But the onus to give way here was on you, I’m afraid.
Good on you, coming on here,
Good on you, coming on here, given the growing consensus.
‘Fraid I agree with that consensus, arm signal or no, I think you need to get into the outside lane when it is definitely clear, rather than, as you say, assuming that the van will stay back because of the signal.
FWIW I dont think you did
FWIW I dont think you did anything wrong, so dont treat what the others or even im saying as criticism of your riding, & I think the police could have better explained the NFA as I dont think it passes the threshold for action,but it doesnt mean you were in the wrong.
And I’m not as big a fan of the ‘assertive riding’ technique as the others are either because it’s very easy to say well just take the lane in front of that van and block it and everythings then fine.
a decent considerate driver wouldnt have put you in the position you ended up with, so you know they arent a decent considerate driver, which means they probably will consider you as an obstacle instead, so you ‘take the lane’ and they just undertake you or force an overtake still, maybe even just draw alongside and force you to make space for them, or sit on your rear wheel and give you not enough room, using the horn no doubt, or cut you up by straight lining the roundabout or trying all the above on the exit. Do you really want that kind of driver behind you as you navigate that setup?
And those arent me just spitballing worst case scenarios, those are all things that have happened to me in this kind of road set up by ‘taking the lane’.
So as I said on another thread,I’m not sure how I’d approach this one,without trying a few different things. I mean the irony being it should be easiest in low volume traffic scenarios and yet this literally was that with just a lone van.
And in most of the cases you
And in most of the cases you mentioned, (and yes some of them might have meant Dicklexic being an unfortunate statistic) the submitted footage would have genuinely been 100% drivers fault and might have meant Police action.
Absolutely, but it’s the not
Absolutely, but it’s the not wanting to be a statistic part that bothers me most,not the lack of police action in this case.
When we discuss owning a lane as a solution to these NMOTDs,like here, it often feels like we ignore the “and then what happens next part”.
The trouble is you could
The trouble is you could become a statistic either way as shown here and, (as mentioned by another poster), illustrated in the cyclegaz video where owning the lane still meant drivers were asshats. In this case the Police was criticising it because the cyclist appeared to move across into the van and it does look that way in the video. But if the lane was owned, and the NMOTD does happen, then it is 100% driver error, and easier for Police to action bad driving. But as I mentioned, it is always a tough decision and does depend on the confidence of the cyclist.
If I posted my Near misses, I would expect criticism of some of my cycling unfortunately including gutter riding and postitioning. However it is not the criticism of me that I don’t post them.
I can see why the police took
I can see why the police took that view as you did effectively change lanes too late.
The driver should have realised from your road position that you wanted L2 but as you didn’t take L2 immediately, I wonder if the driver thought you were just waiting for him to pass.
Was it uphill, as you didn’t seem to be going that quick, so that maybe another factor for the driver where they thought they could get by and you would just slot in behind with little change of speed (what could possibly go wrong !)
Or they just thought cyclist, meh.
If you don’t take L2 immediately, then you are probably going to wait to swap lanes.
hirsute wrote:
I tend to agree. A more positive move to the lane would have avoided the situation. The driver was inconsiderate but illegal is a stretch.
I have to agree. When cars
I have to agree. When cars cut across lanes etc we state their indicator signal is not an agreement to swing across with out confirming the other vehicle is allowing it to happen, left hooks over cycle lane being a prime example of those normally
Personally i would have been across after the first check at 19 seconds showing the road was “empty”. Then they will have to slow their approach or undertake.
But you then open the risk to
But you then open the risk to an undertake,& the next 12 seconds then feels along time to be stuck out there, especially if you arent that quick or confident, and theres not alot of room on the exit.
I really dont know how I’d ride this one, without trying it.
but I’m curious about peoples views expressed on the signalling part, if it’s not an agreement to move, if other vehicles arent allowing it to happen, what’s the point in signalling as a cyclist at all ? because there are times when I can signal to turn right at a junction and no one is ever allowing me to manoeuvre to make that turn at all. In fact I had to alter my route to work because of that problem at a tricky junction, because i just couldnt get through the constant stream of traffic to turn right.
Awavey wrote:
I think it hinges on how early you’re giving the signal, and how much opportunity you give the other road user to respond. If you’re signalling in good time, while you still ‘own the road’, the onus is on the other person to respond to that appropriately. But you can’t just fling an arm out and move over when they’re already too close to reasonably concede the space.
Of course, there is, unfortunately, always going to be a grey area between the two. Ideally, this would be taken care of by both road users erring on the side of caution and then negotiating who takes the space. The problem comes where both assume that they’re on the right side of that grey area.
agreed, and Im not expecting
agreed, and Im not expecting to just fling an arm out and move instantaneously regardless of the traffic behind me, Im saying when Ive put my arm out for a good 5 seconds of visibility, anyone at that stage approaching me from behind has had good sight of my intentions and I should reasonably expect them to give me the space to make that manouvre , and not attempt to overtake me, which always seems to be their default response.
though this NMOTD is a bit more complicated than just a right turn signal, because its just a change of lane and Im not even sure if Id signal it, the rider here still signalled clearly and early enough imo to have reasonably expected the van to respond positively to that and slowed to give the space
and yet the impression Im getting is people are still saying almost no dont expect that, but also saying own the lane at the same time, just because youve signalled unless the van driver allows it to happen, you’re stuck in the lane you are in. In which case why bother signalling at all if you arent expecting the van drivers or any drivers permission to move, if you see the van just let it pass and roll in behind it.
For your point of signalling
For your point of signalling change of lane, I do if it is a genuine change of lane and my glance shows traffic is behind (even a distance behind) due to speed differences. (example place in a post further on). I don’t if changing position in a single lane (pinch point or parked car needing me to move over) as other cars should be attentive of that aspect although I still ensure nothing is coming and brake if cars behind have crap drivers who can’t see past their own bonnet.
It is always a tough call as when to do a signal then manouvre on a bike though. But my point previously was we have criticised cars for indicating and manouvreing and using the “well I indicated” as their defence.
In dicklexic’s defence, the driver was still a cockwomble though as they didn’t seem to touch the brake at all in the approach even seeing the cyclist getting closer (and pedestrian on the crossing refuge).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
If anything, it looks like they might have sped up a little in order to make sure they got ahead “before that bike gets in my way” (though it’s quite difficult to say because we can’t see their full approach). At the least, I’d say they were going too fast for approaching a junction.
Ah, but if you concede that
Ah, but if you concede that it was inconsiderate, then it may indeed be an offence (if the aggrieved party is inconvenienced).
I don’t think there was inconvenience in this case, however – so no offence. The police response may have been ‘correct’ but could have been worded a little better.
No wonder the police aren’t
No wonder the police aren’t taking many of these cases to court if this is the standard of submission. Take their response as a learning point, because they are 100% spot on.
I’ve just had an absolute brainwave for these police submissions. There should be a £20 charge for submitting a new video, which is refunded if the police are able to take action. This will fund a better quality service to cyclists, ensuring more deserving instances of justice are served, while simultaneously lowering the number of vexatious and superfluous submissions.
That’s a great idea, let’s
That’s a great idea, let’s extend it to other areas of life too – how about you have to pay £20 for posting a comment on here, which you get back if a single person likes your comment. That would certainly lower the number of vexatious and superfluous comments from you.
Careful. Pretty sure Nigel
Careful. Pretty sure Nigel has more than one account.
Yep, one has just appeared.
Yep, one has just appeared.
He’d have got it back in this
He’d have got it back in this case, then.
So Flintshire,as you liked
So Flintshire,as you liked the post do agree that you have to pay £20 to submit reports to Police. Maybe pay £100 to get a guaranteed Careless Driving charge?
I haven’t read all the
I haven’t read all the comments,but no one has mentioned the hierarchy of road users.
“a hierarchy of road users that ensures road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger they may pose to others
strengthened pedestrian priority on pavements and when crossing or waiting to cross the road
guidance on safe passing distances and speeds and ensuring that cyclists have priority at junctions when travelling straight ahead
The new hierarchy would be:
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Horse riders
Motorcyclists
Cars/taxis
Vans/minibuses
Large passenger vehicles/heavy goods vehicles.”
The hierarchy does not negate
The hierarchy does not negate road markings. The cyclist was in a left-turn lane, having left it too late to position before the lane divided. His intention to go straight on is still subject to he need to give way when changing lanes, even with the hierarchy in place.
This is atrocious driving.
This is atrocious driving. Admittedly some cyclists may taken the right hand lane at an earlier stage. But, that assumes that the driver will back down and abandon the overtaking manoeuvre. Is that always a safe assumption?
The idea is that you take
The idea is that you take primary. Although as noted by sriracha, this can lead to an undertake but that would have been interesting one to submit.
I’m more worried about the lack of hive mind and the absence of police hating. What went wrong ?
Early primary for a right
Early primary for a right-lane position means that an undertake to take a left-turn would not have been a problem, if done carefully; and once the lines start, it’s just differential lane speeds.
If the undertaker then went straight on, it would have been careless.
He did go straight on which
He did go straight on which raised the question of whether an early primary would have resulted in an undertake and cut back.
Cycling Gaz did a compliation of undertakes when he was in various L2 situations, so always something I am mindful of.
On reflection, in a similar
On reflection, in a similar situation on my route (traffic lights with a left turn lane and two lanes straight) I take a strong primary in the left turn lane to prevent a left hook, and go straight on. It’s much safer than having cars both sides of me gunning for the lights. Not sure if that would work here, you might get pinched out at the roundabout exit.
I have one on mine as well.
I have one on mine as well. Left lane is turn left, other two are straight on (with optional turn right/come back on yourself). I’m normally in the middle lane by the Streetview link. It helps I’m doing between 20-30mph so keeping within a nice speed in relation to lawful cars. Still get arseholes who use the left lane for straight on but I’m looking for those. Worst is when I have to slow for cars coming around (not many do as they normally come off at the next island but there are some) due to getting speed back up or worry about being rear ended by some asshat.
Do the right thing and risk
Do the right thing and risk an undertake; do the wrong thing and risk somebody proceeding exactly as they should, blocking your progress.
If they undertake, they undertake. Be aware and allow yourself room to anticipate and move right if necessary.
The lane seperation is a lot
The lane seperation is a lot more than the 5m claimed , more like 20m
Looked like dodgy cycling to
Looked like dodgy cycling to me. I would never had done that, no need to gurn around over the shoulder for so long – almost loooked like he wanted some conflict. That left turning lane was fine to stay in if you have indicated right… what a nonsense video. This is the kind of cyclist who inevitably has vehicle contact from cycling so weirdly.
joe9090 wrote:
Absolutely no problem in maintaining observations and eye contact. If anything, cyclists do too little/ineffective over-the-shoulder observation.
Not defending the manoeuvring but, purely from an observations pov, using the whole upper body, or effective head positioning, to take effective observations is crucial. It gives a clear understanding of what is happening, and also telegraphs intentions to other road users.
No not looking for conflict
No not looking for conflict at all. Based on years of past experience I was expecting that with plenty of obvious signals and clear body language the driver would have been under no illusions at all to my intentions, and would be slowing down any moment to ‘let’ me across. Clearly I got it wrong. Lessons definitely learnt on this one.
Yep lessons learned from this
Yep lessons learned from this definitely!
I’ve always regarded myself as an assertive yet considerate rider, but clearly I misjudged this particular one completely. Glad to read the (mostly) constructive criticism from everyone else on this one and move forward, and hopefully be safer next time!
HC rule 212.
HC rule 212.
“When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167 ). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.”
May be you weren’t so wrong after all.
I think the biggest lesson to
I think the biggest lesson to take from this is own the lane… Sit in the centre of the lane and take that right hand lane from its start point. I’m sure the motorists will love that.
The time to be considerate and not take lanes unnecessarily early is over.
Ideally, the van driver
Ideally, the van driver should have slowed down to let the cyclist in front, but I’d agree that it was left a bit late to merge into that lane. The problem is that for a cyclist to merge, there either has to be plenty of room, or the relevant vehicle has to slow and allow the cyclist in which they don’t necessarily have to do.
hawkinspeter wrote:
ideally the cyclist should have moved over earlier
wycombewheeler wrote:
Yes, that as well.
Take it to their professional
Take it to their professional standards department. Probably won’t change the outcome but it will mean they have to look again at your complaint.
as the driver, I’d have
as the driver, I’d have slowed down and signalled the cyclist to move into my lane, it was clear they wanted to move lane. Dissapointing that a van with a bike rack on the back didn’t do this.
However, as the cyclist I’d have either taken the right lane as soon as there was seperation, or I would have waited for the van to pass, at 25s it was clear the van was not waiting, and proceeding to move right after this was likely to lead to conflict. I would have quite happily entered the roundabout from right of centre in the left lane and followed the van round.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Unfortunately some of the worst driving I’ve experienced in the Surrey hills recently has come from wankpanzers with bike racks on the back, often holding very expensive mountain bikes. There is a breed of rider these days that enjoys riding off road but regards anyone using a bike on the road with contempt.
I would have been over in L2
I would have been over in L2 and took control of the lane as soon as it appeared or it was safe to do so … Just like I would have been in my car.
So what if it means the motorised traffic have to slow down early – they’ve got to slow down / stop anyway.
In this kind of situation you either have to dominate the L2, or be right close to the far edge of L1 and go really deep into the junction to make your turn.
There was plenty of room there for either option.
I would suggest that you put yourself somewhat at risk by moving over when you did. The van is pretty much on top of you, and there’s also the approaching traffic island on the outside which added additional risk to the manoeuvre.
I can’t help but feel that your forwards planning wasn’t as far forwards as it should have been, that your risk assessment was somewhat out, and I do somewhat agree with the Police that there should be no further action against the van.
I do seem to remember that the HWC used to say that cyclists should pull over to the left and wait for the road to be clear when turning right if it’s busy … But being really brutally honest, it’s a while since I last read it and newer editions may not have this anymore.
Oldfatgit wrote:
That’s all well and good – if you are familiar with the road. There doesn’t seem to be any indication of which lane goes where until you are right on top of the lanes.
jh2727 wrote:
That’s all well and good – if you are familiar with the road. There doesn’t seem to be any indication of which lane goes where until you are right on top of the lanes.— Oldfatgit
the left lane is rarely correct for people wanting to turn right.
But in this video it is clear at 20s which lane is for where, with both arrows and text visible, at this time it is clear to move out. The cyclist hasn’t moved into the other lane by 27s with the van passing at 29s
wycombewheeler wrote:
Pedantically, in road design terms, it was straight ahead, not turning right.
Given the options were left or ahead and the road in question, in this instance it was probably safe to assume that ahead would need the right-hand lane, but on slightly larger roads it’s not unusual to have ‘left/ahead’ and ‘ahead only’ arrangements.
I know this junction, I’ve
I know this junction, I’ve cycled a lot on gower and would usually head back this way or turn by the Railway Inn and head to the front if I wanted to extend my ride.
Coming up that hill does slow you down a bit and it does take some guts to stick yourself out in the right lane for a long time so I have sympathy with you in that regard. Saying this you do seem to have been indecisive in your lane selection and moved across after the van had already decided they were passing you to turn right.
Looking at the other videos on your YouTube channel, did you send in the one from Fairoak Common? I’ve had lots of close passes there and your video does show some really dodgy driving that should get a positive from the cops.
Hi DrG82 yeah in this case my
Hi DrG82 yeah in this case my indecision was definiltey a major factor in this incident. Lessons learnt for sure.
Regarding the Fairwood Common one, yes I also submitted that one. Sadly I never had any further response beyond the initial automated response confirming my submission. I really hope that was taken further, very dangerous driving.
It would have been
It would have been considerate for a driver to have let the cyclist in but he didn’t have to, therefore I’m not sure what the police are expected to do. If it was a BMW making such a late change of lane, I doubt I would let them in.
Regardless of the “who was
Regardless of the “who was right/wrong”, in this situation, I feel that too many junctions have layouts that encourage ‘competitive’ driving. Too often, a single carriageway splits into several lanes just before a roundabout/junction and this just results in people choosing a lane purely because of perceived overtaking opportunities, rather than directional needs.
A prime example of this, is the LongBarrow roundabout on the A303, just east of Stonehenge. Single carriageway on either side, but short double lanes on the approach/exit. All this does, is split the traffic into two lanes, which then have to merge, as they exit the roundabout – the ensuing delays are predictable and constant, even affecting the north/south road, as the roundabout is often blocked.
Longbarrow Roundabout
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DvSy2G8UWt1qYxW6.
Most motorway on-ramps are the same – inexplicably having 2 lanes that feed into one, leading to desperate MGIF moments.
Simplifying junctions would reduce a lot of these shenanigans – maybe even the roundabout in the NMOTD under question (although folks more familiar with that junction may know of a good reason for the left turn lane)
belugabob wrote:
Indeed – this is quite common. Presumably there are reasons for doing things this way but I note that some countries have moved away from the “multi-lane” / overtaking approach and there’s another way of doing roundabouts. (For high speed high capacity motor-vehicle-only roundabouts only Bedford!)
If only there was another philosophy of how we might design roads which was focussed on safety but put more emphasis on understanding fallible human nature and working with that, not against it. If only there was a practical application of that which had been in existence for over 20 years which we could examine. Oh well, predict and provide it is and when that fails “sign it better”.
Thanks for those links,
Thanks for those links, @chrisonatrike – we can live in hope