A cyclist who recorded footage of a driver using his mobile phone in traffic with his helmet camera has been accused of “breaking the law” and posing a “danger to other road users” by the police, and is set to face prosecution for riding without due care and attention, including “riding in the middle of the road”.
Dave Clifton, 56, was cycling on Pont Street in Belgravia, London in August last year when he came across a driver at the wheel of a Range Rover in momentarily stationary traffic using his mobile phone and turned around to capture footage of the man caught in the act.
However, when he submitted the video, seen by The Standard, to the police, the outcome was certainly one that he was not expecting.
The penalty for holding a cellular device when driving can be up to 6 penalty points and a £200 fine, as well as losing your licence if the driver passed your driving test in the last 2 years.
However, the Met police instead proceeded to claim that the cyclist had been riding on the wrong side of the road, and suggested that he “could pose a danger to other road users”.
Natasha Springford, a Met police staff member in the traffic division, said that the cyclist was “in the middle of the road” and was then “very close to the Range Rover on the opposite side of the road whilst a motorcyclist was oncoming with a passenger”.
She added: “You can see the cyclist cycling towards the oncoming motorbike that is filtering between traffic,” and then suggested the motorbike has to “ride in between the cyclist that is very close and the Range Rover”.
Clifton is now due to face trial next month at Lavender Hill magistrates court. The driver of the Range Rover, meanwhile, has got away with a police “advisory letter” and is said to be facing no criminal case.
However, the cyclist from south-west London has said that he intends to fight the claim at the trial. He said: “The ‘other side of the road’ doesn’t begin wherever my accuser wants it to begin. This is a ludicrous allegation. The police have ignored the filtering motorcyclist and the driver using a mobile phone, and have chosen to prosecute me. This seems to be malicious.”
Third-party reporting of drivers by cyclists has divided opinion online and seemingly with public, when the matter is discussed by written or broadcast media. CyclingMikey or Mike van Erp, is perhaps the most well-known ‘camera cyclist’.
The Dutch-born road safety campaigner’s fame has grown as a result of his reports of motorists using mobile phones — close to 2,000, and including the likes of Chris Eubank and Guy Ritchie — some of which have landed him on the receiving end of violent threats and foul-mouthed tirades.
His videos, which he shares after the conviction on YouTube, have won him many fans in the cycling world. However, his approach has also birthed some detractors, most notably lawyer Nick Freeman, better known as Mr Loophole.
However, just last month, we reported that the public opinion on third-party reporting could be shifting as some have seemingly begun to accept that it could actually be making roads safer, the topic was discussed during a Channel 5 segment.
One such person was West Mercia Police’s PC Jim Roberts, who said that the police are rather keen on more people reporting drivers breaking the law. “By the general public submitting dashcam footage to us and then those drivers being dealt with, it’s sending a message and it is making our roads safer,” he said.
CyclingMikey added: “Somebody’s got to step up and do it, and there are some of those in society at least who do it.”
Figures shared with Channel 5 showed that over 33,000 videos were submitted to police in England and Wales last year, up by 21 per cent on 2022, and an increase of almost 300 per cent over 2020. 70 per cent of these reports have led to police action, the broadcast said.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council also told Channel 5 that they welcome that technology can help them, with one in every five drivers running a dashcam and an even higher estimate for cyclists, the news broadcaster said.
road.cc has contacted Dave Clifton for comment.
105 thoughts on “Cyclist to be prosecuted for “riding in the middle of the road” after filming a driver using mobile phone”
Taking bets on the driver
Taking bets on the driver being a copper or a friend or relative of one.
From watching Mikey’s many
From watching Mikey’s many Hyde Park videos, I was led to believe that the Met were better than this. Seems the officer who spearheaded this prosecution has a chip on their shoulder
Edit – apparently they were a “police staff member”, so not an actual officer. That helps explain a lot
B_Sauce wrote:
I think (and it’s certainly been my experience in dealing with them) that the overwhelming majority of submissions to the Met are handled by civilian staff, I think only the senior managers of the unit are actually officers.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think (and it’s certainly been my experience in dealing with them) that the overwhelming majority of submissions to the Met are handled by civilian staff, I think only the senior managers of the unit are actually officers.— B_Sauce
Whether they are police officers or not is less important than that they are competent persons for the role since having the power of a constable seems irrelevant to the task.
Competence to the level of DVSA licence, Roadcraft (IAM..), Class 2, Class 1 or Examiner are well known and relevant. Clearly DVSA licence must be the minimum and Roadcraft very preferable. Traffic Division officers provide Class 2, Class 1, or Examiner competence. I highly doubt an experienced competent person would progress this situation to the CPS.
lonpfrb wrote:
I wasn’t suggesting it was important, perhaps I should have explained more fully: I was attempting to point out that virtually all the prosecuting decisions are made by civilians and in my experience many/most of them made by the Met are correct, so the previous comment saying that the fact that the decision was made by a civilian in this case “explains a lot” wasn’t really valid.
So the driver, who actually
So the driver, who actually did break the law, gets an advisory letter, but the cyclist, for whom the evidence of committing a crime is, shall we say, not convincing, is being taken to court. So glad to see that the police aren’t biased. Well, not much. OK, they’re blatantly biased.
So glad to see that the
So glad to see that the police aren’t biased. Well, not much. OK, they’re blatantly biased
This is yet more evidence that the police are beyond bent! No action over these (OK, so you have seen them before!)
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
…or this school bus XJF 386 with no MOT for 10 months (Edit: I ought to point out to the sceptics that this school bus was reported to the police on 10.2.23, and I wrote to Traveller’s Choice 2 weeks ago about the 10 month gap in the bus’s MOT coverage, including 6 photos on 3 different days during the No MOT period, to give them an opportunity to rectify any mistakes on the DVSA page for the vehicle, but there was no reply and no change to the page!) but ‘like a ton of bricks’ when a cyclist, who annoys them by producing evidence they don’t like, can be attacked by the long and crooked arm of the law
A letter from Mr Clifton’s
A letter from Mr Clifton’s Solicitor to the CPS suggesting that the prosecution isn’t in the public interest should suffice. Followed by a complaint to the Met’.
Quote:
If the motorcyclist is simply ‘filtering’, how come the cyclist isn’t?Sorry, just watched the Standard’s copy of the video. If the motorcyclist is ‘filtering’ – and is travelling in the same direction as the Range Rover and the cyclist – then aren’t they supposed to go around the outside of the cyclist, not ride between the cyclist and the Range Rover?
brooksby wrote:
It looks like a pretty obvious case of dangerous riding by the motorbike rider to me! I’m not sure what the Police are smoking when trying to prosecute the cyclist here?!
Haha excellent news, well
Haha excellent news, well done to the cops for cracking down on these law-breaking vigilante wannabe self-important dopes.
I have zero sympathy for Dave, next time mind your own business and let everyone else get on with life.
In what way was he (allegedly
In what way was he (allegedly) lawbreaking?
CycleGaz on twitter says
CycleGaz on twitter says
“They were travelling the opposite direction and then turned around. This probably being the problem, as they did that as a powered two-wheeler with a passenger was coming the other way”
So it’s the manouevre as the m/c comes the other way that is the issue.
Why they let the driver off is a mystery.
Whole thing is vindictive.
Ah, OK: that makes more sense
Ah, OK: that makes more sense, thanks.
But still doesn’t explain why they won’t bother with the phone-using Range Rover driver (or, for that matter, the motorcyclist who just shot through the gap regardless)
Not sure any of us can
Not sure any of us can comment on the m/c as the footage starts just as they are there. Hard to know how much time they had to react to the cyclist change of direction.
Hirsute wrote:
I mean, we can take an educated guess at how long it takes to turn a bike around in the road in that sort of situation and how slow the motorcyclist should be going seeing as they are filtering and a cyclist was filtering in the opposite direction, assuming they are giving the cyclist 1.5m and are giving themselves some space the traffic too?
We can also take a guess at whether we ourselves would be likely to suddenly perform a U-turn in that situation carelessly if a Motorbike was coming towards us at that sort of speed while both filtering in that space towards each other.
Occam’s Razor would seem useful here.
Hirsute wrote:
After watching the video a few times, it appears the cyclist has performed a U-turn behind the motorcyclist, I’m struggling to see what the cyclist has done wrong even in the most minor or ways.
All of those things are more true for the motorcyclist and the motorcyclist bears more responsibility as they present more danger to the cyclist.
The motorcyclist could have slowed, or stopped, clearly didn’t. The cyclist seems to have not been moving, or barely moving. Very poor comprehension of the situation seems to be shown by this Met police staff member.
The basis for this seems to be that the cyclist put the rider of a massive motorcycle (with passenger) in danger… doesn’t really pass the sniff test.
Except the starting point for
Except the starting point for the cyclist is not yet known. All that can be said is where they ended up.
Without more footage, it is hard to reach a proper conclusion.
Not sure if you’re joking or
Not sure if you’re joking or not, but I’d suggest that if a motorist is acting in a manner that is dangerous to other road users, that the cyclist’s business.
john_smith wrote:
It’s the law enforcements business – not his
So if someone’s about to run
So if someone’s about to run you over it’s none of your business? If they do 70 mph down a residential street where your children are playing, it’s none of your business? If you see someone who’s obviously drunk get into a car and drive off, it’s none of your business? Or does “it’s not his business” only apply in the case of mobile phone use?
john_smith wrote:
As below, very different examples to someone just checking their phone in stationary traffic. Pretty low risk compared to driving at 70mph in a residential area and can’t be compared
It can be compared and I have
It can be compared and I have just compared it. If a road user is creating a risk to people around him then of course it’s the business of those people. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
No it can’t and i have just
No it can’t and i have just said it cant too lol.
A driver on their phone in stationary traffic is low risk, end of.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
https://riteacademy.com/the-police-are-the-public-the-public-are-the-police-sir-robert-peel-quote/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Police%20are%20the%20Public%3B%20the%20Public%20are%20the%20Police.
The statement “the law is an ass” is also covered by the Robert Peel quote, based on some opinions, on here.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
You clearly have not watched the video, otherwise you will have realised the Police are wasting their own time with a malicious prosecution. Suggest you crawl back under your bridge and refrain from commenting on things you don’t understand.
Best ignored. He/she never
Best ignored. He/she never posts after 4pm or at weekends.
perce wrote:
sorry, here I am!
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
I’m here again, apologies!
No need to apologise. I had a
No need to apologise. I had a bet with my wife that you’d be back. She was surprised how easy it is to manipulate someone.
Wasn’t “Sorry, here I am!” A
Wasn’t “Sorry, here I am!” A spoken word album released by Nick Freeman?
perce wrote:
Oh really, glad to see that she (Clem?) has popped up too
Oh hello again Legion. Still
Oh hello again Legion. Still clinging on to your delusions then.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
You of course take the same position in relation to being witness to other crimes such as burglary, assault, rape, corporate negligence, financial misconduct etc etc.
Not my problem innit, let people do as they please guv!.
I guess you’re one of these weirdos who doesn’t believe in the concept of society and the greater good while bemoaning the apparent decline of GREAT BRITAIN!!! God save da King!
RDaneel wrote:
One of those strongly-opinionated but constantly totally wrong weirdos that doesn’t understand words like vigilante or concepts like Peelian Principles.
RDaneel wrote:
There are levels of crime, some of those you’ve mentioned are much worse than being on your phone in stationary traffic. Someone on their phone while driving at speed is also a lot more dangerous. But being a dopey vigilante cyclist doesnt do anyone any favours. it’s the perceived level of crime, this is exceptionally low risk, burglary is higher but generally people haven’t got the cojones to step in unlike these pansy cyclists who think videoing someone is their way to fame and favour
Of course he won’t because
Of course he won’t because someone nicking a pint of milk off of his doorstep or breaking the door mirror on his motor is real crime isn’t it and deserves a painful death unlike dangerous driving which is just people trying to earn a living. It’s a commonly held belief unfortunately. Makes my blood boil.
Right_is_for_assholes
Right_is_for_assholes
Still here, still a snowflake
Still here, still a snowflake, woke, Lefty Loser. Just making sure that in your blinkered, extremist, hate-filled world that you hadn’t forgotten.
I had, forgotten about you,
I had, forgotten about you, wokes like you don’t tend to stick long in the memory.
Stick long in the memory?
Stick long in the memory? The industrial synth disco/barber shop outfit from Prague? I fail to see the relevance to your “argument”
I agree.
I agree.
Best ignored. He/she never
Best ignored. He/she never posts after 4pm or at weekends.
Nice trolling!
Nice trolling!
Not sure if it worth pointing
Not sure if it worth pointing out to the A-Hole on the Right, that the law was changed relatively recently to include pretty much ALL phone use behind the wheel, including in stationary/slow moving traffic.
This means the police/courts will treat it the same as when driving/moving at speed.
This would indicate that the law considers it to be the same level and worthy of prosecution in almost all cases where decent evidence exists.
(Not sure why this specific case wasn’t considered worthy.)
My guess is that the court case will be thrown out and the Met police/prosecution will be told “Stop wasting our time.”.
And of course, the meaning of “vigilante” is completely misunderstood by the AHotR.
But that isn’t surprising.
“AHotR?
“AHotR?
My suggested name for the
My suggested name for the troll, per the first line of my comment.
I’d opt for trial by jury. I
I’d opt for trial by jury. I wouldn’t want to stay in the police court.
VIPcyclist wrote:
Cycling without due care and attention can only be tried by a Magistrate (summary offence).
On Channel 4 tonight is The Jury, which might make you question if you’d want a jury trial.
VIPcyclist wrote:
Please do some research on how the UK Justice & Courts system works.
institutionally anti cyclist
institutionally anti cyclist
It looks like the first part
It looks like the first part of the video is missing. However in the still on this website, the cyclist isn’t on a bike??
It’s the wrong still !
It’s the wrong still !
“Mr Clifton said the road does not have any markings”
Standard photo
Tricky one. The Standard
Tricky one. The Standard article features a curiously edited clip, which cuts in at just the moment that the filtering motorcycle passes the cyclist – at what looks like extremely close proximity.
Without seeing what happens in the lead up to that moment, it’s not really possible for anyone to form a judgement on the situation – but it is certainly plausible that if the cyclist had been heading in the opposite direction to the driver and had swung round into the path of the filtering motorcycle, that it could have been a dangerous manoevre. Alternatively, it’s also plausible that the cyclist had positioned safely well in advance of the motorcyclist reaching them, and the motorcyclist decided to simply force through a ‘barely there’ gap – in which case the motorcylist would be the one putting people at risk.
As for the warning letter for phone use, it’s typically the approach if the video isn’t quite clear enough to give incontrovertible evidence of phone use while driving – e.g. the object isn’t clearly a phone, or it’s not clear that it isn’t in a mount or it’s not clear that the device is powered on.
Or, as its covered in the
Or, as its covered in the tabloids
Vigilante cyclist ‘broke the law’ while catching Range Rover driver on his phone
https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/27/cyclist-reported-range-rover-driver-using-phone-accused-breaking-law-20353477/
On twitter there a lot of
On twitter there a lot of people who blame cyclingmikey and vine for the divide between cyclists and motorists yet it’s the media who actually do it.
Why go with the lie of ‘vigilante’ ? Rod Liddle, Matthew Parris etc do the actual stoking to a large audience.
Hirsute wrote:
Absolutely correct. They have an agenda to legitimise traffic crime whilst out-grouping cyclists. (Well CyclingMikey and Vine and most of us also have an agenda, but it’s to make road use safer by getting dangerous drivers reported. That should benefit everyone as well as cyclists)
brooksby wrote:
Only cyclists with cameras are vigilantes, never drivers.
Is the exact crime for which
Is the exact crime for which he will go on trail ever mentioned? Did I miss it in the article?
First para !
First para !
“and is set to face prosecution for riding without due care and attention”
Correct, if it is ok for
Correct, if it is ok for cyclists to make U turns in the middle of the road, then what is the difference between cars doing the same.
I really wonder how CM has gotten away this long with U turns and going reverse in the middle of the road while having proof himself uploaded.
Please show ANY evidence that
Please show ANY evidence that a u-turn is illegal on the vast majority of UK roads.
Your strawman is on fire….
Driving or riding dangerously
Driving or riding dangerously or carelessly is an offence as well as the height of stupidity.
cyclisto wrote:
In the case of CM, at least in the videos I’ve seen, what looks like a U-turn isn’t actually one, his “patch” is the West Carriage Drive in Hyde Park leading up to Lancaster Gate: he generally seems to cycle southwards along the separated cycle lane, then if he sees someone on their phone he turns his bike around on the very wide divider and then joins the traffic going back northwards on the road, so he doesn’t actually make a U-turn in the road.
cyclisto wrote:
But motorists do carry out U-turns on roads, all the time.*
*Not all the time, but you know what I mean.
brooksby wrote:
quite, the fact there is a sign for the specific locations where it is not allowed proves that it is generally accepted and legal in most places.
https://startsafety.uk/road-signs/permanent-road-signs/regulatory-road-signs-permanent/no-u-turn-post-mount-sign-dia-614
Otherwise doing U turns would be ilegal, and in these locations it would be doubly ilegal.
Except he doesn’t.
Except he doesn’t.
He either walks back on the pavement or he uses the separate cycling lanes to double back then rejoins the main carriageway.
Any argument about cycling
Any argument about cycling and driving infractions that says “what’s the difference?” is inherently disingenuous or misinformed.
The difference is 2 tons of metal.
The difference is thousands of people a year killed or seriously injured every year by one group vs a handful by the other.
The difference is night and day and to call pretending otherwise foolish would be generous.
I cycle and drive and i agree
I cycle and drive and i agree and certainly wouldn’t do it. Its called common sense and isn’t safe.
I cycle, butt…
I cycle, butt…
“I voted remain, but…”‘s
“I voted remain, but…”‘s best mate
“it” being what exactly ?
“it” being what exactly ?
“It” being common sense,
“It” being common sense, obviously.
The first sentence would then
The first sentence would then read “I cycle and drive and i agree and certainly wouldn’t do common sense.”
I don’t think that’s
I don’t think that’s necessary. Syntactically the two sentences are fine as they stand–if you take “it” to mean “common sense” throughout.
You wouldn’t do common sense.
You wouldn’t do common sense.
Ask yourself the question as to what the poster is wanting to avoid doing. Aside from that, the post they are responding too is erroneous.
I was joking. I presume the
I was joking. I presume the second sentence is just horribly worded and the “it” in the first sentence means a U-turn or the like, and the “isn’t safe” refers to that.
BBB has his say but only in
BBB has his say but only in the general sense. legal advice not Legal Advice.
https://youtu.be/BLIC87TWmqs?si=1tSNMpTy1fxr-j56
Ha Ha I love it, but it’s
Ha Ha I love it, but it’s difficult to predict what direction this case will take in court.
Interesting how his ego simply cannot accept he may be in the wrong.
The troll is back.
The troll is back.
To the tune of “the cat came
To the tune of “the cat came back” (“the very next day”)?
CM is probably the most
CM is probably the most dangerous cyclist on the roads and does more to cause conflict than any other cyclist.
He deliberately causes road conflicts and is never willing to work with other road users.
He hasn’t learnt that ALL road users share the space and he doesn’t realise that defensive riding/biking/motoring looks after all of us.
Polinsteve wrote:
Yeah…tell me you don’t know what CM does without telling me. He stops people driving through a no entry on the wrong side of the road in Regent’s Park and he reports people driving whilst illegally using their mobile phones. In what way is “defensive riding/biking/motoring” anything to do with that?
Fascinating. Which act of
Fascinating. Which act of defensive cycling does “CM”, whoever she or he might be, object to?
When you say “work with other
When you say “work with other road users” do you mean “continue to acquiesce to their dangerous, illegal behaviour?”
Can’t deny that he’s a poster child for “entitled, aggressive cyclist” for some. Nor that he’s causing conflict either. I certainly wouldn’t e.g. cross the road at Gandalf’s corner (as pedestrians have every right to do so) at the same time as someone’s illegally driving the wrong way up a lane (because they’re too important to wait in the queue). I’d just assume they would be a wrong’un and might even drive into me!
Saying that, now I think about it, I do deliberately cause conflict too! I ride a bike on the road sometimes. Clearly I’ll be getting in the way of drivers some of the time. And for some drivers – all the time. Including those rare occasions when I’m actually travelling at about the speed limit. Turns out some folks just can’t “share the road”.
I try to work with other road users and let people by where it’s safe to do so (don’t want to cause congestion…), take care around pedestrians etc. But that’s clearly just whataboutery – I’m not even in a car* so I’m clearly a danger to the latter and in the way of the former!
* … so obvs. I don’t even pay road tax either.
Just realised that CM is to
Just realised that CM is to entitled cyclists what Jeremy Clarkson is to entitled motorists.
Oh I don’t know – I saw one
Oh I don’t know – I saw one much more dangerous than him last week, hula- hooping on his bicycle while trying to crack open a coconut on his handlebars. Don’t know how fast he was going – I was doing 25mph on my skateboard and he whizzed past me as though I wasn’t there.
Sorry about that, I’d had a
Sorry about that, I’d had a couple…
Me too.
Me too.
perce wrote:
They should put a bounty on his head!
I know! He was running rings
I know! He was running rings round everyone else.
Are you ashley neal’s brother
Are you ashley neal’s brother ? Or have you got 6 points and a £200 fine ?
I suppose CM made Rowan Pelling write that torygraph article the other day.
He’s fully aware of defensive cycling as can be seen in his videos.
I think this whole filming
I think this whole filming people breaking the law / seeking publicity is indeed causing conflict and is bringing us into disrepute. I’m talking as a (very occasional) driver – people like this selfish lunatic are ruining the image of all us drivers:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/m66-crash-frankie-jules-hough-hollyoaks-adil-iqbal-speeding-123mph-greater-manchester-police-b1095429.html
Or this one:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/drink-driver-filmed-himself-hitting-killing-woman/
Or these publicity-seekers:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/evo-triangle-wales-speeding-porsche-22430044
Or this chap (but it was an “exaggeration of real life” apparently):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55177486
“I hear the CPS case against
“I hear the CPS case against Dave Clifton has been dropped. I did get shown the video and yeah, it’s not something I’d have thought should be prosecuted. The whole thing is still a good reminder that we’re all required to drive and ride safely on the roads, mind.”
https://twitter.com/MikeyCycling/status/1765037670986866752
3:32 PM · Mar 5, 2024
edit: hmmm, post deleted !
OK this time it has been
OK this time it has been dropped !
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/dave-clifton-prosecution-cyclist-range-rover-met-police-apology-b1143446.html
“(I) felt that the evidence test for the offence of driving without due care was not met, this was discussed and reviewed with the CPS who agreed with our assessment and we have made an application for this case to be discontinued”, said the [Met Police] manager.
As predicted by some in this thread.
Not sure why the ES didn’t have the fuller video before. He was a bit close the m/c but at a stretch it might be ‘words of advice’.
The driver should have 6 points though.
Hirsute wrote:
Repeating my comment on the Live Blog:
That’s just asking for a complaint to be made. I doubt if a defamation case would get anywhere for the Met Police suggesting that the cyclist was breaking the law.
I don’t understand why the driver wasn’t fined for mobile phone use – must have been a friend of the police officer.
I’ve seen this myself a
I’ve seen this myself a cyclist riding down the white line on a 2lane road so that nobody could pass him even oncoming traffic had to go within half a metre to get by . The line got to over 50cars before anyone could get passed this Muppet
I have some sympathy for the
I have some sympathy for the drivers following. My feeling is that if the driver is entirely in the other lane then in a lot of cases it’s difficult to complain about passing distances provided it’s done at a safe speed. The problem in your scenario, then, is that there is a constant stream of oncoming cars preventing the following cars overtaking and it is the volume of traffic that is causing the holdup, not the cyclist.
Pointless replying to someone
Pointless replying to someone who consistently makes stuff up and is only here to troll.
I haven’t up till now but I
I haven’t up till now but I thought the point about oncoming cars not being able to give 1.5m was valid one for a change. Even trolls occasionally make points worth considering. I’ve been accused of being a troll myself once.
As I’ve said before, if it’s obvious that they are trolling, just ignore. If a valid point is made, engage. Never any need to be rude.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Well, not really: it’s not expected or mandated that cars have to give cyclists 1.5 m when passing in opposite directions. That would make life impossible for drivers because the average lane is about 3 m wide, the average car is about 2 m wide and obviously drivers have to stay out a little way from the kerb, so it would be impossible to give an oncoming cyclist who was in the right-hand side of their lane preparing to turn right 1.5 m. Not really an issue because firstly you have the lane dividers, so as long as both parties stay on their own side they are not going to collide, and secondly because you can see them coming and adjust accordingly, it’s the unpredictable and unexpected nature of close passes from behind that makes them so dangerous.
You’ve given no other details
You’ve given no other details about the road or the positioning of parked cars.
Its entirely possible that the cyclist didn’t feel it was safe for people to pass (what with all that oncoming traffic) and so didn’t want to move over, as they are allowed – nay, recommended – to by the highway code.
But hey, at least they weren’t crashing into wheelchairs at 60mph on the footway, right?
(edited for clarity)
When you say this muppet are
When you say this muppet are you referring to yourself?
Why not?
Why not?