Two Broad Arrows now showing on Rapha site

"In a statement provided to road.cc, West Yorkshire Police also said it was “not appropriate” to release footage of the earlier close pass, the spokesperson stating that it would be “unfair” to the driver and not “strictly relevant” to the offence posted online." It may not be "strictly relevant" to the offence posted online. But the pertinent question is why they chose to post the cycling offence online, but not the motoring offence. That's "unfair". If they sincerely meant the message posted alongside the cycling clip ("It is important that all road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others"), then they should have posted both offences. To post only one looks very much like seeking to dissuade cyclists from making reports.

Um, which is it then?

So it's appropriate to cite the offence for which the cyclist submitted the video as a comparative that "proves" the cyclist's offence was far worse, but now it's not only not appropriate to show the video but it's not actually relevant to the cyclist's offence either? Right. Shouldn't you make a beeping noise when you back up like that, chaps? Does the cyclist still have the original footage? Nothing to prevent them releasing it so we can see the validity or otherwise of the police claims.

@quiff Yes - that's the bit I was referring to.

Right then.... It's not appropriate? Why not? Is it because it shows that in fact the close pass received by the cyclist was not, in fact, significantly more than the distances shown in this (admittedly rather stupid) example of bad cycling? Are they covering their backsides after another blatant lie? Is this the same force that didn't prosecute a close pass on me because I wasn't in the dead center of a cycle lane, but slightly to one side to avoid a drain grate, and therefore I was "inconsiderate" in my cycling? Or who tried to prosecute me for swearing in distress when a driver deliberately tried to ram me off the road, whilst filming me? Or who actually wrote in a witness statement that I swear in the majority of the videos that I submit (a blatant lie which they know is false, but don't care. Shame I couldn't get that tested in court). Is this the police force who have a written policy - and I kid you not - of dismissing OUT OF HAND any complaints about how they handle submissions from cyclists who have previously complained to them. Is this the same force that can't see anything wrong with a close pass UNDERTAKE at speed, and refused to prosecute this incident; https://vimeo.com/1079291114/f8d5ab5f41 Or whose road safety unit does not contain a SINGLE cyclist (my sample size is the 6 who I've had the 'pleasure' of dealing with) amongst their ranks? Institutionally anti-cyclist!!!

Cassette bearings are simply better to replace, Shimano and roll better !

I cycle around here regularly and also submit footage to WY Police from time to time through OpSnap. My experience has been generally good, almost all submissions result in "positive action" as they say. The stats for cyclist submissions are good - I think as a road user group the cyclist submissions have the highest "strike rate". I do feel in this instance (the Menston incidents) that we are not getting the whole story. There is of course nothing to prevent the cyclist in question releasing all the footage from the whole of the incident. When I saw the headline costs / fine I did wonder if it had been dealt with in the Defendants absence. Overall there does seem to be an imbalance in disposals - the cyclist should be given the option of an out of court route as the driver was.

Valencia city is a pretty dodgy place. I have had 2 almost decente Decathlon bikes taken, one from outside the railway station, and a couple of BSOs too, and the wife has lost 2 cheapos too, over the last 30 years and we don't leave 'em parked ouside anymore.

"He told us the 15.5mph legal motor cut-off is “stupid” and not fit for purpose, because many cyclists can comfortably exceed this speed without motor assistance anyway. I think he has a point" Why? If you can exceed that speed without motor assistance, do so (either on a pedal bike or legal EAPC). But why should that be the measure for when the motor assistance stops?

jackcycles, 28 July, elsewhere: Just a quick note to let road.cc know we left the EU several years ago and aren’t bound by their rules and regulations any more... the EU systematically stifles innovation by hamstringing companies with red tape... we’ve become a risk-averse, rule-taking society that’s afraid to embrace the freedom we now have. also jackcyles, 28 July: A much better solution would be to have government approved e-bikes which are completely locked from modification in standard colours and liveries, but in different styles e.g. mountain, gravel, road etc. This would also help the domestic cycling industry – someone like Jim Ratcliffe would be an obvious custodian – sitting at the intersection of cycling and motorised vehicles and might be persuaded to create a national brand.