Over the weekend we reported how Greater Manchester Police apologised and promised all officers would be made aware of Highway Code rules after a video surfaced showing a “shocking level of ignorance” from one officer who told a cyclist he had to ride single file next to the kerb.
Well, the video prompted another reader to send us their recent frustrating police encounter, this time with an officer from the City of London force who told him he should not be riding in the “middle of the road”.
“When you get back, check the Highway Code,” the road.cc reader told the officer, who responded… “I know the Highway Code”…
The reader said it was a “disappointing interaction”, but stressed the only aim of sharing the footage is to highlight the “scale of the challenge that cyclists face in public understanding of what is not only perfectly normal and legal cycling, but what is in fact recommended in the Highway Code as good practice and to be safe on the roads.”
“I’m not in any kind of righteous steaming fury here — this is just someone who thinks they know the Highway Code but doesn’t, it isn’t the end of times,” he said.
“I’ve blurred their face because it’s not really important who the individual is, and because we all make errors in our jobs that we wouldn’t necessarily want to define us.”
In response to questions about if he had reported the incident to City of London Police, the reader told us: “I’m really not interested in doing that, or singling out an individual here for what I would perceive to be an institutional gap.
“I’m far more interested in knowing what, if any, systems the police force has in place for ensuring officers who go out on the road are aware of and promote public understanding of the very valuable guidance in the recently clarified Highway Code.
“If anything is going to change in public attitudes on the road, the police forces really have to lead the way and be positive champions for the hierarchy of road users.”
What does the Highway Code say?
Rule 61 of the Highway Code:
Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.
Pointing out the danger of crossing the junction by bike, the road.cc reader explained there was “almost no motor traffic on the road, and certainly none preventing me from reaching the advance stop box — so using it would not make my journey any easier or safer.”
He continued: “On the contrary, with pavements busy with pedestrians who may step out at any point, several traffic islands on the approach to the junction — and at one point a pedestrian walking down the middle of the road towards me — the safest position is absolutely to be centre of the lane.”
“You shouldn’t be cycling in the middle of the road”
Contrary to what the officer said, Rule 213 of the Highway Code is as follows:
On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.
Rule 72 adds:
Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible […] at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you.
“I was on the approach to a large and complex junction with a dual set of traffic lights on the approach,” the cyclist explained. “There is considerable risk to cyclists from motor vehicles wanting to turn off to one of the side roads while they go straight ahead or to an opposing turn off.
“There is almost no conceivable situation in which it would be more appropriate to be in the centre of the lane on the approach and in the advance stop box for when the light goes green.
“Unfortunately this officer, rather than knowing or recognising any of this, is determined that he ‘knows’ that the Highway Code says ‘I should be in the bike lane’.
> Why don’t cyclists stick to the left of the lane?
“This is a common misconception by the general public, and one which contributes often to cyclists receiving verbal abuse and even ‘punishment passes’ or other deliberately dangerous road behaviour when they are in fact acting entirely in keeping with Highway Code recommendations for their own safety.
“I’ll be the first to admit that some of the recommendations are counter-intuitive. Believe me, they are counter-intuitive to many cyclists too — but they are thoroughly researched and proven to be the best way to stay safe, especially at and on the approach to large and complex junctions with a history of cyclist fatalities.
“The police should absolutely be at the forefront of communicating and demonstrating to the public that they understand this — and, dare I say, not confusing lines from tabloid agitators with what the Highway Code actually says.”
road.cc contacted City of London Police for comment and to raise the cyclist’s wish for wider education on the Highway Code within the police force, but did not get a response at the time of publishing this story.
83 thoughts on ““Check the Highway Code”: Police officer claims cyclist shouldn’t ride “in the middle of the road””
If you don’t make some sort
If you don’t make some sort of complaint, how will they address the educational needs required for a basic understanding of the HC ?
Preferably via improving
Preferably via improving force-wide training and information on HC and cycling, rather than focusing on one officer in order to tick a “complaint resolved” box.
And why will they start that
And why will they start that process if they are given no reason to?
The complaint could be worded to suggest a wider range of training and education than just this officer.
It’s the decision I made
It’s the decision I made based on my view of the situation.
I feel that formal complaints against the police are really for rather more serious things than this.
I could be wrong. It’s a risk I’m willing to take.
I think you’re right, best
I think you’re right, best not to get marked as a vexatious complainer.
I’ve recently started uploading close passes, etc to Dorset Police Operation Snap, and I’ve only done the really bad ones, as I don’t want to be “that cyclist” filling their service with stuff they’ll ignore.
Although that said, I’m sure they’ve implemented an automatic delete function as I’ve had nothing since starting in June.
mark1a wrote:
If they are anything like West Midlands they will only contact you if it goes to court (or after you upload 100 or so with extra photos and maps they don’t want or need to ask you just for the videos, so a friend tells me, . . . ahem. ?)
OK thanks that’s worth
OK thanks that’s worth knowing. They do say keep the original video for 3 weeks and if you haven’t heard anything, delete the video.
I was just imagining a real-life Dilbert scenario along the lines of:
Pointy Haired Boss: “Dilbert, our AWS S3 bills are through the roof and we’re wasting too much time watching these damn video clips, can’t you do something?”
Dilbert: “Leave it with me…”
#!/bin/sh
inotifywait -m -r –format ‘%w%f’ -e create /home/opsnap/uploads | while read VIDEO
do
/bin/rm -f $VIDEO
done
A month later…
PHB: “I don’t know what you’ve done, but close passes are now down to zero and we can lay off the entire Op Snap team.”
An officer who emailed me to
An officer who emailed me to apologise they didn’t have the funds to provide outcomes on each case suggested I keep them for at least a year. Went to court in August 2022 for an offence in May 2021 but that was due to lockdown and Birmingham Magistrates Court being closed over the summer for fire safety reasons.
My potential court case for
My potential court case for an incident recorded in Jan was canned as he never turned up for the plea and was found guilty in absence. PC mentioned it could be still on if the perp advises “they hadn’t recieved notice of the court date” but not heard anything since.
I have only had contact for that one, and a couple of times by the team if the upload had screwed up (or when I accidently entered the wrong reg on the form).
So I at least know that they are reviewed, but surprised only one went to court AND that one was also for driving without a license which is a surprise as the driver couldn’t have been seen on the camera. I do wonder if the “nominated driver” was actually the driver.
mark1a wrote:
I’d’ve just piped it to /dev/null instead. Also, your script doesn’t quote the $VIDEO, so an uploader could craft a filename to gain control e.g. ‘file.txt; rm -fr –no-preserve-root /’.
Excellent pedantry!
Excellent pedantry!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Why thank you.
If you enjoy some pedantry and are writing a shell script, then I can recommend checking scripts with https://www.shellcheck.net/ – you can install it locally and use it as a linter.
If you want full on pedant mode, that script also suffers from not handling filenames that contain newlines or backslashes properly, so a better version would be:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
inotifywait -m -r –format ‘%w%f%0′ -e create /home/opsnap/uploads | while IFS= read -r -d $’ ’ VIDEO; do
rm –force — “$VIDEO”
done
That should use a NULL character (the only invalid character in unix filenames) to terminate the filename so that it can handle multi-line filenames.
Thanks, and I bow to your
Thanks, and I bow to your ninja shellery skills, although I would also say mine was just a quick thing to illustrate a humorous thought I had in my head!
chrisonatrike wrote:
More like lintantry 😉
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen “I would have” double apostrophed before. At least no “of”.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I hain’t seen much use of “fo’c’s’le” (forecastle) on these forums neither.
Well that could change with
Well that could change with this thing I just found out about (thanks, Cycling UK). However I bet some boat pedant will be on to say that it’s not fully decked or something. Warning – people trying to sell their bright idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHpCEUSWt7Q
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s pretty cool, but I’m disappointed that the cycling parts don’t provide propulsion when boating.
I feel that formal complaints
I feel that formal complaints against the police are really for rather more serious things than this
That’s what the police think as well- the trouble is that they think any offence against a cyclist which doesn’t result in death of/ or serious injury to the cyclist is non-serious by definition. There will be no response from the despised and loathed OpSnapLancs to this attack by the driver of Archway of Fleetwood bus AR12 WAY on 29th September
wtjs wrote:
They obviously spend more on cherished number plates than they do on driver training
hirsute wrote:
Exactly this^
“Unfortunately this officer,
“Unfortunately this officer, rather than knowing or recognising any of this, is determined that he ‘knows’ that the Highway Code says ‘I should be in the bike lane’
There is no possibility that an officer this dim will change his ways except by the exertion of force. Forget this blurring the face and not making a complaint nonsense!
Not worth a formal complaint.
Not worth a formal complaint.
If I’d e.g. been arrested or detained that’d be a different matter.
But do I want to unleash the bureaucracy of a complaints process over what was ultimately an unfortunate conversation?
Not really.
Velo-drone wrote:
I disagree. This was needless harassment and should be stopped, the process could stop further needless harassment of cyclists by uneducated professional police drivers.
The backing track on the
The backing track on the video makes for an horrific listening experience.
Sadly it’s not a backing
Sadly it’s not a backing track, the cyclist obviously has speakers on his bike (the last bit of interaction with the driver is about that). While in no way detracting from the fact that the officer was entirely in the wrong, I find that so antisocial (and yes I hate loud car stereos too).
I find the thunder of motor
I find the thunder of motor traffic all around me quite antisocial, but there we go.
If I’m stopped at lights and in close vicinity to others, I’ll generally turn it down until I’m off again. But most of the time I’m not near anyone for long enough for it to be more than a momentary irritation for them – and in general it’s been a positive conversation starter.
In central London it is also an extremely useful way to reduce the number of pedestrians that step off the pavement into your path without looking.
Velo-drone wrote:
I couldn’t agree more and long for the day it’s removed from our streets; when it is, I wouldn’t want it replaced with cyclists blasting Wagner. Sorry, you seem a sound chap but imposing your music on others like that is antisocial, if you must have music as you ride why not get some bone-conducting headphones and enjoy it that way, you’d hear the music much better and nobody else would have to.
Yes, I dislike noise
Yes, not a fan of noise pollution, whatever its source.
I think you were right to blur the face – clearly this is not about an individual “rogue” copper, but the system behind him. It could have been another copper.
“But most of the time I’m not
“But most of the time I’m not near anyone for long enough for it to be more than a momentary irritation for them”
That might be what you think, but the pricks who ride round my way with music blaring can be heard from a long way off.
It’s the height of entitled selfishness: regardless of the quality of your musical selection, imposing it on others in the vicinity is fucking rude. Get some headphones, or go about your day without a fucking soundtrack like most grown-ups do. You are not brightening our square boring lives with your carefully-curated tunes, you’re every bit as bad as the kids on the bus or the bellend whose car is shaking.
Brauchsel wrote:
Charming. At least I’m not flinging playground insults at strangers on the internet.
Clearly we’re going to have a difference of opinion on this, and I doubt either of us are going to persuade the other.
As I’ve said, I’ll happily turn it down if I’m in the vicinity of others at some lights – but I don’t particularly have a problem with people driving with their radio audible, as long as it’s not night-time in a residential area.
Why shouldn’t anyone make their road journey more enjoyable if they wish? I’ve had way, way more positive interactions with people on my journey than negative ones in relation to the music – some lovely conversations and on the whole it’s been a very pleasant way to bring a bit of social interaction into an otherwise very impersonal city commute.
And, particularly in the very centre of London it definitely massively reduces the number of people wandering off pavements into my path.
Anyway – if you meet me at a set of lights and ask me to turn it down, I will. Unless you call me a prick and fling a load of abuse at me, in which case I’ll probably ignore you.
I’m on the fence about this
I’m on the fence about this (as long as it’s not someone following me around the countryside with their choice in tunes). However to help sharpen the analogy (why some people get irritated) consider having to travel the same route with someone who really likes the smell of their own farts…
I wouldn’t say like, find
I wouldn’t say like, find fascinating though…
I still feel you’re wrong on
I still feel you’re wrong on this one, you’re selfishly imposing your music on other people who don’t necessarily want to hear it when there are perfectly good ways of just keeping it to yourself. Substantial numbers of people are doing this in London now. When you say:
If lots of people are doing it that’s lots and lots of momentary irritations which mounts up to quite a large irritation. Is there any good reason you can’t just enjoy your music privately without inflicting it on others? I’m afraid “people hear me coming” isn’t really sufficient justification, I could ride around with an airhorn blaring at all times and achieve the same effect, and that would be pretty antisocial too.
Rendel Harris wrote:
because of the backlash against any cyclist who dares to use earphones?
wycombewheeler wrote:
I know earphones get a bit of comment online but I’ve never actually seen anyone having a go at a cyclist in the flesh for wearing earphones, have you? I think a lot more people would be aggravated by a cyclist booming out their music from loudspeakers than they would be by one riding past wearing headphones.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I have found that the general reaction to ringing a bell as a warning is more negative than positive, and the general reaction to hearing some approaching music is to take a look before stepping off the pavement. It seems to strike a reasonable balance to me.
I’m pretty sure a constantly blaring airhorn would go down less well than either … but if you decide to try it sometime, let me know how it goes!
Velo-drone wrote:
I have found that the general reaction to ringing a bell as a warning is more negative than positive, and the general reaction to hearing some approaching music is to take a look before stepping off the pavement. It seems to strike a reasonable balance to me.
I’m pretty sure a constantly blaring airhorn would go down less well than either … but if you decide to try it sometime, let me know how it goes!— Rendel Harris
Not a huge fan of the on-board sound system, but equally wouldn’t let it rile me.
Have to say that I agree that reactions to my bell are majority negative.
From the route and the
From the route and the operatic accompaniment, I realise I have shared the road with Velo-drone. Personally I wouldn’t play my music like that, but I can’t say I found it particularly offensive to be around. I can certainly attest that anything that grabs pedestrian attention on that route is a help.
But Brauschel is 100% correct
But Brauschel is 100% correct. Your unilateral decision to subject others to your musical taste is selfish, objectionable and (ironically for someone challenging the police on their knowledge of the law), illegal! That’s right, not only is your behaviour anti-social, by law you require a music licence from both PPL and PRS to be able to communicate music to the public. I don’t know when Britain became so full of selfish people, but your insistence that you should be free to continue playing music loudly from your bike is yet another example of selfish Britain in action. Why should you be the only one doing this (or do you think it’s OK for all cyclists to do this and for our streets to become a cacophony of noise?). As someone who has invested in some bone conducting headphones so that I can both enjoy my own music whilst still hearing the noises of cars, buses etc around me, the likes of you with your wirless speakers mean I cannot hear my own music/podcast when anywhere in your vicinity. Your insistence that you are bringing joy to more people than you are inconveniencing is beyond pompous. When I first saw the video I thought you were going to be a positive role model of handling a tricky situation with the police, but as I got into your comments, it became clear that you are just another self-entitled chump.
That seems a bit harsh to me.
That seems a bit harsh to me.
Personally, I don’t mind the occasional cyclist or even driver playing some tunes, but what really snaps my cranks is the perennial xmas music coming out of shops in the months leading up to it.
.
.
Tick, tick, tick. Spot on, Bud.
.
mpdouglas wrote:
What I want to know is when they’re coming down on all these free-loading birds, singing all day and without a licence between them. I’ve heard several brazenly ripping off ringtones – Samsung, Nokia et al. put good money into composing those!
The local postman was lucky to get away with being taken in by the law – the citizenry would have hung him for his whistling before the PRS lawyers would have had a chance to get him to court.
This all sounds a bit of a Discworld parody to me… I know the late great Ivor Cutler was against the proliferation of muzak (and noise in general) though so that’s a point in favour.
mpdouglas wrote:
Looking forward to the mass arrests of anyone and everyone playing music at their public picnic / BBQ / on a hike / on the beach / in the car with the window down etc
I mean, by all means disagree on the principle, but don’t lower yourself to this level of nonsense, please.
Do please ask me to turn it down if you can’t hear your own podcast – and I will do so – but in general I’ve already turned it down if I’m that close to anyone for more than a couple of seconds.
Your apparent inability to conceive that I might just be speaking from my own truthful experience when I state the general responses I’ve had in the several years of cycling this commute is telling – as is your desire to manipulate my words into a claim that I’m “bringing joy” to people. For the most part I’ve had no real response – but all I am noting is that where I have, the vast majority have been positive.
Velo-drone wrote:
So am I but I’m afraid it’s not going to happen in the same way that arresting inconsiderate drivers putting cyclists at risk is never going to happen. The police are apparently too busy to tackle either of these these minor annoyances. Doesn’t make it right though.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Not the same at all. Playing music in a public place for your personal enjoyment is not the same as ‘broadcasting to the general public’
Licensing of “public peformance” of music is applied solely to businesses and organisations, not to individuals.
Velo-drone wrote:
Leaving aside the PRS issues, which I don’t think will fly anyway, you are in fact broadcasting to the general public because they can’t help hearing it, so you may be doing something for your personal enjoyment but you are inflicting it on other people unnecessarily. Can’t quite believe you think this is defensible, just because you’re on a bike blasting Wagner doesn’t make you any different to the kid on the back of the bus annoying everyone with beats on their phone; both are noise pollution, irritating, antisocial and selfish, compounded by the fact that a perfectly good alternative in the shape of headphones exists – but that wouldn’t let you or the kid on the back of the bus show off just how “individual” you are, would it?
I suspect you are correct. I
I suspect you are correct. I found this on a government website so I hope you are not cycling before 8am or after 9pm.
“Loudspeakers in the street
It’s an offence to use loudspeakers at any time to advertise:
entertainment
trade
business
It’s an offence to use loudspeakers for any purpose in the street at night between 9pm and 8am.”
I still find having to listen to other peoples’ noise of any type infuriating but I accept that’s my problem. I suspect I’m not alone and I still think that playing music out loud is inconsiderate. I hope we can agree to disagree.
On other matters I wholly approve of the way in which you rode that stretch and the way you handled the interaction with the police.
On other matters I wholly
On other matters I wholly approve of the way in which you rode that stretch and the way you handled the interaction with the police
Agreed. I think Velo-drone did a good job dealing with the ignorance of the completely lacking-in-insight police
mpdouglas wrote:
Nope. Copyright doesn’t last forever (apart from Peter Pan apparently, you learn something new everyday!).
No licence required to play classical music in public, as the copyright has expired. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term
HoarseMann wrote:
The music is in the public domain, but the recording may not be, unless it was recorded more than 70 years ago. My previous dealings with PRS over music on hold, they’re just a legalised protection racket.
mark1a wrote:
True. But even if it is not a royalty-free recording, you only need a licence to play music in public if you are doing so in a venue, as part of an event, or for a business.
Don’t get me wrong, I think
Don’t get me wrong, I think PRS are a bunch of c**ts who in my opinion appear to care more about making money for the legal team than they do about musicians.
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/pplprs.co.uk
Nope. Copyright in a
Nope. Copyright in a recording lasts for 70 years. Copyright in the underlying composition lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator/composer. So you are free to make a live performance of a classical work if the composer of the piece has been dead for more than 70 years. Or you can play a recorded song if it was recorded before 1963 (the period of copyright changed in 2013 from 50 yrs to 70 yrs). Otherwise you need a licence from both the recording owner and the author/publisher.
I’d bet without the music
I’d bet without the music playing, that interaction doesnt happen though.
Instiututionally anti-cyclist
Instiututionally anti-cyclist
Regardless of that officers
Regardless of that officers ignorance, why is he riding in that position anyway? He cant be taking the lane to turn right because it’s a no right turn at that junction.
Maybe he’s turning right at the next junction? Nope not that either.
Sure he comes up with lots of justification for his dawdling road position but others are able to use the bike lane. Clearly he has an extremely acute danger threshold which the others dont have….
..or maybe, compounded his choice of music at that volume, the guy is just riding like that to make some point. Riders like him who deliberately antagonise others give us all a bad name.
Riiiiiight. He’s riding in
Riiiiiight. He’s riding in that position solely to antagonise others. Of course.
Never mind that the speed limit in that entire area is 20mph.
Or that traffic at that junction and the roads leading into and out of it is restricted to buses and cyclists for most of the day.
Solely to antagonise.
Idiot.
Not sure how much cycling you
Not sure how much cycling you do, given that terrible analysis.
The left hand side of the road here channels you into the flow of any traffic joining from the road on the right as well as merging you into the path of the traffic joining from Cheapside where I’ve just come from. It’s really a terrible place to be. Even if I used it, e.g. due to waiting traffic at the light, I’d definitely then position further out in the AST for safety.
At the following lights there are four exits for bicycles and three for road traffic (5 & 4 respectively if you count Mansion House Place, but I’ll let that go as hardly anyone goes down there)
Anyway, point is – you absolutely should be taking the lane at these lights, whatever way you’re going.
As for ‘dawdling’ …. the light is RED! No-one needs to be zooming up to that light. I’ve slowed down because I can actually move through faster if I keep rolling but don’t fully stop.
But yeah, sure, it’s just to antagonise … ?
” As for ‘dawdling’ …. the
” As for ‘dawdling’ …. the light is RED! No-one needs to be zooming up to that light. I’ve slowed down because I can actually move through faster if I keep rolling but don’t fully stop. But yeah, sure, it’s just to antagonise … ?”
For our motorcentic culture this is almost impossible to understand. To not accelerate until needing to brake???
You roll until the lights start to change then push those pedals, if you really know the lights then you can try and judge it perfectly.
Even with electric and hybrid motor vehicles with regenerative braking this is inefficient, let alone gas guzzlers.
ktache wrote:
My driving instructor told me that 30 years ago.
He said “You wouldn’t race to the lights on your bike. Don’t do it in the car“.
I hope people are still being taught that. It’s even more important now with climate change and the cost of fuel.
Well I’d agree…but IME
Well I’d agree…but IME unless I up the pace towards a red light, the vehicle behind me will attempt to pass, regardless of their own ability to actually pass in the time,space or distance, I’m a cyclist so they MGIF.
I had it just yesterday approaching a traffic queue at a red light, I’m in prime as we start slowing leaving myself braking space,but this damn old man in a Range rover starts an overtake towards braking traffic, gets alongside me and just decides to steer left back towards me to force me out of the way or we crash, it’s only that the road slightly widened there to accommodate a left turn lane I didnt get stuffed into a kerb
ktache wrote:
This mystifies me every time I’m a passenger in a car too, surely you want to arrive at the lights as they turn green?
But the cyclist / slower
But the cyclist / slower driver might get to the red lights first…
bikeman01 wrote:
It’s not really a bike lane, it’s a feeder lane for the Advanced Stop Line.
Bear in mind these ASLs are there for the benefit of cyclists, to enable them to get to the ASL box ahead of queuing traffic, not so that motor vehicles can make a pointless overtake.
HoarseMann wrote:
Absolutely correct. Also bear in mind that the road there has been further altered since that photo was taken – where the road expands to the left after the ASL box in this picture, it now narrows in to the right, feeding cyclists from that lane into the flow of traffic from behind as well as the flow of traffic from the road merging from the right.
Hence why, even if you were to need to use the lane to access the ASL box, you should position centre lane in the box to avoid being crushed. Similarly, the only way to safely cross Bank junction on a bike – even now, in the much safer environment, is to be as primary as possible for the exit you are taking.
Let’s hope that police
Let’s hope that police officer goes and has a read of rule 73, which basically says take the lane or get off and walk…
Rule 73
Junctions.
Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane, where you feel able to do this safely, to make yourself as visible as possible and to avoid being overtaken where this would be dangerous. If you do not feel safe to proceed in this way, you may prefer to dismount and wheel your bike across the junction.
bikeman01 wrote:
Is your monicker intended to be ironic, in that you don’t actually ride a bike? That would make sense given your complete lack of understanding that a rider’s objective to keep themselves safe is greater than any objective to not hinder the progress of a following vehicle. You seem more concerned with not upsetting drivers for fear of retribution against the cycling ‘Borg’. Can I be Locutus?
Given that the light was red
Given that the light was red anyway it doesnt really matter where the cyclist was, as he wasn’t holding anyone up. What I did notice though was that on the green light from the right a couple of vehicles headed through the junction despite Bank being closed to everything apart from buses and cycles. I’m betting the policeman didn’t stop them to say they shouldn’t be going through the junction.
One thing I’m not sure about, does the restriction on vehicles exclude the police too? I could understand an exemption for emergencies, but should they be driving through at other times?
Would have to look up the
Would have to look up the regs to see if they excepted emergency vehicles as well as buses.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, and I don’t really have any problem with that.
But as much better as the junction is since the change, it’s still dangerous. I still regularly get buses & other vehicles turning right from Poultry cutting across me almost every time I come back across the junction from Cornhill.
If I didn’t take centre lane at this point, I would definitely be vulnerable to left turning traffic.
Also, and this is almost without exception, once that light goes green there’s a mass of pedestrians crossing (against the red pedestrian crossing light) from both sides of the junction at the next set of lights.
I’m not overly bothered by this, I just make sure I ring the bell a few times on the approach and don’t pelt it through and mostly they deign to make a gap (exactly the same on the other side going to to Cornhill)
However, staying to the left, as many suggest that cyclists should do here is a really bad idea. Even if those crossing stop for you to come through the green light, there’s frequently someone sweeping through behind the nearest of the crowd who doesn’t see you, hasn’t realised why they’ve stopped and is too preoccupied with their important phone call to take a look at the road.
At least in the centre of the lane you’ve a reasonable chance of their not stepping right in front of your wheel before you see them ..
The problem with this
The problem with this particular mega-volume ‘music’ is that it’s played from Hueys in ‘nam in Apocalypse Now as a warning to the ‘gooks’ that they’re about to be napalmed, blown to smithereens…etc
Hannibal Lecter bites off
Hannibal Lecter bites off someone’s face, beats another to death and then crucifies him to the backing of Bach’s Goldberg Variations.
Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata provides the soundtrack to some appalling torture in Misery.
I’m sure we could concoct a pretty comprehensive list of all sorts of horrendous things that have been set to classical music … but not sure really what that would signify.
Velo-drone wrote:
Clockwork Orange had some notable scenes too
He could play Wagner. I’m
Post deleted
He wasn’t wrong though that’s
He wasn’t wrong though that’s how it should be , equally riding several abreast , should also be a legal obligation for cycle lanes to be used rather than the road when available.
I’m not quite sure what you
I’m not quite sure what you mean eg. who’s “he” – if it’s the copper he was quite wrong. Cycling side by side is legal too.
Why do you think cycle lanes should have to be used? That might be reasonable in The Netherlands but you might notice a
few differences there. They have (I believe) legal minimums for design standards of cycle infrastructure. Those are not only half a century ahead of the UK, but are actually as meaningful as UK Road design standards. Compare with the UK – stick up a sign with a bike on it or paint a line to make a lane more than the width of a tyre, or just ignore the “guidance” and make up any rubbish you like – voila, a UK cycling faculty!
Don’t engage!
Don’t engage!
* Deletes message saying “I’m
* Deletes message saying “I’m puzzled why your uncle, being a Nigerian prince, would need my account details…” *
Holts wrote:
Can we agree that drivers should not take A roads when there’s a viable motorway route to their destination, nor B roads when there’s a viable A road?
My commute is along the side
My commute is along the side of an A road (a small one, but a busy commuter route) which does from the M5 motorway into Bristol city centre.
Commuters could stay on the M5, go around the city using M5 the M4 then M32 (you know – the roads they built for motorists) or even go one junction further north and come off and into the city along a much bigger A road (the A4 Portway) but they don’t; they use ‘my’ road instead.
And yes, I have pointed that out to some bloke who shouted at me for not using the cycle path…
I can’t wait for the
I can’t wait for the wonderfully maintained A roads, that run parallel to motorways to become motor vehicleless.
ktache wrote:
Or at least private motor vehicle less (maybe allow buses?).
And a legal obligation on
And a legal obligation on local authorities to have a tow truck available 24/7 to keep those lanes free from drivers who park in them and even drive in them.