A cyclist who was riding in foggy conditions on the Isle of Man’s Mountain Road says he was stopped by police three times and ordered to “put my bike in the van as it was too dangerous”, following complaints from motorists on the climb.
Chris Glencorse, from Scissett, West Yorkshire, was climbing the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road between Ramsey and Douglas yesterday, as part of a three-day cycling trip to the Isle of Man, when he was stopped by officers who were dispatched to check on his welfare, after several drivers reported that they had nearly struck the cyclist due to the apparent poor visibility and adverse conditions on the road.
A video of the incident was posted on Twitter yesterday afternoon by Chris following his ride and has since been viewed over 650,000 times.
In the post, the cyclist wrote: “Unbelievably the Isle of Man Police thought it was appropriate to stop me three times while cycling over the mountain, the last time to tell me to put the bike in the van because of complaints by car drivers. That’s not how the Highway Code works. I didn’t get in the van.”
However, a spokesperson for the Isle of Man Constabulary told road.cc that the officers simply “offered to transport the cyclist and his bicycle to Douglas to ensure he arrived safely” and that the incident was a “timely reminder to all motorists that cyclists frequently use the A18 Mountain Road” and to “ensure that you drive/cycle to the conditions and arrive at your destination safely”.
Unbelievably the @iompolice thought it was appropriate to stop me 3 times while cycling over the mountain the last time to tell me to put the bike in the van because of complaints by car drivers. That’s not how the Highway Code works. I didn’t get in the van ?@100Climbs pic.twitter.com/VGXXmq3E3f
— Chris Glencorse (@chrissyglenc) March 16, 2023
Glencorse, a 51-year-old utility and touring cyclist who has completed in recent years bucket list rides such as Land’s End to John O’Groats, the Hebridean Way, Mizen Head to Malin Head, and L’Etape du Tour, says he was inspired to take on the Isle of Man’s famous hills by reading Simon Warren’s seminal 100 Greatest Cycling Climbs books.
“The book started me off on to do lists, and I’m slowly working my way through the second 100, so thought I’d do a quick tour of the island, do a lap of the TT course, and tick the three climbs off,” he tells road.cc.
The Yorkshire-based cyclist says he normally takes on his cycle touring trips with friends, but couldn’t quite convince them that three sodden spring days on the Isle of Man would be much fun.
“Obviously the weather was horrendous [yesterday], but I’m here and there is no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes, so I set out, as I have done countless times before in bad weather,” he continued.
“I’ve two lights on the back, a 1200 lumen front light, had a bright orange jacket on, and hi viz overshoes and gloves.
“All was okay for the first 29 miles, if horrible and wet and windy, then I started the climb out of Ramsey. The road was busyish, but no more than say Holme Moss back home, and while visibility wasn’t great, it was about 200 yards so fine to be seen.”
A photo taken by Chris as he made his way along the road
However, as Chris made his way up the famous Isle of Man TT climb – which was reopened earlier this week to traffic after icy conditions forced it to close for six days – he was stopped by police following reports from “concerned” drivers who had passed the cyclist on the road.
“I’ll admit I’m not the fastest climber, but slow and steady wins the race, and I’d just got past the really steep bit when a police van pulled up alongside and scared the s*** out of me by giving it the full blues and twos,” he says.
“[The officer] opened his window and told me he wanted to speak to me and to pull in at the bungalow about half a mile ahead. I told him I wasn’t doing anything wrong, and he said they’d had ‘a load of complaints’ from car drivers that a cyclist was riding up the mountain in all black and couldn’t be seen.”
After stopping at the bungalow as instructed, Chris then refused to provide the officer with his name, “as I was doing nothing wrong”.
He continued: “He repeated the complaints of the motorists, at which point I pointed to my hi viz clothes, the lights, and then asked him what I was doing wrong. He confirmed I wasn’t doing anything wrong, at which point I told him I was going to carry on.”
No, concerned they had to slow down until it was safe to pass, despite the fact they couldn’t see me…?
— Chris Glencorse (@chrissyglenc) March 16, 2023
Chris then told road.cc that he was approached again by the same officer five minutes later, and that he once again refused to stop, before the driver allegedly “pulled around me” and forced the cyclist to come to a halt.
“He then told me his sergeant had told him I had to put my bike in the van as it was too dangerous and they would drive me back to Douglas,” he claims.
“It’s here I slightly lost my s***. I told him he’d have to arrest me to get me into the van. He then got me to sign something to say I was carrying on at my own risk, at which point I asked him, does that mean if a car ploughs into me it would be my fault?
“After now becoming piss wet through and freezing, I told him I was carrying on so if he kindly would leave me alone. To be fair, I had some sympathy with the officer, he was just doing what he was being told and he did seem uncomfortable.
“Anyway the day was now a bit ruined, so I had a cup of coffee in Douglas and made my way to Castletown.”
Several callers were concerned for your safety today due to the poor visibility and heavy fog. We simply wanted to check on your welfare and offer assistance so that you could arrive at your destination safely.
— TweetbeatIOM #RespectIOM (@TweetbeatIOM) March 16, 2023
Chris told road.cc that he is currently contemplating reporting the officers for what he believes were their unnecessary actions on the road.
However, the Isle of Man Constabulary has since argued that their officers acted following reports from callers “concerned” for the cyclist’s safety “due to the poor visibility and heavy fog”.
“Yesterday, we received a number of calls from members of the public in regards to concerns for a cyclist on the A18 the Mountain Road,” a spokesperson told road.cc.
“Several of the concerned callers advised that the weather was adverse (heavy fog) and stated that they had nearly struck the cyclist.
“Following this, officers were dispatched to check on the welfare of the cyclist, who advised he was cycling from Ramsey to Douglas. The officers offered to transport the cyclist and his bicycle to Douglas to ensure he arrived safely. However, this was declined.
“We are pleased to say that the cyclist arrived in Douglas safely, but this is a timely reminder to all motorists that cyclists frequently use the A18 Mountain Road and therefore please ensure that you drive/cycle to the conditions and arrive at your destination safely.”
105 thoughts on “Cyclist stopped by police three times and “told to put bike in van” after a “load of complaints” from motorists on foggy climb”
Difficult one this. It’s a
Difficult one this. It’s a Mountain not a hill in Surrey. There is a long history of people making poor decisions in poor weather on mountains that cause unnecessary risk to the individual and to the people sent to rescue them (or pick up the bits). This example doesn’t appear to be an exact parallel but I would always take the view that if a “professional” suggests it’s unsafe to be on a mountain, then I’d usually give that advice additional weight, over my right to do what the hell I like.
A reasonable view of the police conversation may be, “There is a cyclist on the mountain in the fog and rain, a few motorists are calling to say they nearly hit him”…. “What the **** is an idiot doing up there on a day like this”!
A more reasonable
A more reasonable conversation might be there are motorists complaining about something, have we told them to drive to the conditions at all?
By and large problems on the IOM roads are caused by the police not tackling people who think they’re racing in the TT, not cyclists.
Do we think if Cav was doing a bit of mountain training they’d have stopped him ?
Even during TT week it’s 50
Even during TT week it’s 50/50 if the weather will allow you ride your motorbike as if you’re in the TT. I’d imagine speed tourism is a summer problem.
I’ve been the TT a few times and also out of TT season and I wouldn’t go on a motorbike before May.
Legin wrote:
Obviously we don’t have the full story but it appears to have been a bunch of amateurs who can’t drive to the conditions who are giving the advice.
“appears to have been a bunch
“appears to have been a bunch of amateurs who can’t drive to the conditions”
And the evidence of this is?
Adam Sutton wrote:
That they found it difficult to avoid a cyclist wearing bright clothing, high viz, and with lights on. Aren’t you supposed to drive at a speed that will allow you to brake well within the distance you can see? Anyone who was doing that would not have had a problem.
Where’s the evidence they
Where’s the evidence they “found it difficult to avoid a cyclist wearing bright clothing, high viz, and with lights on. “
Rather than they were concerned seeing someone cycling up a mountain road that according to the BBC article from two days ago
“A Department of Infrastructure spokesman said the road had been successfully treated with more rock and salt to counter the ice.
The department previously said it was expecting the road to stay shut over Tuesday night.
However, sub-zero temperatures expected overnight meant there could well be more ice, the spokesman added.”
Seems to me we once again here are spinning a story to fit accepted bias rather than being objective.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Please tell us how long after the road is reopened to traffic should cyclists wait before using it!
How long is a piece of string
How long is a piece of string? Not exactly the most sensinble of things to do though is it. And this kind of reaction from other road users and police shouldn’t really be at all surprising, but hey he got his 5 mins of fame and another road.cc Grrrrr motorists bad! article.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Half the journey from one end to the other and back.
Are you suggesting that the opened the road before it was safe to do so?
Adam Sutton wrote:
So that was Tuesday night and this incident was on Thursday late morning/early afternoon. Fairly sure the police would have mentioned it if the road was icy, and indeed they would not have reopened the road which was closed for ice. Yesterday in the Isle of Man the minimum temperature, even at midnight, was 9°C, so ice seems extremely unlikely even on a hill (I refuse to call something 600 m high a mountain!) given that the heuristic for temperature drop due to altitude is 0.65°C for every hundred metres gained.
Ok, so cycling in wet foggy
Ok, so cycling in wet foggy conditions up a “big steep hill” is sensible? And one should be surprised if people show concern?
How fast is he cycling given the admission of “I’ll admit I’m not the fastest climber, but slow and steady wins the race,”
Should all traffic be expected to traverse the “big hill” at 5mph? Lets have a reality check please.
Adam Sutton wrote:
All traffic should be expected to drive at a speed which enables them to brake within the distance they can see. Highway Code 235: “[In fog you should] be able to pull up well within the distance you can see clearly.”
Not just Highway Code advice but absolute common sense advice. Is the “reality check” we need to have that drivers simply aren’t going to observe either the highway code or basic safety precautions?
Only until they can safely
Only until they can safely pass, like normal for any vehicle. Why is a bike always different..?
And they clearly weren’t concerned, just annoyed.
“Ok, so cycling in wet foggy
“Ok, so cycling in wet foggy conditions up a “big steep hill” is sensible?”
It’s basically the main point of cycling.
Hmm… a bit teacup and storm
Hmm… a bit teacup and storm here? Apart from the “being stopped 3 times” – surely you go and find out once, make a decision and that’s it? Only sensible reason I can think of for repeating the process is if visibility declined to zero – in which case why are the police still driving around?
I’d note that the police weren’t telling drivers not to drive, express a lack of surprise at that and move on.
They nearly hit a cyclist in
They nearly hit a cyclist in 200 yard visibility?
Backladder wrote:
Nothing in the article states anyone nearly hit him.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Inferred from the drivers saying the cyclist “couldn’t be seen” and the first words you usually hear after a driver has run into you SMIDSY.
Ah my apolgies for attempring
Ah my apolgies for attempting to be objective and not toe the line of the accepted narrative. My bad!
Poor you seriously? Grow up
Poor you seriously? Grow up dude
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’ve lost track; which version of which cycle-hating troll are you?
I think this is not the new
I think this is not the new chorus member you’re looking for eburtthebike. Hopefully they re-read the article at some point and let it go.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Police spokesperson (third para from the end): ““Several of the concerned callers advised that the weather was adverse (heavy fog) and stated that they had nearly struck the cyclist.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
In Adam’s defence, comprehension clearly is not their strong suit.
I also didn’t read the
I also didn’t read the article closely enough. Having gone back and done so I see more clearly why this guy was irritated. On the point:
…
“Yesterday, we received a number of calls from members of the public in regards to concerns for a cyclist on the A18 the Mountain Road,” a spokesperson told road.cc.
“Several of the concerned callers advised that the weather was adverse (heavy fog) and stated that they had nearly struck the cyclist.— road.cc
To be fair this is probably them using that phrase casually (like “I was nearly killed by a cyclist whizzing past!”).
If we take the cyclist at his
If we take the cyclist at his word, which I’m inclined to because it’s supported by his photographs, visibility was 200 yards. Perhaps the question asked by the police should not be “What the fuck is an idiot doing up there on a day like this?” but “What the fuck are these drivers doing if they can’t see a cyclist with lights, bright clothing and high viz in 200 yard visibility?”
If a “professional” coastguard, mountain rescuer, RNLI person etc advised me not to do something I would obey their advice absolutely without question; I’m afraid my experience and that of others I know with the police is that they are often quite the reverse of professional and do not always give unbiased and well judged advice to cyclists. The attitude of the police (I’m talking here of the Metropolitan, Surrey and Kent forces, I’ve never cycled on the Isle of Man) in many cases is that you are mad to be cycling on the road anyway and any ill that befalls you is more or less your own fault.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Which 200 yards is that? It’s just that when I’ve been in the mountains in poor visibility and fog, 200yrds can become 2 inches in the flick of an eye lid.
Legin wrote:
That doesn’t change the responsibility of the motorists to drive to the conditions though does it, and I’ve seen thicker fog than that in Cheshire, any of us could encounter it on any ride and we rely on motorists to behave responsibly otherwise we would be forced to stop cycling.
I didn’t absolve motorists
I didn’t absolve motorists from their responsibilities. Having been in the mountains on many occasions there are some conditions you shouldn’t drive in or ride in. Personally I’d veer to the side of caution, because there is no coming back once you are dead even if you relatives can prove it was the drivers fault!
Police would have been better
Police would have been better employed checking the eyesight and vehicle roadworthiness of the complaining motorists if they can’t see a cyclist in those conditions.
Backladder wrote:
^^^THIS
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Not really evidence of that
Not really evidence of that here.
Ride On wrote:
Stopping him three times and deliberately blocking the higway to stop him. Really?
Offering a cyclist a lift in
Offering a cyclist a lift in a van in bad conditions? Ooookay
Police are acting on the
Police are acting on the information they have, and at the end of the day cycling up a mountain that had only just been reopened in fog is questionable. Imagine for a moment something had happened and the police had done nothing. He wasn’t stopped from cycling, the police spoke to him 3 times and got him to sign a waiver to cover their arses.
No – the guy had front and
No – the guy had front and back lights, bright orange jacket. The police, if they had any sense, would have just have had a word once, maybe not even that. But three times?
Yeah, i’m fully behind the
Yeah, i’m fully behind the police here. Drivers don’t care about cyclists in general. They certainly don’t care enough to phone the police because they are being held up. I would assume they were genuinely concerned for the cyclist.
I would love to know what the response would be if the cyclist was hit and we then found out the police were called 3 times and did nothing…
I know we are pro-cyclist on here but sometimes we have to perhaps indulge the thought that not everyone is out to get us. Just most of them.
I’m also with the cops on
I’m also with the cops on this one. What they did was prudent. As mctrials123 wrote, had the guy been hit and it then turned out that the police were repeatedly contacted but did nothing, they would’ve been hung out to dry.
Also, and please give me some credit because I’m a daily commuter and fully aware of the idiocy of some car drivers: not everything that is legal to do is also wise. The fact that a motorist would have been at fault might not mean a lot to the surviving relatives.
I ride long-distance events a couple of times/year, from a double century to sometimes 600-800 km in one go. It’s a non-competitive hobby and helps me relax. But there have been times that -mainly due to weather circumstances such as very dense fog at night- I’ve pulled out or simply stopped to roll out my bivi and wait for visibility to improve. It’s not for nothing that the very first rules that organisers put up is usually something along the lines of ‘whatever you do, be safe. It’s better being Mr late than becoming the late Mr’.
But when you come from Yorks
But when you come from Yorks you know the crappy weather can sit on a hill for hours. And so tougher than most folk.
When you’re out do you start thinking at some point the police are going to offer you an indemnity for your presence on the road?
Xenophon2 wrote:
Does that just apply to cyclists? Any of the car drivers out that day could have been killed by a lorry driver that didn’t see them in the fog but would anyone blame them for being out in bad weather?
mctrials23 wrote:
what, you mean in the absence of overhead matrix boards flashing a message “warning – cyclist in roadway”?
Maybe we’ll meaning? Seeing
Maybe we’ll meaning? Seeing some poor soul struggling up a hill in the rain and mist thinking they must be utterly miserable, at risk of hypothermia and in need of rescue from danger when in fact they are quite content and having a lovely time.
Visibility in the pictures is hardly unusual for these fair Isles. I’m a bit surprised that the Police used the “complaints of several near misses” line. Was this really the nature of the calls? Surely Chris might have mentioned if he had been on the wrong end of some close passes, besides that of the Police driver.
“Hello, Police? Yeah, so as a
“Hello, Police? Yeah, so as a typical British motorist, I refuse to drive to the prevailing weather or visibility conditions, and I’ve nearly hit another road user operating a valid vehicle on the public highway in a completely reasonable manner, as he is perfectly entitled to do. Do you mind wasting some taxpayer money and sending someone up there to harass him off the road so that I can continue to not demonstrate any of the responsibility expected of me when piloting two tonnes of high-speed metal around other members of the public? Cheers”.
“And by the way, he had front
“And by the way, he had front and back lights and a bright orange jacket. But it is his fault for not wearing high vis or having lights”
Did those motorists all
Did those motorists all genuinely think he was dressed all in black (given that he clearly wasn’t) or was that hyperbole so as to get the police to remove the rolling road-block.
If those people gave their names, the police ought to be going back and recommending that they all pass an eye-test…
Everyone who rang in to
Everyone who rang in to complain should now be getting three points and a FPN for admitting they’re driving without due care and attention in reduced visibility. Absolutley insane state of affairs that the police actually sent someone after the cyclist.
Perhaps they could also be
Perhaps they could also be asked from whence they were making their phone calls of complaint? “There’s an idiot up here cycling, I was so surprised I nearly dropped my phone!”
The police said they had
The police said they had reports of a cyclist “all in black”.
Cyclist says he was in brights.
Surely the answer should have been … “all in black? Nah, not me officer. Must be another rider in front of me … as you can see, I’m in brights” …
I can’t help but wonder if
I can’t help but wonder if there was actually a second cyclist who was dressed in black and wasn’t using lights, and the whole thing is actually a case of mistaken identity. After all, how quick was the police response time that they found the rider still on the same hill?
Possibly the report was of an
Possibly the report was of an “allin BLACK cyclist”. I mean that would be arrestable surely? When they stopped him still itching to bundle into back of van?
It’s the Isle of Man.
It’s the Isle of Man.
Quite why they didn’t birch him for possibly being gay should be the subject of the first investigation. Only then can we get to the question of why a cyclist has dared to use the road that is owned by car drivers.
Driver: “You don’t pay any tax!”
Cyclist: “And you live in a tax haven because… Er… ?”
And they call it a mountain but at 621m it’s not going to be hosting much mountaineering.
TheBillder wrote:
Maybe he wasn’t wearing lycra?
I’ve been thinking about this
I’ve been thinking about this incident. Both on its own and in the wider context
I think it is Chris Rock who had a routine about the crime of “being black on a public highway” in the US. Basically, the punchline is that you get pulled over by the police for something whilst driving, a made up crime, but really you are being pulled over for being black. Kind of like the Not The Nine O’Clock News sketch. Put simply, if the driver had a different pigmentation, they wouldn’t be pulled over.
Now then, let’s apply a counterfactual where this wasn’t a cyclist on the road, but a hiker. With a bright orange jacket, but obviously healthy and competent and dressed for the weather. And several cars phone the police saying that they were concerned that they nearly crashed into them in the fog. Would the police have gone up three times, and told them to get in the van, and made them sign a waiver?
Of course they wouldn’t. They would have gone up once, seen that everything was OK, and that would be the end of it.
Basically, they are guilty of being a cyclist on a public highway
The waiver idea is obviously
The waiver idea is obviously phony. If that happened to me I’d get a copy of it, ask for badges, and make an official compliant and take it all the way to the PCC regardless of the response.
I think what is destressing is the “told you so..” type of attitude you’d get if anything happened, so whether to offer it or not under the circumstances was wholly intimidating.
No idea where that came from,
No idea where that came from, I’ve never heard of it anywhere else in any circumstances. Being asked to sign a waiver for the police for undertaking a legal activity? I wonder if strictly speaking it wasn’t exactly a waiver, more they asked him to sign a declaration stating that they had advised him to stop and that he was choosing to proceed against said advice, which they could produce at a later date if accused of negligence.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It would not though absolve them or a motorist of full responsibility if there was a collision. All it would do is strengthen a contributory negligence argument. The hierarchy of road users I think would trump the waiver. Cyclist wearing brights and using lights vs motorist not driving to conditions.
giff77 wrote:
Definitely wouldn’t clear a motorist, I meant that the cops would want to cover themselves by having proof that the cyclist was given advice and an offer of assistance to get off the road, so they did all they could to protect him.
Definitely wouldn’t clear a
Definitely wouldn’t clear a motorist
Pretty much anything clears a motorist in Lancashire, as far as police officers are concerned!
https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/
Though a decent lawyer would
Though a decent lawyer would challenge the police on why they didn’t make motorists sign the same wavier. After all. The motorist would be operating machinery and relying heavily on sub standard reaction times. At least a cyclist can hop off their bike and walk. Highly unlikely a motorist will pull over and walk.
“Several of the concerned
“Several of the concerned callers advised that the weather was adverse (heavy fog) and stated that they had nearly struck the cyclist.”
every one of those should be traced and brethalised, with visibility in excess of 100m (as per photo and video) there really is no reason to nearly strike a cyclist
So I’m deeply offended, I did
So I’m deeply offended, I did this last year and the IoM rozzers didn’t contact me once to offer me a lift, never mind a cup of tea! I did get the odd ‘friendly word of advice’ from passing motorists in both directions, who could obviously see me in order to be offended by my presence. Clearly safe for them but not for me…
‘The mountain’ is a bit of an exageration, the issue is that the IoM sits under a near-permanent cloud in the middle of the Irish Sea. But visibility up there does change rapidly and what seemed like a good idea when you started can be less comfortable when you’re commited and have as far to go back as you do to go on.
I have relatives there; it’s their own fault as far as I’m concerned.
Quote:
Make your mind up, mate. Is there is or is there ain’t bad weather?
Neither, just bad grammar.
Neither, just bad grammar.
CF@Wds wrote:
FTFY ?
“……several drivers
“……several drivers reported that they had nearly struck the cyclist due to the apparent poor visibility and adverse conditions on the road.”
No. The issue was that the drivers were driving dangerously, too fast for the conditions. The police should have booked the drivers who reported a problem, as they are clearly not capable of driving safely.
Do you get those days when
Do you get those days when you wish you hadn’t posted anything?
Almost certainly, those
Almost certainly, those motorists realized they were driving too fast for the conditions (be able to stop well within the distance you can see clearly 235). They phoned the police as a first line of defence. Typically, drivers seek to blame someone else for their mistakes…
Caller “there’s a cyclist on the road, it’s too foggy, I nearly hit him”
Police “right let’s round him up then, shouldn’t be out in these conditions he’ll get killed!”.
Should be…
Caller: “I nearly hit a cyclist, I couldn’t see him cos the fog is too foggy, I was only going at 60 and then out if nowhere there he was. I had to overtake on a double”
Police: “Can I have your licence number, address and reg number?”
Caller: “yes, but why?”
Police: “I’m considering charging you with driving without care and consideration, you are now under caution and most report to a police station within 2 weeks from today!”
Caller: “police station?”
Police: “fair point, well go and hassle the cyclist instead”.
He can’t have been difficult
He can’t have been difficult to see the police managed to find him three times.
If the police really were concerned for the safety of the cyclist, why didn’t they just sit behind him in a broom wagon/support vehicle sort of thing, presumably the motorists couldn’t not see the high Viz of a police van?
There is no speed limit on
There is no speed limit on this road.
I wonder at what point the police would decide a driver was going a bit fast for the conditions – when they have nearly struck a cyclist perhaps?
“He then got me to sign
“He then got me to sign something to say I was carrying on at my own risk”
Lancashire police officer no1 “That annoying cyclist wtjs has sent us yet another clip of a driver nearly hitting him. He even seems to think we’ll care that they have no tax or MOT”
Lancashire police officer no2 “LOL, I bet he expects us to enforce the law and keep him safe by removing these dangerous drivers from the road! Just pick one of our usual excuses and bin it”
Lancashire police officer no1 “I’ve heard of something better from our colleagues in the Isle of Man. I’ll just get him to sign this indemnity form and tell him from now on he’s on his own, job done”
Lancashire police officer no2 “Great idea, less work for us! Now pass the doughnuts”
These police officers weren’t
These police officers weren’t doing anything that bad. They may have an inherent bias towards cycling and an ignorance towards cyclists (ignorance being something your name suggest you have plenty of) but these officers were trying to help – albeit in a clumsy fashion.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
OUCH, that’s a tad rude, especially considering there must be at least a few people who also don’t consider Birmingham to be a dump.
They may have an inherent bias against cycling and an ignorance towards cyclists but these police officers weren’t doing anything that bad?
We’ve seen how the police act when you swap ‘cyclists’ for minorities or women. Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if the police told a woman with a short skirt on to either go home or sign a rape waiver?
Or indeed “have a little lift
Or indeed “have a little lift in their van”…
“…complaints’ from car
“…complaints’ from car drivers that a cyclist was riding up the mountain in all black and couldn’t be seen.”
How did the drivers know he was there?
Benthic wrote:
Because they couldn’t see him! No, wait…….
Try reading , it was because
Try reading , it was because of near misses , I came across another idiot riding with no reflectives and a piddling light of little use in dense fog and no doubt he would have been surprised if he got knocked off , of course because he was Saint Cyclist it would have been all the motorists fault .
Holts wrote:
So they were really reporting themselves for dangerous driving (driving in a manner unsafe for the conditions) and the filth just got the wrong end of the stick? Right? Right?!
You exemplify the problem
You exemplify the problem with cyclists , it is up to you to make sure you can be seen , because you are riding without adequate visibility you expect everyone to make allowances for you , it’s like riding in the dark with no lights no reflectives , wonderful idea , trouble is you are a bit softer than the metal you will make contact with , take some responsibility rather than try and blame others , exactly what the Police were indicating.
The cyclist was wearing hiviz
The cyclist was wearing hiviz and had lights on.
The police managed to track him down three times.
Unlike the some of the motorists he was probably riding to the conditions.
Ironically, black would have
Ironically, black would have been a good choice for foggy conditions.
The problem with cyclists. On
The problem with cyclists. On a cycling website.
Holts wrote:
May I ask, are you actually a cyclist or just here to have a go at them?
Reincarnation?
Reincarnation?
giff77 wrote:
Distinct possibility!
There’s a theoretical and a
There’s a theoretical and a practical approach to these issues. Of course it’s a good idea to give yourself the best chance to be seen by drivers and I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that. But that does not change the fact that 100% of the danger is presented by the driver, and that the driver has a responsibility to drive at a speed appropriate to the prevailing conditions (HC rule 125 and 126 “Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear”).
That’s why there’s opposition to the visibility point when it’s brought up here – the discussion shouldn’t focus on the visibility of the cyclist because that’s not the root cause of the problem and it’s not the source of the risk. If a driver hits a cyclist in reduced visibility conditions, it’s not the cyclist’s fault for not being dressed up like a hi-vis Christmas tree, it’s the driver’s fault for driving too fast for the conditions. The driver is the one presenting all the risk, the driver is the one who has a responsibility to look out for other road users. If we let the discussion focus on what the cyclist was wearing, that just removes agency from the driver and furthers the worrying perception that piloting two tonnes of high-seed metal in public isn’t something that people need to take seriously. No – if you hit something because you couldn’t see it in time, you’re driving too fast. End of.
Besides, this is all irrelevant – the cyclist in this story was visible.
Holts wrote:
Yes I do expect other people to drive to the conditions.
Wearing brights, using see
Wearing brights, using see.sence icon on flash, two static cat eye on pannier, pass pixie icon on pannier, good conditions and this individual still made contact.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
Took full responsibility for myself and polis took no action beyond a chat advising the motorist to be more careful.
polis took no action beyond a
polis took no action beyond a chat advising the motorist to be more careful
Very alarming- but sadly unsurprising that the police took as little action as possible while pretending to take action. They have a whole hierarchy of non-penalty penalties, including the one I only heard about (it was on here) a couple of months ago: community resolution. There will be no record of this ‘chat’ which will come to light if the driver does the same thing again- and if he KSIs a cyclist (not unlikely with disdain for cyclists like this) the police can trot out the ‘no offences recorded’ in court so the driver can get away with it
Holts Maul!
Holts Maul!
Holts wrote:
Try logic.
How would they know that there was a near miss?
Every incident like this is
Every incident like this is another turn of the screw, click of the ratchet (indexed gear lever) against logic and reason in the argument about HiVis (and helmets). The average motorist will just take away the irresponsible actions (bias confirmation) of another cyclist.
I sometimes wear HiVis and nearly always use daytime lights, not because I believe they will magically protect me, but because I want to be seen AS ARESPONSIBLE CYCLIST. In the event of a collision I don’t want to do the defense lawyer’s job for him. This of course is sad state of affairs.
What is terrible about this incident is that it has escalated the argument to a new level. Not only MUST you wear HiVis in all conditions, but you must not ride at all in difficult conditions. Who decides which roads and conditions are difficult? The standard line of many NGOs (AA, RAC etc) and the IoM Police is that “We only have cyclist safety at heart”. If Mr Loophole is reading this he is probably cracking open a bottle of the Good Tattinger.
What happened to the
What happened to the hierarchey of road users. I thought it was down to drivers to take more care around cycists not the other way round.
The IoM, not being part of
The IoM, not being part of the UK, has its own Highway Code https://www.gov.im/categories/travel-traffic-and-motoring/highway-code/ – (had a quick look and can’t see anything similar the updates the GB one had last year, including hierarchry).
Well this is how the
Well this is how the introduction begins.
“The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, pedal cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.”
Pretty similar I’d say but as you say not as explicit as the UK version. I guess the last two sentences could be interpreted as cyclists should be considerate to motorists by staying out of their way.
“Hello, Police?”
“Hello, Police?”
“What’s your emergency, caller?”
“I want to report a vehicle in front of me.”
“Sir, are you wasting police time?”
“No! I nearly drove into him.”
“Um, sir, you do realise now you are implicating yourself ….”
“Oh, no, you don’t understand – he’s a cyclist.”
“Ah, thank you sir, and sorry. We’ll pick him up straight away.”
Power to him for defending
Power to him for defending his right to use the road.
Mind, there are plenty of inexperienced and_or elderly riders that wobble all over the road, particularly when hillclimbing, if they’re aren’t using the right gears – it’s not clear if that was the case here, but worth mentioning since many cyclists can improve their safety if they work to keep in a straight line, and not scare the bejaysus out of other passing vehicles.
Krzystoff wrote:
Seems likely not:
Krzystoff wrote:
Did Speed Buggy and Herbie retire to the Isle of Man? I think you mean ‘scare the bejaysus out of the drivers of other passing vehicles‘…
Ever since I was a child (&
Ever since I was a child (& we’re going back many, many years now) I have always paid particular attention to crossing the road.
People ask me why I look both ways when crossing one way traffic areas.
“You won’t get knocked down” they say, “it’s illegal to go that way” Or “you’d be able to sue them”.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t actually want the pain and possibly life changing, or even threatening, injuries of being knocked over, even if they were in the wrong.
In the same way that if the police requested that I not cycle in a dangerous place, I wouldn’t go all rebellious and insist it is my right to do so.
If 3 people actually cared enough to ring the police because they were concerned about my welfare, I’d be flipping grateful.
Oh crap I’ve gone back in
Oh crap I’ve gone back in time again. I thought it had got colder all of a sudden.
And you found this news item
And you found this news item from 6 months ago to post that.
Why ???
TBF to the OP, the article
TBF to the OP, the article was linked from the Orkney Island article posted the other day.
TNBF, any username that contains “truth” is not normally worth replying to.
https://youtu.be/QYMETt578MM
https://youtu.be/QYMETt578MM?si=XqJM7bDM2ZecXJOc