Cyclists don't pay 'road tax'! (Except this one slapped with £1,500 bill); CyclingMikey interview; Maxine Peake talks Festive 500 on The One Show; Jan Ullrich rubbishes rehab rumours; Injured Van der Poel ends CX season; Cafe ride + more on the live blog

Have to agree with some of the sentiment you stated above. The video certainly didn't show either ""We tried to stop you." or "You tried to run" sentiments. I never heard a stop request or saw the cyclist out sprinting the coppers but he certainly seemed to be riding at a normal relaxed pace of 8-9mph or so. 

Id have ridden through that

You don't know what's under the water. Might be a big hole...
Besides getting splashed if you have no mudguards (and even if you do but they're too short and/or narrow).

marmotte27 wrote:

You don't know what's under the water. Might be a big hole....

marmotte27 wrote:

You don't know what's under the water. Might be a big hole... Besides getting splashed if you have no mudguards (and even if you do but they're too short and/or narrow).

In most cases I'd agree, but the surrounding tarmac looks new enough for me to believe the condition below the water is good too.

Although there is still potential bottles, bricks and other heavy detritus, especially as there is a ramp for the ped crossing area so could catch at the deepest section. 

its fairly common round here at this time of year, even if it hasnt rained for a while to find roads like this, and yes I did ride through that,as it wasnt as deep as it looked, deep enough for sure,but the alternative was go back the way Id came and maybe waste an hour or more and likely just ending up in a similar position on another back road, or ride through it cautiously aim for the middle of the road, sometimes you can trek around these types of floods via the fields, so your feet just get muddy instead of slightly damp, but I just treat it as one of those things you just have to put up with sometimes.

so a big puddle on a fairly clean looking bit of tarmac in an urban setting, shouldnt really hide any real problems for you. Id not have been overly concerned about riding through it, put it that way, whilst treating it cautiously still, Im not saying ride with abandon through them.

Luckily we have footage of a similar flooded lane and the consequences:

https://youtu.be/K_7k3fnxPq0?t=169

95km for me. I was planning on more as i wanted to complete my 4k miles for the year but was just too wet so missed out on the latter by 140 miles. Shame the NYE/NYD weather didn't come earlier in the week. 

I did 3/5ths, which was over halfway, which was my goal, so I was happy with that, if the weather gods had been more favourable Id like to think Id have completed it.

It is about what I would have gotten to if I got my 4k target. Unfortunately my Shimano winter boots were letting the water in via my ankles  and because they don't have the ventilation holes, it was staying in the shoes and had to be tipped out at the end. They then wouldn't dry in time for the next days ride. 

Neoprene gaiters - best rainy day investment I've made in ages.

I've bought some of those Altura WP socks as used by the R.cc team when they did the longest night ride. Not rained since for me to try them out. But yes, that will be the next look at as the shoe itself is fine, but doesn't seal well around the ankle. 

Same with my SIDI winter boots, lovely except no watertight ankle seal - £10 gaiters from Decathlon and not had a wet sock all winter!

hawkinspeter wrote:

CyclingMikey has an interview/article with the Gruandia this morning:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/05/filming-cyclingmikey-dangerous-drivers-mike-van-erp-motorists-britain-roads-safer

Quote:

He began taking his on-the-road shots in 2006, using an early bike-mounted camera. “I started filming because I felt a little powerless,” he recalls. “I couldn’t do anything if a bad driver gave me a close pass, or risked my life in some way. On the various cycling forums we started talking about cameras, how they were miniaturising and getting better – even though they’re terrible compared with now.”

Came here to post the same!  Although I was going to include a trigger warning as it is (a) Guardian and (b) Cycling Mikey and I suspect I can hear the distant rumble of troll footsteps approaching

stomec wrote:

Came here to post the same!  Although I was going to include a trigger warning as it is (a) Guardian and (b) Cycling Mikey and I suspect I can hear the distant rumble of troll footsteps approaching

Dan's now included it into the Blog as well.

I found it quite encouraging to read this bit:

Quote:

Statistics are limited on this new era of road crime enforcement. The Metropolitan police, the UK’s biggest police force, for example, says it does not keep any relevant figures. But freedom of information requests have revealed that several smaller forces now get hundreds of video complaints a year each, and as many as half lead to action. Van Erp says he has been told “sometimes half of driver awareness courses are filled with people caught by camera cyclists”.

Apart from the Met being poor with cyclists (not even going to mention their racist tendencies), it shows that us camera users are having a sizeable impact. We just need better support from certain police forces (cue WTJS) and harsher sentences for motoring crime - especially the loopholes concerning leaving the scene and 'exceptional hardship' which really rankles as the judiciary rarely consider the exceptional hardship caused by injuries and deaths to cyclists and others.

the day Ill be convinced it has any impact is when a driver begins an overtake when its clearly unsafe to do so, but then pulls back and decides against it, simply by recognising Im likely to be carrying a camera, so theyd better make it a good pass.

till then its just supposition backed with no data, Suffolk & Norfolk for a while were reporting stats, which showed roughly only 20% were prosecuted, and nearly 60% of submissions were being rejected out of hand as not even meeting their submission criteria.

Awavey wrote:

the day Ill be convinced it has any impact is when a driver begins an overtake when its clearly unsafe to do so, but then pulls back and decides against it, simply by recognising Im likely to be carrying a camera, so theyd better make it a good pass.

till then its just supposition backed with no data, Suffolk & Norfolk for a while were reporting stats, which showed roughly only 20% were prosecuted, and nearly 60% of submissions were being rejected out of hand as not even meeting their submission criteria.

60% rejected? That sounds like they don't have the requirements laid out clearly or they're too strict.

I like to think that anyone that does receive a letter or fine from camera evidence is likely to complain about it to others and hopefully several drivers will then be wary of cyclists that may or may not have cameras. But like you say, there's scant data on the actual effect on whether road casualties are lessened because of it.

Awavey wrote:

the day Ill be convinced it has any impact is when a driver begins an overtake when its clearly unsafe to do so, but then pulls back and decides against it, simply by recognising Im likely to be carrying a camera, so theyd better make it a good pass.

I don't carry a camera, but someone did actually pull back from a stupid move this morning.

It was dark, and there's a pedestrian refuge pinch point ahead of me, visible for a long way.  I could hear a car revving up behind me, clearly thinking they'd overtake.  As we approach the pinch point I was getting ready for 'having to do something' when suddenly they noticed the island, braked, and went through behind me before overtaking once we were both through.

My flabber was well and truly gasted!

Northamptonshire Police do publish statistics monthly.

https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/23 

Doesn't tell you what action has been taken but it does tell you why action wasn't taken.  They seem to be getting over 100/month. The majority are still from drivers and around 50% are rejected/not processed.