“Hide behind a ton of metal, shout abuse, and speed off”: BBC finally changes tune on camera cyclists and lauds them for reporting aggressive drivers to police, as cyclists say “it’s the only recourse we have” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Chippy owner who blames cycle lane for loss of trade in village with “no cyclists” uses it to prop up bike advertising his shop
Anti-cycle lane campaigners — they come in all shapes and sizes…
“Once again those who are judging don’t have the slightest idea what it’s like riding a bike in a bunch”: Johan Bruyneel joins fans in slamming UCI for relegating rider for “irregular sprint”
Another day, another “irregular sprint” relegation — and another round of raised eyebrows across the cycling world. The finish from yesterday’s stage two of the Critérium du Dauphiné has plenty of fans and ex-pros calling out the UCI’s race jury for penalising Groupama-FDJ’s Paul Penhoët, who was bumped from fifth to 116th place and shown a yellow card.
The sprint into Issoire was a straightforward display of power for Lidl-Trek’s Jonathan Milan, who was delivered to the line perfectly by his teammates. But behind Milan’s clean run to victory, it was chaos: every sprinter in the bunch wanted his wheel. In the midst of it all, Penhoët was judged by the UCI to have crossed the line in defending his space.
🚴🏻♂️💨 Un gros sprint et un changement de @MaillotJauneLCL 💛
⏪ Revivez le dernier kilomètre de l’étape 2🚴🏻♂️💨 A big sprint and a new overall leader! 💛
⏪ Relive the last kilometre of Stage 2#Dauphiné pic.twitter.com/VE9QenyVEV— Critérium du Dauphiné (@dauphine) June 9, 2025
Groupama-FDJ were not happy. “We take note of the decision even if we have difficulty understanding it because he was mainly trying to defend his position,” said team DS Benoît Vaugrenard, who also praised Penhoët’s riding in a stage with 3,000 metres of climbing and a fraught finale. “We’re disappointed because he doesn’t deserve this… but we’ll try to get our revenge tomorrow.”
Penhoët himself didn’t add much publicly, but he admitted that the finale was “a real battle to get on [Milan’s] wheel,” saying: “That’s always the case in the WorldTour. But it’s even more so when there’s a guy who stands out from the crowd like here.”
Fans, however, had no trouble voicing their thoughts. One Twitter user with the account name oldschoolcycling, wrote: “I fail to see a reason why Penhoet should be relegated. Race incident, twice. Just tries to stay upright on the bike. And when you relegate it is more than enough. The yellow card is seriously over-penalisation.”
Johan Bruyneel, the Belgian former pro and ex-DS of U.S. Postal Service, commented: “Once again, the clear proof that those who are judging and calling the penalties don’t have the slightest idea what it’s like riding a bike in a bunch of riders who are racing to win. There are many manoeuvres you just can’t avoid and look much more dangerous than they are in reality.
Tyler Hannay, added: “The guy got sandwiched and had to defend himself, otherwise he’s on the ground and 30 people go down at 60kmph. They should have a common-sense officer in the UCI.”
Penhoët wasn’t the only one to get in trouble — Visma-Lease a Bike’s Per Strand Hagenes and UAE Team Emirates-XRG’s Nils Politt also received yellow cards for “improper conduct,” which in this case involved more shoulder-checks than a rugby scrum.
Just last week at the Tour of Slovenia, Rui Oliveira was also relegated for what the jury called an “irregular sprint”, denying the Portuguese rider what would’ve been his first-ever win after seven years in the peloton — as fans criticised the UCI and called it the “softest deviation ever”.
More argy-bargy at the Critérium du Dauphiné…
First, it was South African pro Willie Smit accusing cyclists of adopting flipping and flopping tendencies from football players, and now one might ask, “Have they been watching a bit too much rugby perhaps?”
That wasn’t all, though — there was, of course, someone commenting under the post: “Cyclists these days are so weak… this is nothing.”
Specialized recalls 11,000 e-bikes over faulty seatposts, as US brand tells riders to stop riding immediately
Specialized Bicycle Components has issued a recall of around 11,000 Globe Haul ST and LT e-bikes in the US after discovering that the lower portion of the telescopic seatpost can break when fully extended, posing a serious safety risk.
The company’s statement, signed by Senior Director of Quality & Test Engineering Mark Schroeder, urges riders to “stop riding your bicycle immediately” if their bike has the affected post. “We are working with the U.S. CPSC to obtain the required approvals to provide you with a solution,” the statement says.
> Dutch cargo bike company Babboe was “well-aware” of its sale of faulty frames, finds investigation
The issue affects bikes sold from January 2023 to March 2025, priced between $2,500 and $3,500. There have been 13 reported incidents so far, including two minor injuries.
Owners can identify the faulty seatposts by removing them and checking for 15 height indicator markings — those are fine. If not, or if you’re unsure, Specialized says stop riding and head to your nearest authorised retailer for a replacement seatpost made from a different material.
“They find it easier to throw themselves into a race”: Former Dutch pro believes Pogačar, Van der Poel, and Evenepoel have an advantage over Vingegaard because they’re “childless”
Tadej Pogačar, Jonas Vingegaard, Remco Evenpoel, and Mathieu van der Poel, 2025 Critérium du Dauphiné, by ASO
A comment by former Dutch pro and analyst Stef Clement has sparked plenty of chatter after he suggested that Jonas Vingegaard’s family life could be a disadvantage compared to his childless Grand Tour rivals.
Speaking to Helden Magazine, Clement said, “He’s competing against Pogačar, who seems to have a completely different attitude to life. It can hardly be a coincidence that the wonderkids of the current peloton — Pogačar, Mathieu van der Poel, and Remco Evenepoel — are all childless.”
According to Clement, this difference in family responsibilities means these three riders can focus purely on cycling in a way that’s “just a little more complete.” He said, “I get the sense that they ride with a greater sense of freedom, they find it easier to throw themselves into a race, and they seem able to focus entirely on cycling in a way that’s just a little more complete.”
> “A bike race is complete madness”: David Millar on why cycling is “inherently dangerous”
The contrast between Vingegaard and his rivals’ lifestyles has already been in the spotlight this season. The Dane himself said in March that he wouldn’t let his children take up cycling, calling the sport “just too dangerous” after his horror crash at the 2024 Tour of the Basque Country.
Reflecting on his own perspective, Vingegaard told Het Nieuwsblad that too many riders race “as if there are no brakes on a bike,” and that the modern peloton often lacks respect. “If my daughter or son asks that question — daddy, can we race? — the answer is ‘no’,” he said.
Clement’s colleague Karsten Kroon added to the debate, suggesting that Vingegaard might have the legs to race more often, but not the mental ease that comes with Pogačar’s relaxed, assertive attitude: “Vingegaard has previously admitted he struggles with the pressure he feels. That’s something Pogačar doesn’t seem fazed by in the slightest. He just doesn’t care – he’s smiling before the start, during the race, and afterwards.”
Government’s cycling funding cuts unlawful, Court of Appeal rules – as campaigners say “it’s a mystery why Labour continued defending a Conservative cut”
Fork (and balls) of steel…
As two-time Roland Garros champion and tennis’ Big Three (Four?) wrapped into one player, Carlos Alcaraz would say: “Cabeza, corazón y cojones (de acero).”
UK government commits £32 million to North East and Yorkshire road safety and cycling infrastructure
The UK government has pledged £32 million to improve road surfaces and expand cycling infrastructure across the North East and Yorkshire. During a visit to Saltburn-by-the-Sea last week, Future of Roads Minister Lilian Greenwood highlighted the funding’s role in supporting Stage 2 of the Lloyds Tour of Britain Women and in addressing barriers faced by female cyclists.
Of the total, £20 million will be used to resurface highways—tackling potholes that deter cycling—while almost £13 million will fund new cycle lanes and pavements. Cycling UK research shows 58 per cent of women limit their cycling journeys due to safety concerns, and 36 per cent cite poor road conditions as a key barrier.
The measures form part of a wider £291 million national active-travel scheme projected to enable 30 million extra walking or cycling trips annually, reduce sick days by 43,000 and contribute an estimated £1.4 billion to the economy. They follow a broader £15.6 billion commitment to local transport and a £1.6 billion road-resurfacing programme enough to fill around 7 million potholes.
“Safer roads mean safer spaces to cycle,” Greenwood said. “By investing in better roads, we’re encouraging more women and girls to hop on a bike, easing pressure on the NHS and building healthier communities.”
RAC policy officer Rod Dennis urged councils to “use this cash as effectively as possible,” while IAM RoadSmart’s Nicholas Lyes welcomed the focus on “not just smoother surfaces but safer infrastructure.”
Breakaway euphoria as 21-year-old Iván Romeo marks first WorldTour win and goes into yellow with stunning solo attack in stage three of Critérium du Dauphiné
It’s something special when you see a young lad not just get his first WorldTour win from the breakaway with an awe-inspiring solo ride, but also watch as the realisation of donning the yellow jersey of one of the biggest stage races in the world washes over him.
The day’s 207.2-kilometre route from Brioude to Charantonnay featured rolling hills and five categorised climbs, including an early Category 2 Côte de la Barbate and four lesser Category 3 and 4 ascents under sunny skies and temperatures peaking at 30 degrees Celsius.
A 13-rider break formed soon after the Barbate, with Movistar’s Iván Romeo, Mathieu van der Poel and Groupama-FDJ’s Brieuc Rolland among those gaining up to two minutes on the peloton. Their advantage hovered around one minute and forty-six seconds with 42 kilometres to go as teams including UAE Team Emirates and Visma-Lease a Bike organised the chase.
On the final Category 3 Côte du Château Jaune, Ineos-Grenadiers’ Julien Bernard launched a brief move, but it was Romeo who struck effectively with fewer than eight kilometres remaining. The 21-year-old powered clear, opened a gap of eighteen seconds on the chase and held on to take his first WorldTour win.
XDS-Astana’s Harold Tejada and Intermarché-Wanty’s Louis Barré completed the podium, with Romeo also inheriting the yellow jersey, leading Barré by 17 seconds in the general classification.
The 21-year-old, who’s had a storming 2025 season — winning the youth classification at the UAE Tour in February, said: “I can’t believe I have won the stage. It was one of the toughest days of my life and the action in the breakaway was very tough.”
Cycling linked to lower dementia risk and better brain health, researchers find
> Cycling linked to lower dementia risk and better brain health, researchers find
There’s another high rise coming to town, haven’t you heard?
Warner Bros. Discovery’s planned split leaves TNT Sports on shaky ground, chucking professional cycling’s already precarious future into even sharper jeopardy
Warner Bros. Discovery’s decision to shut down Eurosport earlier this year and push cycling coverage behind TNT Sports’ £30.99-a-month paywall in January was already a major blow for fans. Now, with the company confirming that it will split in two by 2026, the outlook for cycling in the UK and Ireland has become even more uncertain.
The split will see Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming and content businesses — like HBO Max and Warner Bros. studios — hived off into a separate company led by CEO David Zaslav. The other company, dubbed Global Networks, will house TNT Sports and other legacy cable channels, including the recently integrated Discovery+.
> “This is bigger than pro cycling”: Fan petitions government to save free-to-air Tour de France coverage in UK, condemning paywall as “massive missed opportunity” to boost cycling numbers and combat congestion
While it’s too early to know exactly how TNT Sports will be managed in the future, Warner Bros. Discovery CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels made it clear that decisions about licensing live sports—like the NCAA’s March Madness, the French Open and, crucially for cycling fans, events like the Giro d’Italia and Tour de France—will be left to Global Networks. In the short term, these events will continue to appear on Max in the US and Discovery+ in Europe, but there’s no guarantee beyond that.
This uncertainty is especially worrying for UK and Irish cycling fans. Earlier this year, Eurosport’s shutdown forced them to pay a hefty £371.88 annual subscription to watch top races like the Tour de France and Paris-Roubaix.
The closure also sparked fury among fans, who accused TNT Sports of exploiting its “monopoly” over cycling coverage and slammed the lack of free-to-air options. Lidl-Trek rider Tao Geoghegan Hart called it a “huge shame” and warned that it threatened to cut off cycling’s loyal UK following.
The new split raises even more questions about whether TNT Sports can continue to afford expensive sports rights, especially as the majority of its deals—like those for MLB, the NHL and the College Football Playoff—expire in the next three years. Awful Announcing pointed out that with no big-name broadcast or streaming partner, TNT Sports risks being left out in the cold when it comes to renewing those contracts.
For now, TNT Sports insists it plans to offer daily free-to-air highlights on Quest and hopes to grow the sport by showing races alongside other big events like Premier League football. But with the end of ITV’s free-to-air Tour de France coverage looming in 2026, I can’t say it’s a bad idea to be sceptical.
In a media landscape increasingly dominated by streaming giants and consolidation, the future of professional cycling coverage — already deemed a luxury with the £30.99/month price tag — now hangs in the balance. Just hope they don’t come calling for more bucks.
“Hide behind a ton of metal, shout abuse, and speed off”: BBC finally changes tune on camera cyclists and lauds them for reporting aggressive drivers to police, as cyclists say “it’s the only recourse we have”
In a twist worthy of a daytime soap, it seems that the BBC has finally discovered that cyclists with cameras aren’t actually “vigilantes” or “grassing snitches”, but rather witnesses and victims at the same time, helping police crack down on reckless drivers. Shocking, really.
You might remember back in October when the Beeb ran a piece on cyclist Tim on Two Wheels and decided to brand him a “vigilante cyclist”, only to be swiftly corrected by everyone, from road.cc readers to former West Midlands cycling and walking commissioner Adam Tranter.
Tranter pointed out that “a vigilante is someone who tries to punish without law enforcement,” while “a witness is just that.” Tim himself was left “disappointed” at the Beeb’s “journalistic cliché.”
Fast forward to this week, and they’re praising camera cyclists and the crucial role they play in getting dangerous drivers off the road. Funny how a bit of good ol’ reader backlash can do that.
BBC Look North on W Yorkshire Police OpSnap taking further action against drivers who close pass cyclists. In the last year action was taken against 2,547 drivers who either paid for a retraining course or received a fixed penalty fine or a court summons. pic.twitter.com/b8yC4pzxaW
— Bikery (@Bikery1966) June 9, 2025
Anyway, onto the actual stats. West Yorkshire Police’s Operation Snap has been busy. In the last 12 months alone, the force received a staggering 3,500 reports of driving offences against cyclists. Even more impressive — or depressing, depending on your mood — 71 per cent of these cases led to action. That’s over 2,500 drivers either in court, paying fines, or taking remedial driving courses.
For Huddersfield’s Frankie Leveton, the constant tension is just part of the deal. “It’s very rare that I go out on a bike ride and don’t have a close pass or a quite scary experience,” she told the BBC.
And after nearly 70 video submissions to police this year alone, she’s pretty much become her own one-woman traffic enforcement unit, complete with front and back cameras to catch every near miss. “It doesn’t stop the close passes,” Frankie admits, “but it’s just a bit of a comfort blanket that yes, that was terrifying, but I’ve been empowered to be able to do something about it.”
Judith Brough, who rides for her mental health, said: “Close passes are really common,” she says, “but I think scariest still is when you have close passes and, on top of that, someone is rolling down their window and shouting inappropriate language to you.”
Reactions have been flooding in — some supportive, some bitterly resigned. Popular bike camera company Cycliq commented on Twitter: “Great to see such positive action from Yorkshire Police with OpSnap!”
Cyclists like Justin hoped it might finally knock some sense into drivers: “Let’s hope that after this, some drivers in West Yorkshire will be persuaded to behave themselves if only because of avoiding legal action being taken. I do hope that the two ladies don’t give up cycling.”
Meanwhile, Bournemouth Liberal Democrat councillor and cycling advocate Ade Chapmanlaw put it as it is: “It’s the only recourse we have.”
On Facebook, John Stoddard noted: “Many comments on posts like this end up being hateful towards cyclists, as if they shouldn’t exist. They have a right to use the road, the fact they don’t pay vehicle excise duty shouldn’t have anything to do with it, they don’t have an engine or degrade tarmac like a heavy car or van.”
Pam Clulow added: “It seems to have become fashionable to berate cyclists, female and male. It is easy, isn’t it? Hide behind a ton of metal, shout abuse and speed off, so brave.”
And while West Yorkshire’s 3,500 submissions and 71 per cent prosecution rate is impressive, it’s not just them. Avon and Somerset Police have also seen a massive surge in third-party reporting. In 2024 alone, they received 8,595 video submissions, mostly from cyclists, resulting in over 2,500 drivers getting notices of intended prosecution.
Between 2021 and 2024, cyclists in Avon and Somerset alone submitted nearly 12,000 clips of drivers behaving badly. Chief Inspector Rob Cheeseman said the force was having to “adapt” to the flood of footage, noting that the community “is speaking really loudly” about road safety — though whether drivers are listening is another question…
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 £1.99. 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.
33 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Surely you mean "why is he still playing for Man U?"
No, you can't retrospectively try to edit your post, that is no longer allowed. You have to stand by what you initially post however bad your misteaks!
If Yoro has a crystal ball to see into the future, why isn't he Man Utd's best player by a mile?
His attitude is further shown by publishing a photos of himself using his the wheel knowing it is illegal. A big middle finger to the law.
How to go from clean licence to six points in under a minute One of the comments on the video is that in Belgium, phone-driving results in immediate confiscation of the car for fifteen days. I bet that works a lot better than our points system, but since we live in a car obsessed society, it ain't gonna happen here.
Yoro definitely has not learned his lesson. "...72mph in a 30mph zone, past homes and a school..." Given this sort of driving would lead to straight driving test failure, coupled with the attitude: "...he believed he was unlikely to come into “contact with any vulnerable road users”." "He was also fined £666 and ordered to pay £120 in costs, as well as a £266 victim surcharge." Given his status how long would it take him to "earn" those amounts, alongside having to pay someone else to drive him around and any increase in car insured premiums? Not long, I'm guessing. The only thing that might lead people like this to think twice is a life-long driving ban, or as I advocate: loss of taste buds and libido.
I'm always astonished when people reverse H&S principles for driving. It's been going on since the dawn of the motor vehicle age though, it's the victim's fault for walking/cycling in the wrong place at the wrong time and for not being covered in flashing lasers. I finally got on to LBC two days ago, when they were talking about hi-viz and helmets, and put my point that both are victim-blaming and that helmets didn't reduce the death rate of cyclists. It got the usual responses of "my mate's helmet shattered and it must have saved his life" and "If it saves just one life...."
Hi-vis is so effective that any SMIDSY, close pass, failure to give priority etc etc will then be presumed to be deliberate intent and charged accordingly?
I will make sure that pedestrians are missed, by not driving home from the pub while pissed!
33 thoughts on ““Hide behind a ton of metal, shout abuse, and speed off”: BBC finally changes tune on camera cyclists and lauds them for reporting aggressive drivers to police, as cyclists say “it’s the only recourse we have” + more on the live blog”
It’s been a while since I
It’s been a while since I posted on here, but I have direct experience with West Yorkshire’s OpSnap process. In my experience the police have been good when dealing with submissions of close passes. It is rare they won’t progress the submission. (for wtjs I should clarify that they say they are progressing it)
However, I have had two incidents progress to a court appearance and in both cases the driver faced no further action, due to the legal fine print of:
A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.
Until this loophole is dealt with, drivers can close pass a cyclist and potentially not have broken any law.
So it sounds like the usual
So it sounds like the usual recommendation that cyclists should try to remain calm when recording footage of those incidents should be ignored. Screaming vulgarities at them at the top of your lungs should fall under demonstrating inconvenience nicely.
thrawed wrote:
ha! In West Yorkshire, not only is that used as an excuse NOT to prosecute the driver (genuinely! I’ve been told by West Yorkshire Op Snap officers that videos of really bad driving have been NFAd because the cyclist swore in sheer alarm) but you yourself risk being prosecuted for a public order offence
Quote:
Seriously?
That sounds a tad ridiculous given how frequently people do swear in such videos and it’s not brought up at court. Must have got one idiot of an officer for them to go along with that.
Does getting freaked out/ sh
Does getting freaked out/ sh*t-scared count as being inconvenienced?
That was my thoughts, soiling
That was my thoughts, soiling your shorts surely counts!
Legin wrote:
You’re thinking of incontinence, not inconvenience.
Nah, he probably means
Nah, he probably means accidentally following through after farting.
lesterama wrote:
The first court appearance – I included the line “The size and speed of the van that close to me was quite scary.” in my submission and repeated it multiple times during my court appearance, so in my experience – no.
HoldingOn wrote:
In theory, I think they can still be prosecuted for careless driving – falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver – whether or not you are inconvenienced. ‘Inconvenience’ is only required to prove inconsiderate driving. In practice though, who knows. Prosecutors are supposed to decide whether to charge one, t’other, or both. They both arise from the same section of RTA1988 but note the ‘or’ (emphasis added):
s.3 RTA1988:
Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
s.3ZA:
(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
…
(4) A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving
The subject of inconvenience
The subject of inconvenience has been covered before in this article on roadcc
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
If you look in the commebts you will see that I followed this up with Robert Vestey who provided the following :
To prove the offense of driving without due care and attention, the prosecution must demonstrate that:
· Your driving fell below the standard expected of a competent driver and
· You did not show reasonable consideration for other pedestrians and vehicles on the road and
· Other road users were inconvenienced by your driving.
It is the last point that is key with many Dashcam clips we receive where a cyclist is cycling along a road and a vehicle drives past too close. There needs to be some evidence of how the cyclist is inconvenienced e.g. wobbled, took avoiding action, had to brake or change direction or a vehicle coming in the opposite direction had to take avoiding action or brake.
This is the point when a prosecution needs to be considered and I’m quite happy for tis to be shared.
Regards
Rob
I then sent this response to CUK for their view on the matter and this is the response I got dealing with it line by line.
There is no ‘close pass’ offence, however, rule 163 of the HC contains clear guidance about leaving at least 1.5 metres when overtaking at speeds up to 30mph The Highway Code – Using the road (159 to 203) – Guidance – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Although this is not a legal requirement (ie an offence per se if you do not comply), the introduction to the HC The Highway Code – Introduction – Guidance – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) (see wording of the code) makes it clear that “Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.” So, drivers who close pass cyclists, without leaving at least 1.5 metres, can be and are regularly prosecuted for the offence of careless driving.
To prove the offense of driving without due care and attention, the prosecution must demonstrate that:
· Your driving fell below the standard expected of a competent driver and
Firstly, the officer is wrong on the standard to be expected. The test for careless driving is driving which falls below the standard expected of a CAREFUL AND competent driver. I am not just trying to be a pedant here, but you can be a competent driver and still drive without exercising due care, and therefore carelessly, so the words matter. More significantly, there’s no AND at the end of the test. So, if you drive below the standard of a careful and competent driver that’s all the prosecution have to prove for careless driving. The officer is simply wrong to say that there are additional tests or requirements which need to be proved.
· You did not show reasonable consideration for other pedestrians and vehicles on the road and
Drivers can be prosecuted under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act Road Traffic Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk) either for careless driving, or for inconsiderate driving. The vast majority of prosecutions are for careless driving, and I have confirmed the test for that in the bullet point above. Inconsiderate driving is driving ‘without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place’. The officer’s description above isn’t quite right, because he’s added ‘vehicles’ and that’s not part of the test. In any event, this is the test for the alternative limb of a section 3 RTA prosecution, namely inconsiderate driving. The prosecution do not need to prove this as well as proving that the standard of driving fell below the test set out above, when pursuing a careless diving prosecution.
· Other road users were inconvenienced by your driving.
This isn’t a requirement under the RTA. The officer is simply wrong here. For a prosecution for inconsiderate driving, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued non-exhaustive examples of the type of driving which might lead to an inconsiderate driving prosecution, as follows:
Flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way
Misuse of any lane to avoid queuing or to gain an advantage over other road users
Unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane (popularly known as “middle lane hogging”)
Unnecessarily slow driving, or braking without good cause
Driving with undipped headlights which dazzle other road users
Driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed
These are however just examples, and the officer is simply incorrect when he says that for a prosecution either under the careless driving limb or the inconsiderate driving limb, that the prosecution have to prove inconvenience to others, though I accept that inconvenience will be part of the narrative in many inconsiderate driving prosecutions, though not a requirement. In any event, where some form of action (prosecution, warning letter etc) is taken against a driver following a close pass, in my experience that is almost always under the careless driving limb, not the inconsiderate driving limb, so the officer’s attempts to merge these together seems odd. He is overcomplicating the test.
It is the last point that is key with many Dashcam clips we receive where a cyclist is cycling along a road and a vehicle drives past too close. There needs to be some evidence of how the cyclist is inconvenienced e.g. wobbled, took avoiding action, had to brake or change direction or a vehicle coming in the opposite direction had to take avoiding action or brake.
The officer is quite simply wrong. The prosecution do not need evidence that that the rider was impacted, hurt or inconvenience. A driver who drives past a school at twice the speed limit drives at least carelessly, and potentially dangerously. The fact that by pure luck, nobody is hurt or inconvenience does not change the standard of driving. If the standard of driving falls below the standard to be expected of a careful and competent driver, the offence is made out.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer so I asked CUK to follow up with Gloucestershire but they replied that they did not have the resources to do this. (One reason I am so annoyed about the money recently spent on rebranding)
Finally your link:
A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.
It seems fairly evident that you can be charged with careless driving OR you can be charged with inconsiderate driving which is where the inconvenience would come in. ie you don’t need to be inconvenienced for careless driving.
Obviously I have missed something somewhere and I would be grateful if anyone can point out the flaw in my reasoning.
Seems to me that in the stuff
Seems to me that in the stuff you’ve quoted the police were wrong (because you don’t need to be inconvenienced to show careless driving) and CUK were (a little bit less) wrong – you do need to be inconvenienced to show inconsiderate driving. Your penultimate paragraph seems to sum it up accurately.
I think I will print this out
I think I will print this out and bring it with me should I be requested in the courts again – thank you.
One of the magistrates in the first case asked me directly “Did you wobble?” which I had to reply that I did not.
The second case, it was actually the prosecutor who advised me that since I wasn’t inconvenienced it was highly unlikely to result in action against the driver.
It is limited experience I know, but for me, it is the courts allowing the drivers to carry on close passing, rather than the police.
Which brings us back to the
Which brings us back to the CPS should simply frame it as would you fail a driving test for it, and I do wonder on that point given learner drivers are becoming some of the worst non deliberate close passes i encounter, but if yes, it’s careless driving ,case closed, do not pass go, collect a fine, simple.
But again I think we’re dealing with apathy in the system, that means the CPS think it’s all a waste of their effort, they don’t put their best efforts in so don’t nail the case and enable mistakes like you’ve experienced to happen.
stonojnr wrote:
I dont believe the CPS has the power to do that without the primary legislation changing.
Calling an expert witness like a driving instructor yes, changing the terms of legislation big nope.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I dont believe the CPS has the power to do that without the primary legislation changing.
Calling an expert witness like a driving instructor yes, changing the terms of legislation big nope.— stonojnr
Does it actually need a change in the legislation? Careless driving is defined by the CPS as “driving which falls below the what would be expected of a careful and competent driver”, the driving test is supposed to reveal whether the applicant is a careful and competent driver, therefore any action that would fail a driving test must de facto demonstrate careless driving, no?
these arent insurmountable
these arent insurmountable obstacles though, Im sure when the government enacts its review of the laws in this area, the CPS can provide input to make things better.
and in the meantime employ someone who can squish loopholes, and secure convictions.
but it requires them to actually give a f
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I dont believe the CPS has the power to do that without the primary legislation changing.
Calling an expert witness like a driving instructor yes, changing the terms of legislation big nope.— stonojnr
From https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence
“For expert opinion to be admissible it must be able to provide the court with information which is likely to be outside a judge’s or a jury’s knowledge and experience”
AIUI, expert witnesses in driving cases tend to be limited to technical / scientific matters.
Arguably, driving carefully
Arguably, driving carefully and competently is likely to be outside the knowledge of a lot of judges and juries.
Case in point with regards to
Case in point with regards to learner drivers, this instructor thought the police would not do anything.
The police initially did issue an NIP, but due to an error in the report they cancelled it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Czhsj7foIM
yep, had almost an identical
yep, had almost an identical but more vigorous discussion with a driving instructor from a similar close pass, starts wide but chops you off at an angle, at least mine didnt involve a crossing too though, I know the zigzags apply only to motor vehicles, but youd surely get faulted for passing even with enough space on a crossing.
but the instructor I challenged was just as clueless, he knew nothing about H1,or the recommended distances for passing a cyclist, so wouldnt even acknowledge their pupil had done anything wrong.
if he’d just said sorry you know got that wrong, its a learning point for my pupil,fair enough, but its crazy I now almost always expect a close pass from a learner,and usually get one, when they should be up there with some of the best, if the instructor is doing their job properly.
Which is why I suggest we
Which is why I suggest we always keep a copy of the highway code with us.
In the case of regular drivers shouting “Read the highway code!” or “Get in the cycle lane!” at us we can wave it in their face and say “Where does it say that I HAVE to do that?”
And in the rare cases of driving instructors, it can highlight their missing knowledge and potentially worry the learner into thinking “What else is my instructor not telling me that I could fail on?”
stonojnr wrote:
i once tried this logic with some of police scotlands .. finest, and their response was to ask if i am a driving test examiner or driving instructor.
“Did you wobble?”
“Did you wobble?”
I’m sure that I did, but I was more preoccupied by the additional cognitive workload of considering:
I found that additional cognitive workload both worrisome and, by that nature, inconvenient.
Bungle_52 wrote:
I think what you’ve missed is that, like a lot of people everywhere, the police don’t always know what they’re talking about, and sometimes just make shit up.
mdavidford wrote:
This times one million. Think about all the horrendous comments you get below the line on any newspaper article abut cycling, about how cyclists are entitle and dangeours and shouldn’t be on the road. Some of those commentors are going to be police officers.
Most officers are honest and fair. But a good number are not, when it comes to cyclists.
Whilst it is good to see the
Whilst it is good to see the change in stance from the BBC, is this across their network or just at this location?
But as usual, the language used is incorrect
Newsreader: “”… the force is encouraging cyclists to submit video evidence of cars overtaking dangerously…””
It is also good that this police force has a relatively decent action rate on reports.
It is a shame that the Met police’s has dropped.
I’m confident that at least 70% of mine would get actioned with points and a fine.
Now I’d be lucky to get 10%, though they no longer notify results unless it is going to court.
It is all about authorities seeing the benefit of public video evidence submission (which is only going to increase as the tech gets better and cheaper) and allocating resources to deal with them.
I doubt the Beeb have changed
I doubt the Beeb have changed their stance, they’re simply filing today’s report as something to post, maybe the person who did it is more pro cycling than not for a change.
But thats the same problem we have across police forces and close pass reporting, if they are more pro cyclist they tend to take action, if they’re not you can tell it feels to them a waste of their time. Some forces don’t even bother reporting stats on it anymore or made it harder to report
We’re 9 days into this 14 day national police chief campaign highlighting the safety of two wheeled road users. Would you even know it was happening?
We might think of the BBC as
We might think of the BBC as a monolith, but it can be a very decentralised place with a lot of discretion given to different units. So I doubt that this is a universal shift in stance.
Well, I have my own
Well, I have my own experiences of Op Snap in West Yorkshire.
to be honest, in most of my submissions (91%) there is a straightforward email saying they are going to prosecute. Shut and dry case. Most end up with an educational course.
in some, because your footage is viewed by the wrong officer, who is a total victim blamer who doesn’t know the Highway Code or basic road law, you get victim blamed and the driver gets off. Most recently, as discussed here, with a driver who UNDERtook me in a very close pass when I was going 27mph in a 30mph zone! Or the time I was blamed for not being in the middle of a narrow cycle lane whose width was mostly taken up by drain covers!
or most notoriously, when a driver deliberately drove at me whilst filming, and the police decided to prosecute me for swearing in sheer panic and self defence. Outcome of that one is still pending. Of course, they have NEVER prosecuted a driver for swearing at me, on any of the four times I reported it.
BBC finally changes tune on
BBC finally changes tune on camera cyclists and lauds them for reporting aggressive drivers to police
The BBC? The British Broadcasting Corporation? That one? They’ve changed their philosophy?
Utterly incredible. For the past forty years at least the BBC has been overtly anti-cyclist, with a couple of notable exceptions. They continually refuse to acknowledge the benefits of cycling, despite having many articles about health, obesity, congestion, pollution etc. Their promotion of cycle helmets has been relentless, with contrary views being deliberately ignored.
I hope that this isn’t just another blip and they go back to their previous position of being either anti-cyclist or wilful ignorance.
yes, but the interviewee is A
yes, but the interviewee is A Woman. so it must be a real problem and not one of those things Men make up for fun.
One for connoisseurs of below
One for connoisseurs of below the line moronic comments here: SBS posted a clip of a driver very nearly pulling straight in front of the breakaway at the Dauphine when the riders were on a downhill so probably around 70/80 km/h, according to a substantial number of commenters there was no need for the cyclists to make annoyed hand gestures at the person who could very easily have killed them…
https://www.facebook.com/sbssportau/videos/1446572173147654/?comment_id=617133764026645&reply_comment_id=1228977582067690¬if_id=1749548577857563¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif