A lovely song about bikes. NSFW.

First impression from the headline that he's likely a twit. Then the detail he was expelled from Reform makes you suspect that failing even their low bar requirements he really is. Then he clearly explains his vehicle is unsafe for the highway because he can't see to give way when turning. Any collision he now has should have that video run out explaining he drove a vehicle he knew to be unsafe. Advice for motorists; instead of thinking that pedestrians and cyclists are low risk 100kg objects, imagine them as a 300 Tonne trains that will crush you and your vehicle if you cross into their paths. You'd give way to the train, so you equally can to the others.

I've had a brief look on Facebook, and Ed Hill (who now appears to be affiliated with Advance UK) seems to have taken some useful road safety improvements under his remit, including an initiative to help local pedestrians on unpaved roads, where the wider council won't help due to planning failures. Regarding the cycle path, I think this is linked to a wider misunderstanding about giving way at junctions and I'm afraid I cannot agree with Mr Hill's conclusion. Regardless of the suitability of the cycle path, vehicles should give way at the junction to both pedestrians crossing and cyclists. It seems to be a poorly understood rule among motorists where some believe they have priority at junctions like this, where they certainly do not. I once had a similar issue myself, while leisurely walking to Waitrose to buy some lunchtime fripperies. A driver beeped their horn as I crossed the junction, despite me having priority, and was shocked and apologetic when I explained I had priority. A polite conversation later, the driver departed, educated and updated on the rules of the road.

"A cycle lane that traverses the entrance to a side road in Exeter should be changed so that “cyclists give way to vehicles”, according to an independent county councillor" Newsflash: Bicycles are vehicles. Now what?

Bland and overcooked spaghetti

@mdavidford That would seem likely.

@StuInNorway Presumably they pulled out from the parking on the other side without paying any attention to the oncoming traffic / police car.

@StuInNorway photos taken a week apart. Ragebait. ;-)

@Rendel Harris If there were two people assigned to it full-time, (with a break for Christmas) then in accounting terms that might be considered four months...

@Nigel Garage Not very good adding up for an accountant, Nigel. The police received the formal complaint on November 18th, 2024, and closed the case after calling the journalist in "early February" 2025. So essentially two-and-a-half months tops, with the Christmas period in the middle. The police deal with investigations as a matter of priority, a complaint of harassment from an academic about a journalist would be well down the list. It's more than likely that the complaint was received and logged and put in an in tray, once someone got round to dealing with it they called the journalist to offer right of reply and then closed the case. Or do you think they spent "four months" (a temporal impossibility) carrying out extensive investigations into the case without ever calling the accused? Try applying common sense instead of your prejudices.

You do, however, accept that the police had a 4 month window - from November to February - where the met police engaged in a criminal investigation into a Times Education journalist for asking two polite questions about alleged plagiarism via email. You don't know how long, during that four months, they actually spent investigating it, but we do know the investigation was open for 4 months... they might have been working on the case 24/7 for all we know, just at a police pace (Don't forget those donuts and cups of tea take a long time to consume). Out of morbid curiosity, why do you think the police did that, rather than try to solve crimes?