Commuter diaries – Cobble Wobble

"The net result of this confusion was police forces in Wales no longer issuing warning letters to drivers who dangerously overtake cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, despite there being no formal policy change." That is one result, but my understanding is that it's wider than this - they were getting so many submissions that they are no longer taking action on *any* offence where the action would be a warning letter. So, for example, zig-zag line offences, where South Wales Police previously acted on OpSnap reports, are now NFAd. That begs a further question though - if you've already had a warning letter for an offence, a repeat offence should potentially result in a fine or prosecution. Are they checking each report to see if the reported driver has previously had a warning, or just NFA-ing all offences of a particular type? Any thoughts, wjts?!

The leader's team would get on the front and block the roads through Montmartre and completely kill the spectacle. Let's face it, the last stage has always been meaningless apart from the sprint, now it's meaningless apart from a superb and thrilling triple lap of Montmartre followed by a sprint. Neutralising GC helped that spectacle - imagine if Tadej had needed to go back and help bring Del Toro up. The roads are too narrow to allow for really fair racing, if we want the wonder of the Montmartre loop then GC neutralisation is the price we have to pay, and one well worth paying in my view.

@mdavidford Exactly this.

The big thing that the technical analysis missed out is positioning on the bike. Modern riders do aero work on their road bike and have much better discipline on holding position than even riders 10 years ago. I think Dan Bingham summed it up, his team rode with an old POC helmet with a massive peak whereas Sky had a little stub tail Cask helmet the idea being that it was less sensitive to head position. Bingham said that the long tail helmet was about 15W faster. “How hard would you train to get 15w more power, is it harder than training yourself to live with that helmet?” Pantani is standing up on the pedals, bare head, shirt open, rocking and rolling everywhere with his position, vs someone who is sat on the seat in a quasi time trial position. The 90’s riders were rank amateurs compared with those today, so it’s not a massive surprise that 30 years of progress can beat EPO.

@HoarseMann Oh I can assure you that plenty of passes can be proved with absolute certainty to have been illegal purely from generous guesses on the size of cars and the size of lanes. Lets say you drive a 2m wide car that takes up 2/3rd of a lane in a video. Someone with a basic grasp of maths would be able to tell you that you couldn't overtake a cyclist without moving into the opposite lane even if the cyclist was 0cm wide and somehow riding on the very edge of the road where it meets the pavement. Someone with a basic understanding of maths would be able to tell you that unless the car was 1.5m or less wide on a 3m wide road, its impossible to overtake by staying on your side of the road with 1.5m space even if the cyclist took up 0 space. They simply don't want to do anything about it. Its got absolutely nothing to do with holding up in court because that wouldn't be an issue in a huge number of cases and they know it. No one in their right mind would go to court to contest it.

That's... not right. The prosecution has to* prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed, but not that every single detail of statements made by their witnesses is accurate. And HoarseMann is correct that it doesn't mean the same as "with absolute certainty", otherwise it would be "beyond *all* doubt". [* More accurately, should have to. In practice, when it comes to offences against cyclists, the system often does seem to demand that it's proven beyond unreasonable doubt as well, but that's not what the standard is supposed to be, or what's applied to other offences. ]

has anyone else seen this story from the BBC - basically, a cyclist in West Yorkshire reported a close pass, and the police went through their footage and the cyclist ended up paying a £1,200 fine for dangerous cycling for squeezing in the gap between a parked car and an oncoming car. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9w2l2wqvdo I'm a believer in fairness, proportionality and so on, so there are several key things here: -that is a terrible piece of cycling, posing a danger to themselves, and some small danger to the driver because the cyclist could have ended up smashing through the windscreen -there is absolutely NO WAY that any driver in West Yorkshire has been fined £1,200 for a close pass on a cyclist, even if they took it all the way to court and had to pay costs etc. -there is a strong "man bites dog" element to this story. Drivers endangering cyclists is mundane and everyday, not worthy of being reported in the BBC. Cyclists endangering drivers is the unusual exception, which then gets reported. P.S. as a measure of the standard of driving which endangers cyclists but DOESN'T get prosecuted by West Yorkshire police, they decided that this close pass/undertake wasn't a crime: https://vimeo.com/1079291114/f8d5ab5f41

Completely agree. Neutralising GC half way through a stage is just utterly absurd. What are they thinking? Imagine if Del Toro had not made it back on in time, what would have happened then? He'd have lost the white jersey *because* of ASOs dumb decision to try protect the starting GC standings. Either the GC standings are frozen at the gun (still requiring them to finish) or they should be taken at the end of the stage.

I'm fine with GC being taken far from the line. Those who want to race can, and by God they did, and those who want to kick back and enjoy the last hour of the Tour waving to fans can do that, and by God they earned it.

HoarseMann, Beyond reasonable doubt means precisely that. If a witness statement mentions a distance "he was less than a metre from me" then the prosecution needs to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the distance was less than a metre. Can't do that, then no conviction. It's a function of us not having a minimum passing distance law in the UK, the highway code gives a guide figure but certain cycling accounts push for this as an absolute figure which it isn't. This mena that the more precise people try to be in statements the less chance they have of a successful prosecution. It's a case of being careful what you wish for.