Jeremy Vine highlights grim reality of gridlocked London route where cycle lane was ripped out… as council due in court over early removal; Chilly commutes; Manchester to host 2023 Tour of Britain Grand Départ + more on the live blog

135 thoughts on “Jeremy Vine highlights grim reality of gridlocked London route where cycle lane was ripped out… as council due in court over early removal; Chilly commutes; Manchester to host 2023 Tour of Britain Grand Départ + more on the live blog”

1. Lovely one this morning –

   Lovely one this morning – driver reversed without looking as I was crossing the road behind them. When I pointed this out, they apologised – “didn’t see you”, “an accident”, etc. Then, as I was setting off again, they added “might help if you were wearing something reflective”. In what possible way could that help, when they admitted they hadn’t looked behind them? I confess I am not proud of the tirade which followed.     

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • You can’t fix stupid.  They

     You can’t fix stupid.  They’ve been taught that all problems with drivers are solved by hi viz and helmets…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Hi-vis and helmets aren’t

       Hi-vis and helmets aren’t primarily to help you be seen and protect you from impacts. They’re to help you not be seen as “one of those cyclists” and protect you from scorn.

       Until you’re in the way that is.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Because you were not in front

     Because you were not in front of their headlights then any reflective you might have been wearing would not be reflecting anything.

     Idiot motorists.

     What was it about your tirade that you believe was lacking? How do you think you may have made it more effective?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • ktache wrote:

       What was it about your tirade that you believe was lacking? How do you think you may have made it more effective?

       — ktache

       I wish it had been a bit less sweary, and not outside my child’s nursery…

       It would have been far more effective if I’d calmly made the point made here – that a reflective would be academic given he admitted he wasn’t looking.

       To your good point about headlights, I suppose he might argue I’d have reflected his reversing light. But still academic if he’s not looking, and arguably less visible than the SON Edelux I was running at the time.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. I started watching that

   I started watching that Jeremy Vine video but it was giving me vertigo… 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Same here.

     Same here.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’m sure it what makes him
     I’m sure it what makes him look a spectacularly incompetent cyclist.

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. On frosty commutes: Clifton

   On frosty commutes: Clifton Suspension Bridge had signs up “Warning – ice on road”.

   Because presumably, “Warning – ice on road because we didn’t grit the bridge deck properly, sorry” takes up too many characters… 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • pretty sure they dont salt

     pretty sure they dont salt the road surface on most steel bridges, salt/water/steel/rust etc.
     I think they have to spray the surface with something else which comes in a differnet form on a different truck, not sure if it performs as well either

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • In other places they don’t

       In other places they don’t use salt on cycle paths but brine instead – cycles aren’t as good at dispersing the salt as cars.

       However it works to some extent and I’m glad to see my local council has been round the paths already.  Now if they could only find a way to do the access ramps / paths onto the main one (those tend to be steep also)…

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • EK Spinner wrote:

       pretty sure they dont salt the road surface on most steel bridges, salt/water/steel/rust etc.
       I think they have to spray the surface with something else which comes in a differnet form on a different truck, not sure if it performs as well either

       — EK Spinner

       Cow piss. Might want to give the water bottle nozzle an extra wipe…

       “If it snows we get called out to shovel all the snow off. The weight of the snow would stretch the bridge. You can’t use salt on the bridge because it will rot the metal. We have a van with a load of urea pills in the back – crystallised calf urine. We just tow it across the bridge and it sprinkles out, like a miniature spreader, but on the back of the van. When it goes off it smells of ammonia. You put it on and it doesn’t do anything until someone walks on it or drives on it and it crushes the crystals. Then it works.” – Don Midlane, Bridge Attendant

       Workers at the Bridge

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • AdBlue is pig piss aka urea
         AdBlue is pig piss aka urea too.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I think that in general urea

           I think that in general urea is made in an industrial process using ammonia as a raw material these days. Purifying urine to a sufficent level that you could use it an exhaust treatment system would be fiendishly expensive.

           Of course, urea is fiendishly expensive at the moment, because ammonia is made from methane using the Haber-Bosch process, which could explain why the bridge isn’t being treated. 

         • IanMSpencer wrote:

           AdBlue is pig piss aka urea too.

           — IanMSpencer

           As is heel balm – a pharmacist told me that to treat cracked skin, the urea concentration is important.

   • Most bridges also ice up

     Most bridges also ice up first (and more) because they are a bridge and has the freezing air above and below it. I remember a drive across the US and the remote bridges (even in the desert areas) had “Beware, Ice on Bridge” or Beware, Bridges Ice First” signs permanently staked next to them.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. -2 according to my Garmin

   -2 according to my Garmin when I set off this morning.  There were definitely fewer cyclists out than normal (though still a decent number).  There were also fewer motorists.  I suspect, with wfh more of an option for more people these days, a lot of people just decided it’s freezing, I’ll work from home.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Steve K wrote:

     -2 according to my Garmin when I set off this morning.  There were definitely fewer cyclists out than normal (though still a decent number).  There were also fewer motorists.  I suspect, with wfh more of an option for more people these days, a lot of people just decided it’s freezing, I’ll work from home.

     — Steve K

     I have WFO (worked from office) all the time – I never WFH.

     The only thing I’ve noticed with the proliferation of WFH and its associated tech is that its impossible to have a ‘real’ sick day any more – it is just assumed that you’ll be home because you’re ill but can carry on working through the wonders of modern technology…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Your mileage may vary, but

       Your mileage may vary, but this isn’t my personal experience. If I’m sick enough to not have gone into the office, I have no issue affirming that I’m too sick to WFH. What WHF does do is cut down on the weird self-sacrificial presenteeism thing where people would be sick and still come into the office anyway and give their virus to the whole workforce – because now they can just stay at home until they’re over it.

       Again, your mileage may vary, but WFH also allows me to “flexi-time” in a way that I couldn’t in the office – if I’m in the office but I’m stuck due to waiting on someone else, I can’t really do much because I’m stuck in the office. If I’m WFH I can go and do something else (productive or otherwise) until the work’s ready. It also makes staying back on busier days easier to tolerate as I’m not being held back onsite only to cycle home in the dark – I already am home.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’ve had to advise people in

       I’ve had to advise people in my team that if you are too ill to work in the office, don’t just WFH.
       I actually find WFH more mentally draining then WFO. With the latter, I would have a walk around the office once every 90 mins (we are on two floors) to get blood flowing and take a break from the screen. At home I fear being away from the device and someone trying to contact me as I don’t want to appear to be “skiving”.

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. Did anyone else notice that

   Did anyone else notice that the Office Christmas Parties seem to have started early this year?  There were lots of crowds of people wandering around the city centre during my evening commute yesterday (men and women in novelty jumpers, men wearing santa hats).

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     Did anyone else notice that the Office Christmas Parties seem to have started early this year?  There were lots of crowds of people wandering around the city centre during my evening commute yesterday (men and women in novelty jumpers, men wearing santa hats).

     — brooksby

     According to press reports, there have been as many cancellations of Christmas parties – because of the rail strikes – as there were because of Omicron.  Though one of the teams at my office has brought there’s forward to today because of the strikes, so that may be why you are seeing more?  

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. As a Greater Manchester

   As a Greater Manchester resident I’m very happy that the race is here again in ’23, it seems unfair to other places though.   There have been very few ToBs of recent years that haven’t passed within a moderate bike ride of home, including an Altrincham start and a stage finish in Knutsford.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • However doesn’t the routes go

     However doesn’t the routes go where councils ask. So councils approach ToB committee and state, come to us, we have these routes, will close these roads (for free) but we would like you to start (or finish) in this area for maximum local gain. So GMC probably even have a team now planning these ahead of time, hence them getting more stages over the years.

     (Are brown envelopes / enticements also involved?)

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Helmet Row

   Helmet Row

   4 cyclists stopped and spoken in regards to various matters including lack of lights and protective headwear

   6 roadside breath tests conducted – all negative result

   — Police Scotland North East Edinburgh (@PSOSNEEdinburgh) December 8, 2022

   “4 cyclists stopped and spoken in regards to various matters including lack of lights and protective headwear”

   Lights ok, protective headwear ?

   “Protective headwear? You mean like how a wooly beanie is great on the colder mornings, or what?”

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • 4 cyclists stopped and spoken

     4 cyclists stopped and spoken in regards to various matters including lack of lights and protective headwear

     Even I, an inveterate helmet wearer and user of reflective devices on ankles and spokes, would tell the Filth where to go in non-expletive terms if they stopped me on such matters and would move off smartly, indicating a refusal to be ‘stopped’. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • wtjs wrote:

       4 cyclists stopped and spoken in regards to various matters including lack of lights and protective headwear

       Even I, an inveterate helmet wearer and user of reflective devices on ankles and spokes, would tell the Filth where to go in non-expletive terms if they stopped me on such matters and would move off smartly, indicating a refusal to be ‘stopped’. 

       — wtjs

       I think it’s entirely reasonable for them to stop people for insufficient lights, head injury rates are so low, helmets are a non issue, buth they do keep your warm hat in place when it’s -2

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • .

       .

       Say ‘NO!’ to Garstang pigs!

       .

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Comments on that suggesting
     Comments on that suggesting that police are wrong to stop them because it’s only a recommendation in the highway code, and not law, are frankly ridiculous.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Not the police’s job to offer

       Not the police’s job to offer moral advice and to stop people for no lawful reason.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • hirsute wrote:

         Not the police’s job to offer moral advice and to stop people for no lawful reason.

          

         — hirsute

         Do you think that the police should stop people who tailgate on the motorway at high speed?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Not the police’s job to offer moral advice and to stop people for no lawful reason.

            

           — ShutTheFrontDawes Do you think that the police should stop people who tailgate on the motorway at high speed?— hirsute

           Highway Code 44 states “You must not drive dangerously…without reasonable consideration for other road users.” “Must nots” are compulsory and tailgating can very justifiably be put into the category of dangerous driving, so that’s an entirely different matter to lecturing people for not complying with the “should not” optional parts of the code.

         • Yes, as that is careless

           Yes, as that is careless driving and an offence.

           Not wearing specific items whilst cycling is not an offence.

            

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Do you think that the police should stop people who tailgate on the motorway at high speed?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           They should stop and prosecute them for careless driving. It’s very dangerous behaviour.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Do you think that the police should stop people who tailgate on the motorway at high speed?

           — hawkinspeter

           They should stop and prosecute them for careless driving. It’s very dangerous behaviour.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           Interesting. Rule 125 only has ‘should’ for stopping distances. So that one isn’t a ‘moral’ issue?

         • https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime

           https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

           Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:

           –  driving too close to another vehicle;

           HC Rule 125

           “Dangerous and careless driving offences, such as tailgating, are enforced by the police.”

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Interesting. Rule 125 only has ‘should’ for stopping distances. So that one isn’t a ‘moral’ issue?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           People do die from motorway crashes where someone has been tailgating. It’s clearly careless driving and is prosecuted as such. You seem to be trying to straw-man your way around the issue of police wasting time stopping cyclists that are not going to cause any injury to other people.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Interesting. Rule 125 only has ‘should’ for stopping distances. So that one isn’t a ‘moral’ issue?

           — hawkinspeter

           People do die from motorway crashes where someone has been tailgating.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           People do die from falling off their bike and hitting their head without a helmet on.

           How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don’t think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

           Stop complaining and write to your MP about it. I already have.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           People do for from falling off their bike and hitting their head without a helmet on. How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don’t think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code? Stop complaining and write to your MP about it. I already have.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Okay, this is getting tedious now.

           You’re equating a multi-vehicle pile up on a motorway with someone falling off their bike without a helmet? I can explain the difference to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

         • You’re focusing on the
           You’re focusing on the differences, but I’m focusing on the similarities. They are both in the highway code, along with quite a lot else.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don’t think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don’t think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

           — Rendel Harris

           The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           So the police shouldn’t get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a ‘should’ in rule 163)

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

            So the police shouldn’t get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a ‘should’ in rule 163)

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           They should get involved with close passes, but not under the Highway Code which, again, is not law. They can charge people for close passes with careless driving, which does come under the RTA, and that is indeed what close passers are charged with.

         • This epitomises the double
           This epitomises the double standard of you and so many posters on here. There are so many complaints on NMotDs about police failing to follow up on driving that you lot consider to be dangerous/careless because it contravenes the guidance in the highway code as though the Rule 163 is the eleventh commandment, but when the police provide advice about the bits of the highway code you don’t agree with, you complain! Pick a lane, for goodness’ sake!

           And remember, in the Twitter post there was no suggestion that someone was charged with not wearing a helmet, so it’s not like they were overstepping or misinterpreting the law, unlike the recent Public Order Act example we had on here a couple of weeks ago, where clearly the police were in the wrong.

         • No because in NMOTD the

           No because in NMOTD the driving contravenes RTAs and SIs and constitutes an offence for which you can be prosecuted.

           Stopping someone in an attempt to enforce something you can’t is overstepping the law.

            

         • hirsute wrote:

           No because in NMOTD the driving contravenes RTAs and SIs and constitutes an offence for which you can be prosecuted.

           Stopping someone in an attempt to enforce something you can’t is overstepping the law.

            

           — hirsute

           So the police are correct in ignoring Rule 163 of the highway code and making up their own interpretation of what constitutes careless/dangerous driving? After all, the road traffic act doesn’t provide a limit for a safe pass.

           Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can’t have it both ways.

         • False dichotomy

           False dichotomy

           Road users are charged with offences such as careless driving, dangerous driving.

           The definition of these are broad because Acts do not generally anticipate every possible activity and use such things as reasonable or standard

           “The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver – section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.”

           In order to present a case, the highway code would be adduced to demonstrate why the driving fell below the standard.

           There is no offence of cycling without a helmet, so the highway code will not be adduced.

           Police should not be stopping people for things that are not offences.

            

            

            

            

         • So some parts of the highway
           So some parts of the highway code are more important than others, and some deserve police oversight while others don’t?

           I wonder if Charlie Cornick’s family think that Rule 59 is less important than any other rule. Or anyone else who has lost a loved one due to a head injury sustained while cycling without a helmet, which is a group by the way that I am part of, so I can speak for my own authority on the subject at the very least

         • I’m sorry that you’re part of

           I’m sorry that you’re part of that group, and can understand your stance in the circumstances. The reality though is that the police do have to prioritise what they enforce. There are others who have lost loved ones who were wearing helmet, who would think Rule 59 is not a priority.

           For others like me who didn’t immediately recognise the name, Charlie Cornick died when he was hit by a driver from behind at somewhere around 50mph. It appears he didn’t have lights (though there’s some uncertainty about that) and the driver says she was dazzled by oncoming headlights. Had the police seen him that fateful night, I would expect them to have a word about lights. But when I put a helmet on, it’s not in the expectation that it will save me in a 50mph collision.           

         • You must mean rule 60 which

           You must mean rule 60 which is under pinned by specific legislation.

           As it is, you are the only one going on about the highway code, everyone else is talking about legislation and actual prosecutable offences.

            

            

            

         • hirsute wrote:

           You must mean rule 60 which is under pinned by specific legislation.

           As it is, you are the only one going on about the highway code, everyone else is talking about legislation and actual prosecutable offences.

           — hirsute

           Ummm. No. I mean rule 59.

           And I’m not the only one ‘going on about’ the highway code. The police in the tweet were too. Or did you forget what we were talking about?

           Is there anything else you’d like to be condescending about?

         • Do you think the police

           Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can’t have it both ways

           The police already ignore the Highway Code when it suits them, which is most of the time. It is ilegal to pass a traffic light at red, yet Lancashire Constabulary ignores every proven RLJ offence I report. What the police want is to be the de facto legislature for the country, independent of Parliament and the Judiciary. In Lancashire they have achieved this aim already, aided and abetted by the CPS. When they ignore the law about RLJs, MOTs and insurance for motor vehicles, handheld mobile use while driving, double unbroken white lines etc, they are, like Judge Dredd, The Law. These offences are uniformly forgiven here by the provision of an unpublished Universal Dispensation for all except people the police don’t like, and I have no doubt they are kept out of the statistics.

         • wtjs wrote:

           Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can’t have it both ways

           The police already ignore the Highway Code when it suits them, which is most of the time.

           — wtjs

           I fully agree and find it very frustrating. I am pleased to see the police interpreting and applying UK law and the highway code correctly and I am displeased to see it being interpreted or applied incorrectly.

           I am pleased to see them give advice to cyclists about helmets. I would be pleased if they gave advice about hi-viz to cyclists or pedestrians. I am pleased when they give advice about safe passing distances and I’m even more pleased when they prosecute when a close pass is demonstrably careless, purposeful or vindictive.

           And frankly I’m fed up of people insisting that the police interpret and apply some parts while insisting that they don’t interpret and apply others.

         • You have correctly identified

           You have correctly identified a double standard.

           One I’m very happy with – and I believe most people who think about it would be.  After recognising and putting aside our emotional “but it’s not fair!  One rule for them and a different one for me!” responses.  Because there is a fundamental asymmetry in both risk and danger presented.

           A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.  Even when a danger to others there is a fairly low limit to the harm you can cause – albeit that includes death and serious injury so we should take this seriously.

           A driver in a motor vehicle not driving within the rules is a danger to the public at large, including other motorists, people inside buildings etc. but very much to vulnerable road users.  It’s not unheard of for a crash to kill and/or injure multiple people.  In addition the driver is protected to a much greater degree so in a collision which kills someone else they may be totally unscathed.  This is possible – but much less likely – in e.g. a cyclist – pedestrian collision.

           I’m very happy for cyclists – like anyone else – to be policed.  And the police have to deal as best they can with the law-breaking they’re faced with.  Which they’ll never have enough time to police completely. So if they really didn’t have anything more important to do at the time then fine!

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.

           — chrisonatrike

           One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

           Regardless, it doesn’t matter our opinions on the matter. Riding without a helmet is not following the a recommendation in the highway code. The police have given advice about it.

           Some of us are happy about that. Perhaps the fact that a family member of mine has died following a head injury sustained while cycling makes me more happy that this particular rule is being communicated by the police. I think it’s within their gift to do so and I’m happy that they are.

           In my opinion, it is police time well spent.

           Yours may differ, but I’m glad they’re doing it.

         • Ah – I understand, it is the

           Ah – I understand, it is the personal experience here that’s focussed this for you.

           Happy if police are giving out advice – if they have nothing more pressing.  Could someone else (without the training and quals) be found to deliver advice though?

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Ah – I understand, it is the personal experience here that’s focussed this for you.

           Happy if police are giving out advice – if they have nothing more pressing.  Could someone else (without the training and quals) be found to deliver advice though?

           — chrisonatrike

           Good idea. Perhaps they could cut out the necessity to get people involved at all though, and just tell the cyclists that they would be better off with a helmet within a single authoritative source, applicable to road users. We could call it a ‘code for using the highway’ or perhaps something slightly punchier.

           Unfortunately though, even if you do that, people who think they know better will still complain that you mentioned it in that authoritative source, and will complain even louder if a police officer dares mention the little snippet of advice therein contained.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.— ShutTheFrontDawes One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.— chrisonatrike

           (a) A driver not wearing a seatbelt may well be at greater risk of injury than one who is wearing one. But the act of driving poses a risk not only to the driver, but to passengers and others they might affect – true also of cycling, but to a lower degree. Mandatory seatbelts therefore stand to protect others from harm, not just the driver.  

           (b) That’s precisely the distinction people are getting at. Nobody has legislated to mandate cycle helmets. Which is why it should arguably be lower policing priority.

           Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors… 

         • quiff wrote:

           A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.

           — quiff

           One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           (a) A driver not wearing a seatbelt may well be at greater risk of injury than one who is wearing one. But the act of driving poses a risk not only to the driver, but to passengers and others they might affect – true also of cycling, but to a lower degree. Mandatory seatbelts therefore stand to protect others from harm, not just the driver.  

           (b) That’s precisely the distinction people are getting at. Nobody has legislated to mandate cycle helmets. Which is why it should arguably be lower policing priority.

           Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors… 

           — chrisonatrike

           Wrt a, it’s not just the driver who is required to wear a seatbelt though, is it. People are required by law to wear a seatbelt for their own safety. So that when the bad news comes it’s “your relative was involved in a collision. They were wearing their seatbelt and are in hospital” and not ” your relative was involved in a collision. They were not wearing a seatbelt. We need you to confirm their identity, please come with me to the morgue”.

           Wrt b, no one was charged for not wearing a helmet though, so that distinction appears to not be lost on the police officer (s) concerned.

           And on the final point, should they? Yes. It’s illegal not to iaw RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24. In my opinion, the law in this area is overkill. But the law is the law is the law.

         • Yes, each seatbelt protects

           Yes, each seatbelt protects an individual. But you started by suggesting you could say that a driver not wearing a seatbelt is a risk only to themselves. That’s not correct – a driver not wearing a seatbelt is a risk to themselves and many others, and that is why seatbelts are mandatory. My point is that everyone wears a seatbelt because of the risks driving (and crashing) a car present. The lower risks presented by cycling are the reason there is no such mandation for helmets.  

           As for pedal reflectors, that was my point – the criticism here is because the police have given advice on something which is not illegal, and some people feel that’s overstepping the mark. It would be interesting to see how people react if the police started enforcing something which is illegal and which very many cyclists (myself included) flout.   

         • But aren’t seatbelts tested

           But aren’t seatbelts tested at 30 – 40 MPH so are tested and designed to work in a collision. Hence the law requiring them (plus the rest of the car safety features help). It is not the same with cycle helmets which are tested on very low speed/ standing falls. But then it is no surprise as the same material trusted to protect a TV in a box falling 3 feet is the same as used in cycle helmets. And I still have dents and broken glass on deliveries of goods even with that protection. 

           So again, false equivalence relating “required” seatbelts with helmets in a collision. 

           BTW, if you feel upto it, what was the personal incident which put you as such an advocate for helmets. Was it a car collision or just a fall?

           I do choose to wear one, mainly to ensure it’s absence is not used as an excuse for a driver. The one time I was knocked off, I landed on my chest and the helmet never hit the floor. However it has helped with low branches on canal paths and the once when I came off on ice, however again I’m also aware it adds a few inches to the circumference of my large melon anyway, so can’t guarantee the head would have been hit.

         • quiff wrote:

           Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors… 

           — quiff

           I hope not – my pedals don’t have reflectors.

           That requirement should be changed to also allow reflective shoes/trousers. There’s more room for reflective material on shoes and trousers than there is on pedals.

         • Well I’m an outlaw again. 

           Well I’m an outlaw again.  Not only don’t I have pedal reflectors on one of my bikes but you can’t see my feet from the rear of it.

           TBF it’s almost always a daylight bike and so far “too obvious” seems to be more of a thing than SMIDSY.

           If I install a reflective windmill on the back so there’s something moving would that cover it?

         • Would that device come under

           Would that device come under pedal assist? 

         • Exactly – it’s easy to

           Exactly – it’s easy to criticise the police for being heavy handed and having the wrong priority here, because what they’ve given advice on isn’t illegal. A more interesting case would be if they started clamping down on something which is actually illegal but which many of us (me included) flout.

           Agree that it should be changed though. Doing more utility cycling recently and have discovered the joys of reflective trouser clips. Getting old.    

         • Enough. Back under the bridge

           Enough. Back under the bridge please.

         • Nah, don’t agree with this.

           Nah, don’t agree with this. He is not being deliberately anti-cyclist, just pro-helmet. 

         • https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime

           “So the police shouldn’t get involved in close passes then?”

           https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

           Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:

           –  driving too close to another vehicle;

            

           You are clearly unable to concede your tailgating example was incorrect and it is unclear whether you even think it constitutes an offence.

            

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don’t think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.

           — Rendel Harris So the police shouldn’t get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a ‘should’ in rule 163)— ShutTheFrontDawes

           You cannot be prosecuted for not wearing a helmet.  All of the driving examples you have come up with you can be prosecuted for.

         • So the police shouldn’t get

           So the police shouldn’t get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a ‘should’ in rule 163)

           The police aren’t (in Lancashire anyway) involved in close passes, in the sense that it’s impossible to pass a cyclist close enough so that Lancashire Constabulary will take any significant action- defining ‘action’ as a number of options for the police which includes no action at all where they won’t tell you what they did doesn’t count!

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Interesting. Rule 125 only has ‘should’ for stopping distances. So that one isn’t a ‘moral’ issue?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           As an aside – there’s often a clear disconnect between the law and moral issues. Throughout history there are tonnes of examples of laws that have been clearly immoral, so it’s worth bearing in mind that laws are just an approximation to how some people think that society should behave.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           As an aside – there’s often a clear disconnect between the law and moral issues.

           — hawkinspeter

           Tell that to the Indonesian government..

         • brooksby wrote:

           Tell that to the Indonesian government..

           — brooksby

           They didn’t listen to me when I wobbled up to them on my bike (no ocifer, I’ve only had a few ales) and thrust some peer reviewed studies on helmet efficacy into their faces.

     • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

       Comments on that suggesting that police are wrong to stop them because it’s only a recommendation in the highway code, and not law, are frankly ridiculous.

       — ShutTheFrontDawes

       I’d consider it okay for police to have a friendly chat if the cyclist was already stopped, but it’s bizarre for police to actually go out and stop cyclists just to deliver the least effective road safety message possible. The time spent doing that would be far better spent monitoring for careless/dangerous driving or maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles.

       As St Chris puts it: https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

       “It’s a bit like saying ‘people are sniping at you going down this street, so put some body armour on,’” he said.

       Government encouragement to wear helmets was therefore “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”

       Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message.

       “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.”

       There’s a better solution to the problem of cycle safety, Boardman said. In the Netherlands, just 0.8 percent of cyclists wear helmets yet the Dutch have the lowest rate of cycling head injury, thanks to segregated cycling infrastructure. Thirty percent of journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, he said, and 50 percent of children’s journey to school.

       ”The best way to deal with [the head injury issue] is what the Dutch have done,” he said. “Where you have the Highest rate of helmet use, you also have the highest rate of head injury: us and the US.”

       Yet there’s also an almost-fanatical, knee-jerk devotion to helmet use among enthusiast and sporting cyclists.

       Now I’m not anti-helmet per se (I pretty much always wear one when cycling), but I appreciate that cycle helmets are not the answer. The reason I shared some info with you in that other thread was to demonstrate that there are real reasons to think that banging on about cycle helmets is counter-productive. Yes they provide some head protection, but they’re being promoted in place of actual safety measures that would help cyclists and grow cycling. Having police going around and re-inforcing a political message is a waste of their time and taxpayer’s money.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Right, 2 threads going on

         Right, 2 threads going on this so it’s time again!

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • From the tweet (and bearing
         From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party).

         I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party). I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           If they’re stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I’d be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me – it’s like pulling over a car and telling them “you can’t park here”.

           I’m not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.

         • Or as my neighbout found,

           Or as my neighbout found, cycling in a very straight line can lead to being stopped.

           He was basically diverting from the norm and hence attracted attention. I think they let him off with a warning.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Or as my neighbout found, cycling in a very straight line can lead to being stopped.

           He was basically diverting from the norm and hence attracted attention. I think they let him off with a warning.

           — hirsute

           There was an amusing cartoon in Private Eye many years ago of two coppers standing by a car with a beaming driver inside, one saying to the other, “He’s relaxed, cooperative and courteous; he was driving in an exemplary manner well under the speed limit. There’s no way he’s not pissed.”

         • hawkinspeter]

           [quote

           [quote=ShutTheFrontDawes]

           If they’re stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I’d be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me – it’s like pulling over a car and telling them “you can’t park here”.

           I’m not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.

           — hawkinspeter

           Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a ‘productive’ use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for…

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

            Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a ‘productive’ use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for…

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           The only way the police can arrest and charge a cyclist for being drunk is if they are incapable, i.e. they are doing what HP said, wobbling around. There’s no point in police randomly stopping cyclists who are not doing so because, as I mentioned in my previous post, they can’t breathalyse them.

            

         • They can breathalyse them.
           They can breathalyse them. The cyclist just has the right to refuse. And you’re right to say that a preliminary breath test is not all that is needed to prosecute (same as for drivers actually).

           I disagree that there is no point. It shows that police can and will do something about it, which discourages the unsafe and illegal behaviour in the first place.

           Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can’t remember if you’re one of them to be honest.

           Presumably that’s to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can’t remember if you’re one of them to be honest. Presumably that’s to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Drivers often kill people due to their careless/illegal behaviour. Cyclists kill so rarely that we know the names of the people involved in the last dangerous cycling case.

           It’s not so much them vs us, but huge danger vs tiny danger. Surely you must understand that by now or are you just upset that we are looking to the wider issues?

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           They can breathalyse them. The cyclist just has the right to refuse. And you’re right to say that a preliminary breath test is not all that is needed to prosecute (same as for drivers actually). I disagree that there is no point. It shows that police can and will do something about it, which discourages the unsafe and illegal behaviour in the first place. Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can’t remember if you’re one of them to be honest. Presumably that’s to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           So there is no point really, because they have to inform the cyclist that they have a right to refuse and clearly any cyclist who is over the limit (of which, for the avoidance of any doubt, I thoroughly disapprove) would refuse. It’s also fairly pointless because there is no legal limit for alcohol for cyclists.

           I’d be very happy for there to be a more robust police presence on UK roads and for them to charge cyclists who are breaking the law (without wanting to be holier than thou, wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, I never jump red lights or ride on the pavement, I don’t ride if I’m drinking and I ride around at night lit up like a Christmas tree). I don’t think that police should be wasting their time lecturing people on non-compulsory safety precautions such as wearing helmets. Given that roughly 5% of vehicles are uninsured, 2.5% of drivers are banned or don’t have a licence at all, and around one million cars are being driven on the road without a valid MOT, I wonder how many lawbreaking vehicles/drivers passed the police while they were busy ticking off cyclists for not having equipment that is not a legal requirement?

         • Why do you think the police
           Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don’t tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don’t tell you that you have a right to leave if they’ve stopped (but not arrested) you

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don’t tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don’t tell you that you have a right to leave if they’ve stopped (but not arrested) you

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           I expressed myself badly, I meant that if a cyclist refuses the police will have to accept that, i.e., they can’t tell you that you’re going to be in trouble if you refuse.

           I think you’re wrong about being allowed to refuse the police permission to search your car, as far as I understand it under stop and search law they have a right to search it if they have reasonable suspicion that the car may contain illegal or stolen items, and indeed they have a right to search without suspicion if they have permission from a senior officer.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don’t tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don’t tell you that you have a right to leave if they’ve stopped (but not arrested) you

           — Rendel Harris

           I expressed myself badly, I meant that if a cyclist refuses the police will have to accept that, i.e., they can’t tell you that you’re going to be in trouble if you refuse.

           I think you’re wrong about being allowed to refuse the police permission to search your car, as far as I understand it under stop and search law they have a right to search it if they have reasonable suspicion that the car may contain illegal or stolen items, and indeed they have a right to search without suspicion if they have permission from a senior officer.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           I’m not wrong because I never said you can’t refuse. I said that the police don’t tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like “can I have a look around your car?” and never “can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don’t want me to”.

           When breathalysing a cyclist, I bet they don’t even ask really, I bet they say something like “please blow into this tube”.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           I’m not wrong because I never said you can’t refuse. I said that the police don’t tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like “can I have a look around your car?” and never “can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don’t want me to”.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           If they believe they have reasonable grounds to search, or they have permission from a senior officer without reasonable grounds, they are not going to say to you that you can refuse if you don’t want them to, because you can’t.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I’m not wrong because I never said you can’t refuse. I said that the police don’t tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like “can I have a look around your car?” and never “can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don’t want me to”.

           — Rendel Harris

           If they believe they have reasonable grounds to search, or they have permission from a senior officer without reasonable grounds, they are not going to say to you that you can refuse if you don’t want them to, because you can’t.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           Yes Mr Harris, sir. I understand that. My point is that even if they DON’T have reasonable grounds, they still don’t tell you that you are able to refuse. The citizen is required to KNOW that they are able to refuse. The police officer doesn’t tell the citizen that they are able to refuse. This invariably leads to legal searches being conducted without reasonable grounds, because the police officer asks, and permission is not refused.

         • Just to be a bit pedantic,

           Just to be a bit pedantic, there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist, because there is no specific limit that applies to cyclists.

           The test is whether they are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle. So you can be three times the drink driving limit, but if you can still manage to control your bike, no offence has been committed.

           It’s similar to it being illegal to be drunk in a public place (yes, including a pub!). But the police don’t routinely breathalyse people drinking in pubs.

           https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing

         • HoarseMann wrote:

           Just to be a bit pedantic, there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist, because there is no specific limit that applies to cyclists.

           The test is whether they are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle. So you can be three times the drink driving limit, but if you can still manage to control your bike, no offence has been committed.

           It’s similar to it being illegal to be drunk in a public place (yes, including a pub!). But the police don’t routinely breathalyse people drinking in pubs.

           https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing

           — HoarseMann

           That doesn’t mean that ‘there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist’. If the cyclist is found to have a large amount of alcohol in their system, it enables the police to make further enquiries.

           It also means that others might think ‘gee I better not drink too much tonight, I’ve gotta cycle to work in the morning and I might get stopped’. I think that’s pretty worthwhile.

         • It would be an abuse of

           It would be an abuse of police powers to request a cyclist or pedestrian to take a breath test. The legislation does not allow for it, it only applies to motor vehicles:

           https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/6

         • Don’t be daft. It’s not an
           Don’t be daft. It’s not an abuse of police powers to request that someone do something. In exactly the same way that a police officer can ask to look in your car, they could ask you to provide a breath sample.

           It would be an abuse of police powers to say “you, as a cyclist, are required to provide a breath sample and you are not allowed to leave until you do, in accordance with The Road Traffic Act”, but there is no mention that any police officer did this when obtaining the samples (6, I think).

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           but there is no mention that any police officer did this when obtaining the samples (6, I think).

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           I doubt they sampled 6 cyclists, it was a general road safety op and they were stopping motor vehicles too.

           I do think it would be an abuse of powers to request a breath test of a cyclist or pedestrian, they’re not even allowed to stop and search people without good reason.

         • Except they need to give you

           Except they need to give you their name, station and state why and what necessitates the search. They also have to offer you a report of the search. 

         • I wonder how many lawbreaking

           I wonder how many lawbreaking vehicles/drivers passed the police while they were busy ticking off cyclists

           Doesn’t matter, because they would ensure that they didn’t notice the offending vehicles whatever they were doing.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Presumably that’s to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Dangerous things. We want them to crack down on illegal things that are dangerous to others. 

           It’s a pretty simple concept mate, you shouldn’t have to be a rocket surgeon to understand it.

         • Wingguy wrote:

           Presumably that’s to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

           — Wingguy

           Dangerous things. We want them to crack down on illegal things that are dangerous to others. 

           It’s a pretty simple concept mate, you shouldn’t have to be a rocket surgeon to understand it.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           Speak for yourself. I don’t want them to just apply the law when it comes to dangerous things. I’m quite happy that people get investigated/charged/prosecuted/punished for other things. Stealing, for example.

           And it’s not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn’t.

         • And it’s not my decision, nor

           And it’s not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn’t

           It bloody well is our job to have a go at deciding, because otherwise it will be down to the unbalanced decisions of the notoriously cyclist-ist, inept and ineffectual police to decide unopposed- before cases even get to the notoriously pro-motorist courts

         • wtjs wrote:

           And it’s not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn’t

           It bloody well is our job to have a go at deciding, because otherwise it will be down to the unbalanced decisions of the notoriously cyclist-ist, inept and ineffectual police to decide unopposed- before cases even get to the notoriously pro-motorist courts

           — wtjs

           My apologies to the RT Hon wtjs MP.

           Perhaps you could raise the issue at the next Prime Minister’s Questions, instead of here, on an internet forum?

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

            Speak for yourself.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           I literally just replied to you speaking for ‘US’. In capitals, so it was impossible to miss.

           And it’s not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn’t.

           Then why are you talking?

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Speak for yourself. I don’t want them to just apply the law when it comes to dangerous things. I’m quite happy that people get investigated/charged/prosecuted/punished for other things. Stealing, for example. And it’s not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn’t.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           And by the way, for clarity, you know full well we are talking about something that isn’t against the law and that no-one can or will be investigated, charged, prosecuted or punished for.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a ‘productive’ use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for…

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Yes it’s a crime, but I doubt that it’s worth trying for a prosecution with it unless the person is obviously drunk (in which case the breathalyser is just to put  a number to it). I’d consider police targetting drunk cyclists as a waste of time as drunk cyclists very rarely cause anyone else any harm and the activity is often self-limiting – get too drunk and you keep falling off.

           Obviously, if police see a cyclist wobbling around and getting beeped at by other traffic etc. then they should stop and talk to them and in extreme cases even prosecute them, but just picking out random cyclists and breathalysing them is clearly a waste of time as drunk cyclists are not a big problem at all.

           Police have limited time and budgets, so they could just enforce every single crime they encounter without any consideration about wider effects or they could prioritise their efforts. Do you understand now why we despair when some police forces don’t bother enforcing dangerous driving footage provided by the public, but instead go around and harass cyclists?

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Do you understand now why we despair when some police forces don’t bother enforcing dangerous driving footage provided by the public, but instead go around and harass cyclists?

           — hawkinspeter

           I already did, but two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           I already did, but two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           You seem to miss the point of road safety.

           Someone not wearing a helmet has very little chance of causing injury to someone else. Someone driving carelessly has a high chance of causing injury to someone else.

           In order to get to Vision Zero, the priority has to be to stop drivers from killing people. You can enforce as many helmets as you like, but it’s not going to reduce road casualties.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           I already did, but two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           I fail to see how it undermines anything. We’re saying “stop putting effort into helmet charades when you should be preventing road deaths instead by stopping dangerous driving”

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           I already did, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Tailgating = careless driving = an offence

           Not wearing certain attire <> an offence.

           So no, they are no both wrong as you claim.

           Not sure if that is an tacit admission from you that tailgating is an offence.

            

           It’s not the job of the police to enforce things that are not the law.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           I already did, but two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Or from an alternate point of view, it absolutely doesn’t and it is absurd to suggest it does.

         • I’ve no beef with the police

           I’ve no beef with the police stopping a cyclist who appears unsteady or has committed an offence resulting in requesting a breath test or just simply arresting them as they appear to be drunk. What seems to have happened here is that cyclists have been randomly stopped and tested for no apparent reason. 

         • This is Edinburgh.

           This is Edinburgh.

           “Why are you wobbling around?”

           “This is the effing Leith Walk Slalom Cycle Track, Officer. I’m trying not to effing cycle on the effing pavement.”

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party). I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

           — hawkinspeter

           If they’re stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I’d be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me – it’s like pulling over a car and telling them “you can’t park here”.

           I’m not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           The police cannot randomly breathalyse a cyclist. The cyclist can refuse and unless they are obviously drunk only then can the police arrest them. Even then the CPS cannot use a refusal against the cyclist as evidence. 

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party)

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           You can’t breathalyse cyclists, or at least cyclists are entitled to refuse to take a breathalyser without any penalty. Stupid law in my opinion but that is the law.

            

            

       • Thank you.
         Thank you.
         We spend far too much time on this site discussing helmets and no time discussing modal separation.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • maybe even checking MOTs/Tax

         maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles

         You blackguard! They should be arresting you for police time wasting. It seems to be Axiom No 1 in police training that on no account should valuable police cyclist-hostility time be wasted on the war on the hard-working, hard-pressed….Saints of the Road

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • wtjs wrote:

           maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles

           You blackguard! They should be arresting you for police time wasting. It seems to be Axiom No 1 in police training that on no account should valuable police cyclist-hostility time be wasted on the war on the hard-working, hard-pressed….Saints of the Road

           — wtjs

           You ommitted “otherwise law abiding”

8. waht is Vine’s camera/ how

   waht is Vine’s camera/ how does it work?  how does it give that 360 degree from above effect?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I believe its an Insta360.

     I believe its an Insta360.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • rjfrussell wrote:

     waht is Vine’s camera/ how does it work?  how does it give that 360 degree from above effect?

     — rjfrussell

     It’s a 360 camera on a tall pole attached to the handlebars, the software edits the pole out in processing. It’s always fun on Twitter to tell people that he has a drone following him, which causes frothing outrage from drivers saying how dare he put people’s lives at risk by flying a drone through central London.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • It has 2 180 degree cameras
     It has 2 180 degree cameras so can create a complete(ISH) sphere. Editing software then allows you to manipulate the point of view, creating the impression of a drone.

     Simpler than it looks!

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think it’s actually a

     I think it’s actually a fairly short pole, though taller than a Pickelhaube. He would win the balloon puncturing contest in Those Magnificent Men. 

     Only about 350mm.

     Fortunately he already looked like a mebon, anyway :-).

     Log In or Register to post comments

9. France to introduce law

   France to introduce law requiring buildings with car parking to also offer secure bicycle parking

   Nice 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     France to introduce law requiring buildings with car parking to also offer secure bicycle parking

     Nice 

     — brooksby

     Not just there, all over France I think…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • As the French say, cap!

       As the French say, cap!

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Two things in France. The law
     Two things in France. The law, and the application thereof.

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. MGIF

    MGIF

    You can probably tell from my shadow my views on this classic example of the MGIF. Good job I wasn’t daydreaming #cycling pic.twitter.com/QDjbDyJCyx

    — PassPixi (@PassPixi) December 7, 2022

    The shadows make it an interesting view.

    We share the roads with these types of drivers !

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Desperate to reach a

      Desperate to reach a standstill so they could check FB*

       

      *Other social media apps are available.

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. With regard to W8HUX that is
    With regard to W8HUX that is always parked on KHS possibly the owner has forgotten where they park it everyday and they could be reminded perhaps by a review of the Hux hotel on Trip Advisor.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • muhasib wrote:

      With regard to W8HUX that is always parked on KHS possibly the owner has forgotten where they park it everyday and they could be reminded perhaps by a review of the Hux hotel on Trip Advisor.

      — muhasib

      I wonder if they habitually claim to be loading/unloading and the local enforcement has given up.

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. Not featuring in the blog

    Not featuring in the blog (yet), but our fine judicial system has proven once again, through the very high profile Harry Dunn case, that killing someone on two wheels with a motor vehicle is not really a very big deal! Perhaps the profile of this case and the outrage that will rightly follow in the main stream media might finally trigger a reassessment of the responsibility that getting behind the wheel of a powered vehicle brings with it. (If you haven’t seen it yet, Anne Sacoolas got an 8 month sentence suspended for one year along with a one year driving ban).

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. Hello all Been away for a
    Hello all. Been away for a few days. Did I miss anyt……. Oh FFS

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • To be fair, in my view this

      To be fair, in my view this one has been mostly good faith healthy debate… 

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • One poster relates this to a

        One poster relates this to a personal tragedy.  I respect where they’re coming from even if I differ in my opinion on the issue as a whole.

        However, some of us have forgotten the rules…

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • Come to think of it I hadn’t
      Come to think of it I hadn’t seen Rakia or Martin these past few days either.

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. “………as council due in

    “………as council due in court over early removal as council due in court over early removal”

    So what happened?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • eburtthebike wrote:

      “………as council due in court over early removal”

      So what happened?

      — eburtthebike

      Hearing adjourned to January 13th.

      Log In or Register to post comments