Mr Loophole doubles down on two abreast rant (+ Jeremy Vine gets involved); More Surrey cops zingers; Valtteri Bottas: I’m getting more podiums in cycling than F1; Van der Poel eyes green jersey; LTN news; But cyclists + more on the live blog

I had to look up Cameo - it just made me think of red codpieces and soap my gran used to use. To be clear my gran never (to my knowledge) wore a red codpiece.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I had to look up Cameo - it just made me think of red codpieces and soap my gran used to use. To be clear my gran never (to my knowledge) wore a red codpiece.

 

I just spat my tea out reading that.  

Garage at Large wrote:

The "middle lane hoggers" point is pertinent, as it's essentially the motoring equivalent of cycling many abreast in a large group - it creates an inefficient, unnecessary and difficult to overtake obstacle which frustrates and angers people. So perhaps that's a good way to visualise the group of cyclists in his eloquently orated video. There's something so uncivilised about their behaviour.

Roads are inefficient... the moment we introduce personalised transport whose users expect to travel at 60 mph on a windy narrow road, with the separation of vehicles that that requires.  If you want efficient use of roads, everybody should be on foot or bike; and ideally travelling in a disciplined group.  I think I've seen a video recently showing an example [searches 'self-aggrandising ambulance-chaser video' to check...]

Middle-lane hoggers are a problem: difficult to define, and to identify and enforce, especially by static camera.  Moving back to the nearside lane when passing two vehicles that appear spread out can be dangerous if, for example, the distance between them does not allow for a safe distance between you and the vehicle just passed &/or about to be passed, or that distance is reducing quickly enough that the move left will be followed very quickly by a move right.

Some examples of hogging are blatant with nothing in sight in the left lane; some are a matter of judgement. Where would you set the trigger point for enforcement? 

Too often, impatient drivers behind the overtaking vehicle in themiddle lane do not take into account that their own faster speed distorts their perception of the pass that the middle lane user is executing.  And the fact that those impatient drivers are very often exceeding the speed limit themselves just adds to the irony.

While I find middle lane hogging to be frustrating, I am learning that the frustration is very often my problem, and just to deal with it.  Because, guess what... there's an outside lane I can use!

GMBasix wrote:

Too often, impatient drivers behind the overtaking vehicle in themiddle lane do not take into account that their own faster speed distorts their perception of the pass.........

While I find middle lane hogging to be frustrating, I am learning that the frustration is very often my problem, and just to deal with it.  Because, guess what... there's an outside lane I can use!

And of course the supreme irony of the fast middle lane hogger delayed by the slow middle lane hogger. I used to find it faily common that I would come up behind two cars in the middle lane of an otherwise empty road, move out to pass them both, then pull in to lane 1, if the front car of the pair took the hint and pulled over the second car would then pass me remaining in the middle lane.

The outside lane was available for overtaking but for some reason they chose not to use it, even though they clearly wished to travel faster than me, never mind faster the the slower middle lane hogger.

wycombewheeler wrote:

...if the front car of the pair took the hint and pulled over the second car would then pass me remaining in the middle lane.

And then invariably slow down immediately ahead, sometimes even alongside, preventing you from passing the next vehicle without going through a convoluted maoeuvre to correct their ignorance.  MrsBasix is fed up with the number of times I bless the blocking driver as I advise them through two layers of glass that they should either be passing me or not passing me, not suspending the action mid-way.

Garage at Large wrote:

There's something so uncivilised about their behaviour.

There's nothing uncivilised about their behaviour. There was not a single moment of the video in which the drivers did not have an entire clear lane available in which to overtake. The cyclists did nothing, absolutely nothing to block them from overtaking. The reason they didn't is because the road itself ( for the very brief stretch on video) is clearly and obviously unsafe to overtake on.

The only uncivilised thing going on is rude and antisocial yobs like you intentionally ignoring that fact so you can attempt to create anger and discord over it. Maybe one day you'll join polite society yourself instead of acting like a council estate chav.

Wingguy wrote:

There's nothing uncivilised about their behaviour. There was not a single moment of the video in which the drivers did not have an entire clear lane available in which to overtake. The cyclists did nothing, absolutely nothing to block them from overtaking. The reason they didn't is because the road itself ( for the very brief stretch on video) is clearly and obviously unsafe to overtake on.

The only uncivilised thing going on is rude and antisocial yobs like you intentionally ignoring that fact so you can attempt to create anger and discord over it. Maybe one day you'll join polite society yourself instead of acting like a council estate chav.

No matter how many times that point has been mentioned to Nigel.... he just ignores the fact that the reason the cyclists had not been overtaken was down to the road not the actions of the cyclists.  And even when it is pointed out the opportunity for a driver to overtake even a solo cyclist on that particular stretch of road is very limited he will still ignore it.

He will continue to bleat on about how his hero Mr Freeman would only ever have resorted to filming the cyclists after being held up for many miles beforehand.

Garage at Large wrote:

The "middle lane hoggers" point is pertinent, as it's essentially the motoring equivalent of cycling many abreast in a large group - it creates an inefficient, unnecessary and difficult to overtake obstacle which frustrates and angers people. So perhaps that's a good way to visualise the group of cyclists in his eloquently orated video. There's something so uncivilised about their behaviour.

Ok Nige.... I will ask again and this time I want a straight answer not your usual, deflect waffle wibble wobble blah blah blah about how your hero Nick Freeman had been held up for ages before he started to record.

WAS IT SAFE DURING THAT CLIP FOR A DRIVER TO OVERTAKE A CYCLIST, EVEN A SOLO CYCLIST?  

Well, I'm assuming after the clip the cyclists were overtaken (safely I hope). And prior to the clip, I'm assuming they caught them up. If there was a queue of traffic behind, I'm assuming Freeman pulled over to let them all past as it would be the most considerate thing to do.

There We Are Then.

Garage at Large wrote:

OK, OK, keep your hair on! Caps lock is the internet version of shouting, and is considered rather rude, obtuse behaviour.

During the clip, it may have been perfectly safe to overtake a single cyclist, but it would have depended on the speed they were travelling at.

As I already said yesterday, you aren't asking the correct question, which is about the cyclists' conduct prior and after Mr Freeman had finished filming. It is doubtlessly true that a queue had built up behind them a long time prior to the recording starting.

I know exactly what caps means which is exactly why I used it.

Again you did not answer the question and again you go back to the defence of your hero making assumptions that there is a queue built up behind them a long time prior to the recording starting. 

Am I right in thinking that you repeatedly try and justify the police standpoint of not being able to prosecute drivers becuase the video does not provide sufficient evidence to prove bad driving.  Guess what this video does not prove anything that you are asserting so I suggest stop with your spurious arguments

You know what speed they were travelling at 19 or 20mph as described by the narrator in your hero's clip.

I am asking exactly the question that I intended to ask because in all likelihood, Mr Freeman, a notoriously anti-cycling ambassador will no doubt have edited the clip to further his point.  I mean is it not entirely feasible that he came across the group 30 seconds before recording, did his piece to camera for a whole minute, then when the road straightened out and the car in front was able to overtake his recording ended.

Why don't you go and ask him to provide the two minutes of footage before and two minutes of footage after his edited clip to prove your theory?  I mean thats what I as a cyclist have to provide from my camera if I expect the police to take action.

So once again I will ask you the question which I want the answer to. 

In the video that your hero provided was there a safe place for an overtake?  Even if it was a solo cyclist travelling at the same speed as the group... at 19 or 20mph?  A simple yes or no is all that is required.  No speculation about what happened before or after the incident.  No speculation about what speed the cyclist/cyclists are travelling at.

But given your subsequent comments which amount to your view that a cyclist can only ever be allowed on a road if the are going somewhere to do something productive shows your entire stance and you will do anything to try and make it seem like the cyclists are in the wrong you won't answer the actual question asked you will try and deflect AGAIN!

Gunge and Lard wrote:

.
- Newly qualified drivers should have to wear `NQ` plates for two years after passing their test.

A) you can't normally see what a driver is wearing so I doubt that plates, bowls or any other crockery will have much effect.

B) can we have something equivalent for "I've had no training nor read the highway code in 5+ years so am likely to be a crap driver"?

I have to do a minimum of 35 hours training a year in my job. Even if I tried, I doubt I could kill anyone with botched IT. For driving, I did about 15 hours in total, decades ago. Where's the logic?

Thanks for asking for opinions - is this a new you?

I'm not sure what "cohesion" means but I'll run with "comprehensibility". That means it should be obvious to all road users what type of environment they're in and how they need to behave. This should be "self-enforcing" as much as possible. The street design itself should prompt this rather than requiring lots of signs / markings / policemen standing around.

Just apply the principles of Sustainable Safety. Here (article, paper, video).

• (Mono)Functionality (of roads)
• Homogeneity (of mass, speed and direction of road users)
• Predictability (of road course and road user behaviour by a recognisable road design)
• Forgivingness (of both the road/street environment and the road users)
• State awareness (by the road user)

(This is actually the pre-2018 formulation but simpler to start with for the UK).

Add in periodic re-tests for drivers - call them "refreshers" if you will. Because these are principles we can start using these now to move from where we. Our roads are in global terms relatively "safe" but at cost: an over-reliance on private motor vehicles with many negative consequences. No independant mobility for children, access difficulties for those who can't drive, minimising walking and cycling, particulate pollution, loss of "local" amenities etc.

We may not adopt all of the same actual designs as the Dutch - although I'd recommend considering that too. They''ve been trialled for a few decades...

There has been some investigating of these ideas in English-speaking countries ("Safe System"). For reasons which always escape me they're always struggling to avoid any mention of the Dutch and their vision always seems to emphasise the reactive more than the proactive. Is it "not invented here" syndrome or are we unwilling to prioritise safety over "convenient for drivers"?

Yes, it will take years (and money!) to alter the engineering and retrain drivers. However the "cohesive" (clear / "self-enforcing") road design naturally makes that easier. We already do this e.g. wide, straight multi-lane road = high speed. Unfortunately we extend that one principle (fast "flow" / high capacity) everywhere. So even through built up areas we have nice wide turn radii so you can drive into a side street without slowing!

Garage at Large wrote:

Cyclists need to be identified with number plates, take a proficiency test, their bikes should have a yearly MOT and the wearing of helmets and tabards should also be compulsory

Apart from the bloody stupidity of all that, what's the point of passing laws that couldn't possibly be enforced? Last year four million drivers used their cars on the road with an expired MOT, around a million drove without insurance, and there are an astonishing estimated 800,000 driving without licences or whilst banned. If the authorities can only catch a tiny proportion of these, where are they going to find the time and resources to police this nonsense? 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

Cyclists need to be identified with number plates, take a proficiency test, their bikes should have a yearly MOT and the wearing of helmets and tabards should also be compulsory

Apart from the bloody stupidity of all that, what's the point of passing laws that couldn't possibly be enforced? Last year four million drivers used their cars on the road with an expired MOT, around a million drove without insurance, and there are an astonishing estimated 800,000 driving without licences or whilst banned. If the authorities can only catch a tiny proportion of these, where are they going to find the time and resources to police this nonsense? 

A yearly MOT?  Garage do you actually think about the drivel you post?

If a bicycle has a catastrophic failure of any or multiple components the chances are there may be a little damage to property, and a possibility of injury to the rider or other riders in the group at worst.

If a motorvehicle has any one of multiple MOT Fails such as damaged suspension, bald tyres etc...... the risks are catastrophic damage to property and the potential for multiple fatalites.

Not only that and MOT is a snapshot of the roadworthiness of the vehicle at that exact moment in time.  Lets say a car has an MOT and it comes out with advisories on all its tyres saying that they have the legal tread depth but just enough to scrape past it's MOT.  The driver of that vehicle does 30,000 miles per year in that car, so within a week possibly 2 the tyres are below the legal limit.... yet the driver doesn't change them..... so despite it's 2 week old MOT that car is now not roadworthy.

Garage at Large wrote:

 - Learning how to overtake cyclists should be part of the driving test -

IF Nick Freeman believes this is beneficial why doesn't he start by voluntarily learning how to overtake cyclists? Then he would see that one or two abreast makes little difference.

Garage at Large wrote:

Speed limit should be raised from 70mph to 80mph on motorways

Firstly thanks for asking for my opinion.

I don't know the answer to this but before increasing speed limits has he considered the impact to the environment? I believe US speed limits 65mph and 55mph were set historically to increase fuel efficiency. Is this not still the case?

Also, and again I'm not an expert, I've been told by people that drive electric cars that they don't thrash them because it kills the range very quickly, so it would seem not to benefit the COP 26 preferred mode of tansport.

I'm just wondering if his views aren't a bit antiquated or if he's actually a climate change denyer?

TBH, that one statement shows how limited knowledge PoopHole actually has. He wants to increase the speed difference between the slowest and fastest vehicles allowed on the motorways which will mean more severe braking and slow downs and more middle lane hoggers as they will otherwise be weaving more then most. You will also then have the twat arses who believe the 10% rule will get them off touching 90 instead. 

And his other comment on removing variable speed limits is because he doesn't understand the reason they are there is to try to keep a reasonable flow of traffic because when the motorway becomes saturated with people doing 70, the speeds drops to 0-20. However if they can slow down the traffic beforehand the actual flow speeds are higher. Again it reduces the heavier braking which has the incremental knockon down the line of traffic and causes a dead stop as each driver brakes harder as they don't know how much braking the driver in front does. 

Still someone who got his publicity for luckily getting Ferguson* and Beckham off because the judges were starstuck and then built a career off it is definitley someone who doesn't actually know much. TBH, if the law didn't have the arseholery section stating road offence NIP needed to be sent and received within 2 weeks, we would never have ever heard from him. Strangely he doesn't call for that to be overuled. 

* Needing to drive in the hard shoulder because he might shit himself is not a loophole. Being let off for it is because the Judge suddenly sympathised for actually no legal reason. Stangely he didn't shit himself (or even mention he was turtling) whilst speaking to the two Policeman and having to give driving license across and accept the NIP. Those discussions normally take 20-30 mins. 

Energy is proportional the velocity squared, so increasing the limit by 10 from 70 to 80, increases the energy by about 30%.

Garage at Large wrote:

Veteran road safety expert and celebrated lawyer Nick Freeman has published a 10 point plan for improving cohesion and safety on Britain's streets and motorways. What are your thoughts?

Firstly, I can't take ageing arsehole shit-stirrer Nick Freeman seriously. Not worth wasting my time.

Secondly, well... I guess my first point covers it.

But "celebrated"?

Come on Nige, youre 'avin' a laugh!

Garage at Large wrote:

What are your thoughts?:

You only posted that to wind up the forum. There is a name for that.

My thoughts are..... you struggle with logic and empathy. I pity you and hope you get the help you need.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The doubling down when called out for saying something incorrect, ignorant or just plain dumb. A technique championed by Halfwit-in-Chief Donald Trump [...] .

Not surprising really - he just got it from the Russians, like certain other things.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

The doubling down when called out for saying something incorrect, ignorant or just plain dumb. A technique championed by Halfwit-in-Chief Donald Trump [...] .

Not surprising really - he just got it from the Russians, like certain other things.

I think one can overstate the help the H-WIC got from the Russians. It wasn't much, only wee.

TheBillder wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

The doubling down when called out for saying something incorrect, ignorant or just plain dumb. A technique championed by Halfwit-in-Chief Donald Trump [...] .

Not surprising really - he just got it from the Russians, like certain other things.

I think one can overstate the help the H-WIC got from the Russians. It wasn't much, only wee.

This would have been a second like. Crude. Which I liked.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The doubling down when called out for saying something incorrect, ignorant or just plain dumb. A technique championed by Halfwit-in-Chief Donald Trump and proven effective in fixing an otherwise unsupportable idea in the consciousness of the barely sentient, unable to exercise critical thinking skills. Nick Freeman is a manipulative and mendacious individual who thrives on notoriety for his personal gain.

So exactly like Trump.  And some British politicians, for that matter...

Let's be clear, you don't have to impact a driver's journey in any way to be on the receiving end of obscene gestures (e.g. oncoming cars on roads where riding abreast is absolutely appropriate), blasts of horns (car parked filling mandatory bike lane), cars overtaking where passengers shout "single file!" oblivious to how their driver has been able to pass safely because we are two abreast.

So let's take delay out of the equation. Mr Loophole wants roads where every individual car driver, but not lorries or bikes, can travel at the maximum speed the road is capable of (and clearly he does not count speed limits as part of that assessment given his past record of legal work). He doesn't seem to grasp that the real problem is other cars - it's not 1960.

Can we go back to something like this?

And the actual time lost was the differential between max speed of 30 and the 15-20 actual. So not really anything of consequence, given an overtake was possible at the end of the clip.