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

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

You have to sympathise somewhat with the police over the legislation concerning ASLs because it contains a couple of paragraphs and quite a few words which most officers can't cope with. It's a moot point whether Lancashire Traffic Officers are both very, very thick and very, very bent or are perhaps very, very, very thick and not at all bent or very, very, very bent and not at all thick. This is the complete exact quotation from the anonymous (they always are) OpSnapLancs officer letter dated 23.3.22 referring to the red-light offence at 40mph dated 21.3.22 by the driver of WS Transport 6-axle Scania 44-tonne articulated lorry PN22 DTX:

Thank you for your submission APL 103264.

 The footage, including still, shows the HGV crossing the first solid white stop line whilst the traffic signal is amber.  The further solid white stop line is for bicycles, as is clearly marked.  There are no offences disclosed from this footage and therefore no further action will be taken.

I pointed out how simple it was to demonstrate that this statement was completely wrong and Inspector Jones of OSL was stated to be writing to me about it. Unsurprisingly, he never did.

open_roads wrote:

On a related point, Steve Bray is a prize willing bellend - his megaphone ranting has been going on for years and is very intimidating for pedestrians / other road users.

His bellendedness or otherwise is a matter of opinion and, one suspects, probably depends on one's stance on the B word. However, I cycle through Parliament Square several times a week and walk through it occasionally, he's not in the slightest bit intimidating to either pedestrians or other road users, people stop and chat, have photos taken with him, some stop to argue with him...he doesn't intimidate anyone. If he could be charged with intimidation you can bet the government would have asked the police to pinch him years ago. He irritates some people, but that's not quite the same - if being an irritating bellend was a crime that building outside which he protests would be standing empty.

Same here - whether or not Bray is found irritating is up to the reader, but I travel through the square (and past the area next to the Jewel Tower) up to ten times a week - most weeks - and haven't once seen any sign of intimidation.

.

There ya go again, Trendy - saying that 'no-one is....' when someone has just stated that they ARE!

.

As I said last time - QED you are clearly incorrect.

.

Why do you persist?

.

The poster didn't say they were intimidated, they said other people were. My experience and that of others is that this is untrue. I know you of the alt-right are specialists in believing in whatever lies suit, but it doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them.

The more interesting question is why are you so obsessed with following my comments? Are you hoping that there will be a second coming of Nige so you can try your sad little tag-team bully act again? As I've told you, I can't afford to pay rent on that space I seem to occupy in your head. It's not healthy, you really should take up a hobby of some sort to use your energies for some constructive purpose. Try cycling, you might even find you like it!

Get well soon xxxx

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Why do you persist?

.

Well that took an unexpectedly metaphysical turn.

It sounds like they're incompossible.

Yes it is exactly that, safety in case in of emergency attack, not that cyclists don't even exist for such guys.

Imagine that this poor guy was attacked by Bin Laden's unknown daughter with a .50 caliber and he had to be blocked by a 70 year deaf old cyclist lady, all that the driver would be able to do is to wait patiently for the magazine to empty, or the light go green. No other options.

It's the old ethics questions again - how many 70 year old deaf cyclists would you be prepared to run over to save Sir Chris Boardman?  What if they were scooterists instead, or a couple of cycle-stealing scrotes on a moped...?

But what are the chances that he's going to be at the front of the queue? If he was second car back he'd be blocked in anyway. 

Police drivers are trained to stop in traffic queues ensuring that the bottom of the rear wheels/tyres of the car in front are visible, this means that if they need to make a quick exit, they can do so withough reversing or being boxed in.

Yh, I didn't think it through. I was thinking he would still be blocked in by the cars on his right but he would just bulldoze his way through those. Presumably another excuse for the oversize vehicle. The issue is bulldozing through cyclists......

I remember being taught exactly this when I learnt to drive (not as a police officer). It wasn't about making a quick escape, more about leaving room if you were shunted from behind. (Unless my old man had a secret life as a close protection bodyguard and couldn't help passing on the benefit of his spycraft training.)

mark1a wrote:

Police drivers are trained to stop in traffic queues ensuring that the bottom of the rear wheels/tyres of the car in front are visible, this means that if they need to make a quick exit, they can do so withough reversing or being boxed in.

I learnt to do the same thing.... for the purpose of leaving a refuge for any filtering cyclists and motorcylists.

T&T; tyres and tarmac.....as seen on many of Reg Local's videos....

open_roads wrote:

For defensive driving it's likely they will occupy the stop box to ensure that obstructions in front wouldn't prevent an emergency getaway. Pulling up behind the box potentially means that with cyclists in front the car / occupants are then "boxed" in and can't move if the need arises.

I thought this, but not sure how effective that is. It hasn't happened in this example, but in London if the bike box is blocked by something that shouldn't be there, it's common for cyclists (and motorcyclists, scooterists) just to pull in front of it anyway. 

quiff wrote:

open_roads wrote:

For defensive driving it's likely they will occupy the stop box to ensure that obstructions in front wouldn't prevent an emergency getaway. Pulling up behind the box potentially means that with cyclists in front the car / occupants are then "boxed" in and can't move if the need arises.

I thought this, but not sure how effective that is. It hasn't happened in this example, but in London if the bike box is blocked by something that shouldn't be there, it's common for cyclists (and motorcyclists, scooterists) just to pull in front of it anyway. 

Surely they'll look in the vehicle to make sure there's not an Important Person in there before doing so.

It's not defensive driving per se, if the car in front stalls, you can get around them, if they roll back, they have space to do so, so nothing to do with evasive tactics, just basic safe driving skills that every driver out to follow (like the 2 second rule, completing braking before changing gear and before entering a corner etc).

Phew, so many to choose from.... maybe the right to have a slightly more powerful vaccuum cleaner? Err, and.....

The FREEDOM to choose my own phone charger... even though I don't own a smartphone. I just want to make sure that it's not compatible with any other smartphone in my household/office.

I see Javid was driving (or being driven) to work in a humungous, inappropriate vehicle. I bet they're sat there moaning about the traffic, narrow lanes, pesky cyclists etc.

But does he really need an armed escort (that we pay for)? Would anyone really make the effort to take him out? He and so many other Tory ministers and MPs are so incredibly shit at doing their jobs that even a terrorist wouldn't see the point replacing them with someone that is even remotely competent.

Simon E wrote:

But does he really need an armed escort (that we pay for)? Would anyone really make the effort to take him out? He and so many other Tory ministers and MPs are so incredibly shit at doing their jobs that even a terrorist wouldn't see the point replacing them with someone that is even remotely competent.

A strict utilitarian might: greatest good for the greatest number and all that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

If we were to rejoin the EU tomorrow, which Brexit benefit would you miss the most?

Being able to select a phone with its own unique charger?

Getting my passport stamped every time I enter and leave Mallorca (after queuing for ages). That smudge of black ink is so satisfying. 

Good one.  European travel feeling like more of an adventure again because there's a more than solely mental border?

Maybe the thrill of knowing that my passport cover will change colour when I renew it?

Bike parts from abroad feeling more valuable because they're more expensive / take more time to get here / are unavailable. (Not solely a Brexit bonus, I know).

You may have noticed a "back to the happily more limited times of my youth" vibe here.

hawkinspeter wrote:

If we were to rejoin the EU tomorrow, which Brexit benefit would you miss the most?

Being able to drink pints of beer again with a crown on the glass after all those decades of the ruthless tyranny of being forced to drink litres out of glasses branded with the EU flag.

Think yourself luck you didn't have to pay in euros!  And if you had a chaser in England you'd be forced to drink an extra 1.3 ml beyond the more moderate gill.

Being able to re-position the emergency exit signs in the Dartford tunnel.