The defence may well have argued that, and the magistrate may have accepted it, but that's not what the law says. It says that you have only driven without reasonable consideration for others if someone is inconvenienced. But the offence is committed if you drive without due care and attention, OR without reasonable consideration for other person. You have done the first if the driving falls below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver, regardless of whether anyone was inconvenienced. And CPS guidance specifically cites driving too close to another vehicle as an example.

Some years ago (before there was a cycle lane) I used to commute on Sidmouth St. But only because I worked on the London Road campus, from anywhere else there are better alternatives. As a cycle route it runs from between two busy roads, neither of which are exactly cycle friendly. So it's hardly surprising that no cyclists use it.

The officer's comments unfortunately reflect the reality of UK law. While the Highway Code guidance indeed refers to 1.5m, that is not anywhere in the law. And the criteria in law for proving a charge of careless driving does in fact rest on whether the rider is being "inconvenienced", as the discovered several years ago when the Met prosecuted a taxi driver who nearly hit me when cutting into my lane from the left near Marylebone. The prosecution lawyer was a barely competent newbie who fumbled over his words. The court computer was barely capable of playing the video footage, which kept freezing and crashing. The cabbie had an highly assertive defence lawyer who immediately seized on this point, and argued to the magistraite that I clearly hadn't been "inconvenienced" because I had not stopped or swerved, and had carried on my journey. Never mind that didn't have time to do either of those things, or that I was centimetres from being hit - the magistraite acquitted him on those grounds. That is unfortunately the outrageous reality of actually prosecuting a close pass incident. I know it's popular to blame the police and the CPS for not prosecuting enough close passes ... but the fact is the law is inadequate, and if the driver has a good lawyer then they can likely get off most close pass prosecutions.

Let's not forget the protruding "side" mirror...

HTML rules are clearly only partially implemented

please can we have the ability to use bold and italics for emphasis back as well?

As a Reading resident and cyclist, I can say I cannot think of a single occasion when I have seen a cyclist using the Sidmouth St cycle lane, nor can I think of any reason I'd use it myself. It doesn't connect to any other useful cycle routes. I don't rejoice that some of it is going back to motor traffic but I can see why the council is proposing to do that. Reading could really do with a cycleway to cross the town centre west to east and east to west but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Giant are one of the most trustworthy brands out there when it comes to manufacturing components given that they actually own their own production facilities. None of that matters though when it comes to road hookless, I and most other people won't touch it with a barge pole. We're surely at a stage now where it's toxic amongst consumers and it's only a matter of time before the UCI ban it for racing.

Filling the road with one person per car is using the road space more efficiently, amazing, I never realised that.

I bought a Giant Defy recently and immediately sold off the hookless wheels at a pretty big loss and won't ever do that again. I'm not buying hookless for road ever. Giant in particular has very short list of what tires they test with their rims so it's way too restrictive even if I was going to ride hookless wheels. Which I won't. Very short sighted by Giant.