Not Near Miss of the Day; That's not Mathieu van der Poel; Steve Bray berates Sajid Javid...but look at the driver; All the new Tour kits; Tour de Cheese; Crime of the century; Startlist confirmed ahead of team presentation + more on the live blog

Know what you mean.  Out round the paths this evening, people moved thickly, cats didn't trot aside and even the birds seemed lazy.

Last time I went, I was so glad I camped uphill from the toilets. Sunday was interesting if you were downhill.

This is definitely news (govt. press release here).  It should be very good news (it would be if this was part of an actual sustainable-safety-type framework).  The key points which will show if this is useful?
Will the staff aim beyond "the status quo as we see it but with a few rule tweaks to make driving a bit safer, plus self-driving cars"?
How will they deal with the fragmented responsibilities around roads, driving and vehicles?  The existing bodies - MAIB / RAIB / AAIB - also have to deal with that situation and it seems to "work" fairly well.  However much of where we are with transport is much bigger and concerns "development" in general (zoning restrictions, building codes, where we encourage workplaces, schools, shops ...).
Finally will any more challenging recommendations be met with "but cars" or "but expensive" or "not us guv, the government didn't give us the wherewithal"?

They've also been tasked with looking at self-driving car stuff too.  So they may initially be busy with that.

hirsute wrote:

I wrote to the police and crime commissioner (PCC) first, who told me he wasn't responsible for the policies of the police

But I'm not the final arbiter, that cannot be denied
And I can't be held responsible for what I don't decide

My last two submissions to TVP have apparently resulted in notice of intended prosecution. We're still in the 28day 'let us know who was driving' stage so no idea of the real outcome but it was a step up from 'we sent them a letter'.

My last two submissions to TVP have apparently resulted in notice of intended prosecution

In many forces, including Lancashire previously, NIPs were just a dodge. Since they then wouldn't tell you what happened it was obvious they did nothing or next to nothing. Lancashire now doesn't respond to reports to OpSnapLancs at all, so it's just an automatic route to the bin.

Quote:

Court documents state there was no totting disqualification and mitigating circumstances were given – Jelani is a carer for his elderly and ill father and will suffer if he cannot drive to appointments; he requires his car to spend time with his child and needs his licence for work as he’s a police officer - working in road traffic patrol – and it would affect his career.

What?!

Ridiculous isn't it!

120mph! That's class-A speeding, I should hope this effects his job. Surely be struck off for gross-misconduct and bringing the police force into disrepute.

At the very least, he's arguably established a bias that makes him incapable of effectively/fairly doing his job. If he's happy to commit these offences himself, he must be happy for others to do the same? Can he be trusted to take action when needed?

HoarseMann wrote:

Ridiculous isn't it!

120mph! That's class-A speeding, I should hope this effects his job. Surely be struck off for gross-misconduct and bringing the police force into disrepute.

Getting points on his licence will result in a disciplinary hearing - he has to report these to his supervisor - and given the nature of the offences could actually result in demotion or the sack.

Quote:

A POLICE officer has been fined after speeding at 120mph on the M606 in Bradford - and pleaded that being banned would affect his career.

...

Jelani was fined £484, ordered to pay a £48 victim surcharge and costs of £110.

His driving record was also endorsed with six points.

No.  Just no.  We need to draw line in the sand, here. 

A f-ing road traffic police officer is speeding that far over the limit and gets off with a fine and six points???  Un-f-ing-believable.

EDIT:

I notice that there's a link to another article:

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/20239038.bradford-road-casua...

Quote:

BRADFORD'S MPs feel more needs to be done around road safety after figures showed a huge 30 per cent increase in casualities in the city.

Provisional figures from the Department for Transport suggest there were 1,457 road casualties in Bradford in 2021 – a rise from 924 the year before, and more than the 1,117 in 2019.

More people were killed on the district's roads last year – 12 people died, while eight lost their lives in 2020.

Meanwhile, 313 serious injuries were recorded – an increase from the year before, when 215 people were badly hurt.

Given the story about Jelani, does that count as irony in a non-Morrissette way?

BalladOfStruth wrote:

he requires his car to spend time with his child and needs his licence for work as he’s a police officer - working in road traffic patrol – and it would affect his career.

Maybe they could transfer him to some job where he doesn't need a driving licence, like walking the beat.

I suppose it depends on the Police force. I know from CycleGaz videos that the MET will issue FPNs for crossing into the ASL. But for me living in Gloucestershire, where plod have a policy of only taking action if the cyclist is actually knocked off their bike (and I'm assuming only then to do the cyclist for a public order offence if they swear in pain/fright), ASLs might as well not exist - I don't think I've ever seen one without a van in it.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I suppose it depends on the Police force. I know from CycleGaz videos that the MET will issue FPNs for crossing into the ASL. 

That's partly true but I recently found out from the Met (after enquiring as to why several completely obvious cycle box offences hadn't been FPNd, even though they filled all the criteria of quite clearly showing the driver proceeding into them on red (rather than being caught in them by a light change)) that they have a somewhat lenient policy, which is they only FPN if the driver is right up to the stop line on a single-lane carriageway,  i.e., completely filling the box. If it's a two-lane carriageway and they are only occupying one side of the box, or a single-lane carriageway but they are only halfway forward into the box they'll get a warning letter at best or most likely NFA. My enquiry in reply as to whether I wouldn't be arrested for stealing if I just pinched half a loaf of bread and left the other half behind has gone unanswered.

I'm curious to see if these internal "policies" that each police force has for deciding whether to deal with road offences extend to any other categories of offences? Would my local force have a higher threshold for, say and assault or a burgluary to meet before they persued, compared to, say, the MET?

I suppose it depends on the Police force. I know from CycleGaz videos that the MET will issue FPNs for crossing into the ASL

It certainly does. In Lancashire, where they don't even bother about crossing lights at red and continuing right across the junction, it would be unjust to criticise people for stopping in the cyclist box or across the stop line. No response or action by LC over this of course, where Golf T90 RWT crossed the lights at red but then halted beyond the stop line

ASLs in Bristol usually have half a car and a couple of food delivery motorbikes in them (as an average).

And you often find yourself following, or being followed by, a food delivery motorbike when using cycle lanes.

brooksby wrote:

ASLs in Bristol usually have half a car and a couple of food delivery motorbikes in them (as an average).

And you often find yourself following, or being followed by, a food delivery motorbike when using cycle lanes.

I had many "discussions" with motorcyclists who felt entitled to use the ASLs and cycle lanes when I lived in Bristol, usually along the lines of responses like this:

"Eff off, you useless pr*ck, you ain't the effing police."

Along with occasional threats of violence.

Maybe but it stinks of more "one rule for you and rule for us" bullshit.

Agree but for people at this level that's how it is now and it's naive to think otherwise.  You - and your life if it came to it - are not as important as these people.  I'm probably worth about 1/20th of a corgi for example or 30 seconds at a Downing Street partywork event.

I can see why it might be preferable from a security point of view, but AFAIK that doesn't actually change anything legally (there are various legal exemptions to certain traffic laws for emergency vehicles etc. but none that I can find apply here).

On the other hand, with my "Mr Loophole" hat on we didn't actually see how the vehicle got into that position. As the excerpt from the Highway Code states, if the vehicle had already crossed (or was unable to stop safely before) the first white line when the lights changed, but the vehicle was able to safely stop before the second white line, then the driver MUST do so and will therefore perfectly legally end up occupying the box.