Worse than Footon?

It's not entirely clear, but I don't think they're referring to how close they were to the parked car; it's more how close they were to the oncoming vehicle, which appeared (albeit very slightly) to slow and move towards the side of the road in order to pass safely.

Um, they literally did claim that there was a need to prove it *if it was in the statement*: In any case, they don't need to prove that it was less than 1 m (or 1.5 m, or any other specific distance), since that's not an offence; they need to prove that it was driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver. As I said, *in practice* it often seems that a higher standard of 'beyond all doubt' seems to be being demanded, but that just backs up HM's original point: that's not *supposed* to be the standard, so where it's happening, something should be done to correct it.

My dad had an experience of operation snap driving up the hill in great Malvern, he patiently waited behind two weaving bikes going up the hill, single file but all over the place, when he cleared the part where there were parked cars on the left hand side he deemed it safe to overtake and the rear cyclist decided he wanted to ride two abreast forcing my dad virtually off the road. The cyclist and his wife shouting at him when he was overtaking, repeating his reg plate. Sure enough West Mercia police sent a letter of intended prosecution as the footage from his go pro showed him passing close. I intervened and asked for the footage they had to be Forensically investigated for digital manipulation and told them my dad had the dash cam footage of the incident. I told them I wouldn't provide the dash cam footage as I was relying on that for a civil claim against the malicious allegations by the cyclists. Needless to say they didn't give me details of the cyclist or pursued the £60 fine. Didn't have any reply at all.... It was an ex copper that told me to ask about having the footage investigated, the cops won't spend ££ on something minor like this as forensic investigation is expensive

Well said. Without better crowd control, there will be a more serious incident. Then, we’ll lose the mountainside crowds altogether.

…exactly, then the spectator might be dead!

Good article Ryan. …and….crickets. In pro-cycling, wilful ignorance rules.

The 2026 TDF was brilliant. No question. …but to the most pertinent question…oh, “It’s too hard to answer, for tomorrow maybe!” This is THE answer given by the vast majority ignoring the climate emergency. ‘Not my problem. Tomorrow…maybe’. Tadej, Remco, et al, as ambassadors for cycling, feigning ignorance just doesn’t wash. The ASO needs to urgently answer this question too - what are they doing to mitigate the climate emergency? Let alone getting their heads out of the sand re start times in the hottest time of the day! As do all the fossil fuel sponsors who think they’re greenwashing their brands via pro cycling. In reality they’re just trading on Tadej, Remco and everyone else’s wilful ignorance. “It’s too hard to answer, for tomorrow maybe!” Really? Great, it’s now tomorrow…Tadej? Over to you.

Finally some good news in this ridiculous world of junk consumption. Everyone. Just stop buying this crap.

There is a pressing need for a kitemark type scheme for ebikes, their charging system and their batteries. We are regular users, touring in the UK and abroad and have problems both with transport and accommodation (trains and hotels etc) due to the lack of such a scheme

I have vague recollections of cases not being brought against careless/dangerous road users because..."we haven't received a complaint from the injured/aggrieved/close passed victim..." The police's zeal in seizing upon this minor infraction suggests one thing and one thing only...(over to you, little onion.)