Welcome to today’s live blog with Simon MacMichael, Jack Sexty and the rest of the team.
Live blog: Gloucestershire Police officer allegedly tells cyclist “Maybe you should consider trading in your bike for a Hummer” following shocking close pass by a coach (and they’ve now responded on Twitter saying they’re “looking in” to comments
Meanwhile, another cyclist nearly gets taken out by a sheep in a seriously close shave, and you can now buy Richie Porte limited edition kit made for him to mark his move to Trek-Segafredo
Thu, Jan 10, 2019 19:03
SUMMARY
10 January 2019, 19:03
Herdwick sheep almost takes out cyclist
Herdwick sheep, native to the Lake District, are known for being a bit headstrong, to put it mildly. Basically, they’ll do what they like and don’t give tuppence what anyone thinks, including dashing out in front of a cyclist on an empty road.
The footage was shot by road.cc reader Andrew, who told us: “It managed to get out the field somehow. I’d like to think its mates are nearby and said “now’ as i approached.
“After this it ran down a side lane away from the main road. I did follow it down but lost sight of it.”
Oh, and despite what the date stamp might say Andrew assures us this was shot on the third of January this year.
10 January 2019, 19:03
Anti-doping authorities "wasting their time" targeting older athletes, says 90-year-old stripped of world record
Carl Grove, the 90-year-old who was last week stripped of an age group world record after he tested positive for the steroid epitrenbolone, says that anti-doping aiuthorities are “wasting their time” targeting older athletes.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) accepted that Grove returned a positive result due to having eaten contaminated meat the night before he was tested at the at US Masters Track National Championships in July, where he won the the 90-94 age group sprint title.
He was issued a public warning, the least severe of the penalties that can be applied by the agency.
“Us old guys are kind of like peanuts,” said Grove, who was quote in the Guardian. “I think that they’re wasting their time. “What can I gain at 90 years old doing drugs? Tell me, I just don’t know.
“So I think that somewhere there ought to be a cut-off and they ought to zero in on the stuff that is done for money reasons or whatever it may be. But I think after 65 or 70, you know, they ought to just give up.”
He continued: “I was really kind of down for a while. But I’m over it. I wanted to be an inspiration, if possible. I worked like a real horse to do it.
“They struck me from the records. I don’t really care about that too much. The thing that I really, really care about is that I wanted to be a sterling, totally clean person in front of people that knew about me.
“It looked like I had not been an honest person to a lot of people. I guess I was kind of worried about what did other people think, you know? Then, I began to think, ‘Well, some of them will believe me and some of them won’t.’ I guess that’s just the way it is,” he added.
10 January 2019, 19:03
How many near-crashes can you spot?
This video from the men’s Australian Criterium Championships had us covering our eyes at times!
10 January 2019, 19:03
Matchy matchy
10 January 2019, 19:03
Trek-Segafredo reveal Richie Porte limited edition kit at Tour Down Under to celebrate his move to the team
Thanks @SANTINI_SMS for the welcome to @TrekSegafredo Pretty chuffed! https://t.co/vhVfWWFwin pic.twitter.com/yttubKMFyC
— Richie Porte (@richie_porte) January 10, 2019
Porte has joined Trek-Segafredo from BMC Racing for 2019, and to celebrate his first race for his new team on home soil Santini have released some limited edition kit: “Santini and Team Trek/Segafredo have worked together to create a new limited edition cycling kit. The original design by the Santini creative team features a surf board motif (inspired by Richie’s other sporting passion) each dedicated to a victory or team that Richie has been involved with during his pro cycling career. In a race that has long been dominated by Aussie riders, Porte will be looking for a repeat of his 2017 TDU victory in Adelaide. Here’s to a very successful 2019 with lots of podiums to come in the new red and black kit.”
We reckon the kit looks pretty hot to trot, it’s in stock and you can check it out on Santini’s website.
10 January 2019, 19:03
Gloucester cyclist allegedly told "maybe you should trade your bike for a Hummer" and asked if he had vendetta against coach company... by a police officer
According to the Gloucestershire Constabulary the driver in the video has done nothing wrong. I was also asked if I had a vendetta again this coach company, and told to trade my bike in for a hummer. #Cycling #Ride #Bike #RideToWork #CycleCommute #Gloucester pic.twitter.com/O4PcLAlc3d
— Ride to Work Gloucester (@CyclistGlos) January 9, 2019
Many police forces in the UK have adopted policies to crack down on drivers who pass other vehicles too closely, such as Operation Close Pass by West Midlands Police – however it appears that hasn’t filtered through to Gloucestershire Police, who reportedly told cyclist Matt Coldrey that the coach driver in this clip had not committed an offence because the cyclist and coach continued on their journeys smoothly.
Even more shockingly, Matt claims the police officer told him over the phone: “Maybe you should consider trading in your bike for a Hummer”. He told us: “I do get that it was a joke, but as I was trying to explain to the police officer that having a coach pass me so closely that I can touch it, as traffic is travelling in the opposite direction, is at the very least careless driving, it didn’t seem particularly appropriate response to my legitimate concerns.”
He also says he was accused of having “a vendetta” against George Young’s Coaches, because he had reported a similar incident against them in the past.
In the clip, there are two lines in the middle of the road and the closest to the left is solid, meaning it’s illegal to cross it to overtake unless the road on the other side is clear and the vehicle in front of you is travelling at 10 mph or less. Section 6, part 129 of the Highway Code states: “This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
We’ve asked Gloucestershire Police for comment.
10 January 2019, 19:03
Gloucestershire Police respond on Twitter to "maybe you should swap bike for a Hummer" comments
We are aware of these comments and are looking into them. Enquiries are currently ongoing.
All cyclists should expect to be able to use the road network safely. Drivers can see advice for looking out for vulnerable road users here: https://t.co/4gekubyb8r
^D
Social Media Team— Glos Police (@Glos_Police) January 10, 2019
Gloucestershire’s social media team at least say they “all cyclists should expect to be able to use the road network safety”, and they are now “looking in to” the alleged comments made by one of their officers.
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
31 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Slartibartfast 14 minutes ago
I genuinely don't see how the police can consider this an offence. The rider goes no closer to the parked car than one would when filtering, so is that now an offence? The 1.5m rule is confusing for idiots on Facebook but you would hope the police would understand what it's there for.
GravelIsNothingNew 19 minutes ago
What an odd clickbait title - considering that 99.9% focus of all cycling media, product development and marketing is about increasing speed. 🙄 …and the best part - 99.9% of us will never ride anywhere near that fast! 😂 …so it’s a mute point. It’s all for nowt.
AidanR 2 hours ago
@the little onion It's not great cycling, but I have the same from drivers practically every day on my commute. I don't imagine for a moment that, if I reported it, anything would be done. The key point here, which the police and court appear to have ignored, is the false equivalence of the two scenarios. If a driver leaves too little room, they endanger the cyclist. If a cyclist leaves very little room, they endanger themselves.
tomlew 2 hours ago
@ROADEAGL Have you cross-checked the HR strap with the computer? Very probably the culprit is the strap, not the computer. Or even more probably, the strap is not faulty per se, it's just that your skin is too dry (or maybe too hairy?) at the beginning of some training sessions. I used to have the same issue with Polar and Garmin, which are generally considered high-end, but still suffer major inaccuracy with some skin types. The problem went away as soon as I learned to moisten the skin, as well as the strap-sensor connection, before each ride. Good luck!
wtjs 2 hours ago
@Rendel Harris it says something about the police attitude that they went looking for it If it doesn't say something, I'll say it instead: the police are largely slow-witted, malevolent b******s who view their main enemy as people, mainly cyclists, who annoy them by submitting indisputable evidence of road traffic offences that they would rather not know about. They will take any opportunity to punish them, as is shown by this '£1200 fine' case and little onion's swearing case which the Filth were forced to abandon after many months of stupidity. Speaking of stupidity, how far back into the depths of hominin history did the police have to go to find the officers for ' hold that EAPC rear wheel off the ground, spin the pedal and I'll take a picture of the speedo to prove it's an illegal electric motorbike and get it destroyed'- a quotation which 'will live in infamy', although many police officers will still not have understood what was wrong with it. The police, unlike Skynet, have not yet become self-aware!
RayG 3 hours ago
Poorly written. They have to prove it was less than 1m. It's 5 am here
quiff 3 hours ago
@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?
RayG 3 hours ago
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.
Rendel Harris 4 hours ago
@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.
triwasaki 4 hours ago
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 ...
31 thoughts on “Live blog: Gloucestershire Police officer allegedly tells cyclist “Maybe you should consider trading in your bike for a Hummer” following shocking close pass by a coach (and they’ve now responded on Twitter saying they’re “looking in” to comments”
That sheep broke so many laws
That sheep broke so many laws I can’t even begin to list them, but since it’s a pedestrian, nothing will happen; disgraceful, and all sheep should have registration plates so that they can be traced, held accountable and sued.
Not sure why you would follow it though. And for those of little patience, the action starts at 0:29.
burtthebike wrote:
It’s the fault of the cyclist for not smearing enough mint sauce on their bike.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
That would be a crime: sheepworrying. And why wasn’t it wearing hi-viz and a helmet?
Admittedly I very rarely
Admittedly I very rarely cycle anywhere where there are sheep lose on the roads, but that looks like an avoidable, unecessarily close pass to me. It looks like the sheep was visible from a long way off, and the cyclist had the whole road to use but chose to stay close to the kerb and the sheep. I wonder what the sheep thought about that very bright *flashing* headlight too?
pcristatus wrote:
I’ve spotted a flaw. They don’t.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Do Herdwicks have the vote in Cumbria? That might explain the majority for Brexit there in 2016 then …
pcristatus wrote:
Oh how we laughed….
FFS! Why bother commenting on a post if the only comment you can make is an irrelevant comment about Brexit?
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
That’s the other thing I hate about Brexiteers; no sense of humour. Baaaa.
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
If you’d looked just a little bit harder, you’d have noticed that was not my only comment. I do think it’s a bit odd that Road.cc posted this video of apparently poor cycling without editorial comment. It does seem rather a case of blaming others (here a sheep) for the consequences of your actions – rather like so many things ridiculously blamed on our membership of the EU when we’d done them to ourselves.
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
Because it *was* humorous?
(And maybe because Brexit is the most insanely suicidal political course of action that our government has made since…. I don’t know, since the Trojans said “Hey, look at this giant wooden horse which just appeared outside the gates in the middle of a siege. I know: lets bring it inside, that’s a good idea!”).
<ducks>
brooksby wrote:
It’s becoming a regular farmyard here with mentions of Sheep, Horses and Ducks
pcristatus wrote:
I would have thought that sheep would have voted to stay with the E Ewe
I’ll get my coat
pcristatus wrote:
It wouldn’t be the Herdwicks. They’re an EU designated protected species like Melton Mowbray pies and Cornish Pasties.
aegisdesign wrote:
Yet another case of immigrants taking our jobs:
Kick them out and let’s have some more Soay sheep.
burtthebike wrote:
They do:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sheep-and-goat-keepers-how-to-identify-your-animals
Or are you suggesting we eat tag pedestrians?
Not sure about avoidable, as sheep are capable of doing very dumb things, but I would suggest giving them a wide birth and slowing down. I would guess the sheep bolted because it felt it was going to be trapped in between the cyclist and the hedge.
Occupational hazard on my
Occupational hazard on my commute, it being from Ulverston on the south Cumbria coast up to Ambleside – always approach with caution and expect them to do something daft, and they’ll rarely let you down. Bless ’em.
Also, how old is this? Date stamp says 2015!
Kendalred wrote:
You referring to cyclists or sheep?
“sheep are dumb!”
“sheep are dumb!”
thats what my sheep farming father in law thinks.
re the date stamp – ignore
re the date stamp – ignore the date stamp, Andrew says it was shot last week. We should have put that in the article
Tony Farrelly wrote:
Wow, bit harsh on the sheep.
Bidgaf.
Bidgaf.
Baa, I don’t give a fuck.
Tommytrucker wrote:
SMIDSE = Sorry mate, I Didn’t See Ewe.
That coach is pants-wettingly
That coach is pants-wettingly too close.
I submitted to the police a video of a small truck overtaking me across double solid white lines the other day, but they declined to do anything as they said:
Annoyingly, I’d specified that I was doing around 25mph at the time, but I can see why they don’t want to pursue it (I was in primary position and the truck did leave a reasonable amount of space – I was more miffed than frightened).
Droving without ewe care and
Droving without ewe care and attention.
Dreadful overtake and illegal
Dreadful overtake and illegal.
Was the cyclist supposed to jump over the hedge if things went wrong?
@HawkinsPeter
Surely they could have worked out your speed from the footage frame rate and distance covered?
hirsute wrote:
Yes, apparently so…
Wouldn’t that have involved “time” and “effort”?
brooksby wrote:
Yes, apparently so…
Wouldn’t that have involved “time” and “effort”?— hirsute
I could easily provide them with data from the Elemnt Bolt and Wahoo Speed sensor on my front wheel, but they obviously weren’t that interested in that particular overtake.
They’ve responded well to other incidents, so I’m willing to accept their opinion on what they want to deal with if I’m not personally endangered.
brooksby wrote:
Playing devil’s advocate, I imagine it would “evidentially unsound” (if that is a term) to calculate the speed from the video when there is no way to be certain that the speed of the video hasn’t been altered – altering the speed of a video is fairly trivial. However… the better police forces, that do send out NIPs based on submitted footage, have probably never actually prosecuted on the basis of submitted footage. The difference is that the people in charge of these Forces understand that:
jh27 wrote:
My footage does have time/date in the image, so it would be more obvious if the footage speed was altered. It would be possible to set the camera to not timestamp the footage and then put it in post-production, but there would still be other clues in the video that it had been tampered with (e.g. slowly moving cars, pedestrians or squirrels).
It wouldn’t be worth doing for that kind of scenario as the most that they seem to do for bad overtakes is to send a letter.
I had another incident that surprised me when the police replied saying that they are looking to prosecute. I was overtaken by a taxi indicating left as the road split from 2 to 3 lanes and I was carrying straight on. It was pretty much alongside and then the driver decided to start moving left, so I moved left and gave him a querolous look before going on ahead of him. It was at a slow speed as we were approaching red traffic lights with traffic in front, so I thought the police would just send a warning letter. They might work to different principles with taxi drivers.
I wonder whether highlighted
I wonder whether highlighted plod has considered trading in their job for one where they don’t have to deal with the public, or think.
If the footage has a timer on
If the footage has a timer on it, then it would be easy to verify.
Prosecution goes hand in hand with prevention, being in part a deterrent.