Cafe du Cycliste Suzanne Jersey

Poorly written. They have to prove it was less than 1m. It's 5 am here

@RayG "TWW didn’t claim there was a need to prove every detail of the statement, just that it was necessary to prove the passing distance beyond reasonable doubt". But is that correct? Or would it suffice if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was some other distance that nonetheless fell short of the required standard of driving?

TWW didn't claim there was a need to prove every detail of the statement, just that it was necessary to prove the passing distance beyond reasonable doubt I prepare evidence for prosecutions and BRD is effectively 'without doubt'. This arose because judges used to send people to the gallows for stealing loaves of bread. They wanted to be certain that they were right.

@mctrials23 The rider didn't submit that for prosecution, he submitted the video of another incident and that was included in the video either prior to or after the incident he was submitting and the police, one assumes somewhat gleefully, jumped on it and prosecuted the rider saying he had given less space to the car than the car he was complaining about gave him. Whether it was justifiable or serious enough to be prosecuted may be debated (I'd say no as there is no legal minimum passing distance for bikes on cars and as far as I can see the rider is at all times on his side of the road, but Nigel disagrees) but it says something about the police attitude that they went looking for it.

The behaviour of some fans on Alpe d'Huez this year was just criminal. Slapping riders, shouting in their faces (complete with spit), fights over free merch, falling into the road. The atmosphere generated by the numbers and the noise is great, but how can we stop idiots going too far and ruining the race with their dangerous disrespect? If it gets any worse there will be a fatality. Drunk idiots, motorbikes, cars and racing cyclists all in the the same narrow road space is going to cause the inevitable ...

@pockstone I mean, I'm astonished the cyclist thought to submit that. Car had priority there and he decided that he was going to squeeze through that gap for no reason instead of waiting. The reason it was £1200 will be due to the cyclist not accepting the initial fine for their bad riding and taking it to court. Thats exactly the same thing that happens if a driver does the same. I'm sure the local rags were indeed using it as a good touchpaper to start a good old anti-cycling bingo bashing fest.

@mitsky Thanks - and remember kids, West Yorkshire Police are totally institutionally anti-cyclist. I think road.cc should ask them how many of the team reviewing cyclists' submissions to their video portal actually are regular cyclists, as in, how many cycle on the public highway, in plain clothes, at least twice a week.

@mitsky Would have been better if the camera was facing the other way for the train passing so that it came as a surprise like overtakes sometimes do in a noisy situation.

@the little onion Yeah, I posted in on Saturday morning onto Friday's blog. I'm surprised Road CC hasn't said anything about it (unless they are drafting it now). Another point I forgot to say is, given the car is parked, there is almost no danger apart from a scratch/dent. Given many cyclists pass parked cars closely thousands of times a day, is this a going to be a big issue now? Cycling Mikey's comparison video of passing a stationary train v being passed by one is usefull for this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikWFQquoZto

Instead of asking Remco and Pogi their opinions on climate change, journalists should ask ASO management why stages started at 13.00 during the first week when the heat wave hit its peak. Interestingly, pundits talk about climate change only when the temperature rises. No doubt they have already forgotten this year's cancelled stages during GC races in Southern Europe due to strong winds, heavy rains and snow falls.