“Make everyone else visible so drivers can be dangerous”: Road safety authority’s “insane” hi-vis campaign criticised for “forcing industry level PPE” on children cycling to school; Cyclists vs Footballers (again) + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“Make everyone else visible so drivers can be dangerous”: Road safety authority’s “insane” hi-vis campaign criticised for “forcing industry level PPE” on children cycling to school
There’s been quite a bit of chat about hi-vis jackets for cyclists – and whether they should be made mandatory – in Ireland lately.
At the start of February, the Irish government got itself in a real tizzy over its tentative new plans to force e-scooter and e-bike riders to wear helmets and high-visibility, reflective clothing.
In case you weren’t keeping up with all the back-and-forth at Leinster House, the story went like this: the Department of Transport announced one Wednesday morning that the proposed mandatory helmet and hi-vis law would also apply to anyone riding a non-motorised bike.
On Thursday morning, Ireland’s Tánaiste (deputy PM) Simon Harris said that wouldn’t be the case, and would be a daft idea, anyway. And by Thursday afternoon, the department clarified that Harris was, in fact, right, and that cyclists wouldn’t be legally required to wear full-scale protective gear riding to the shops.
But that wasn’t the end of it. Last week, the assistant general secretary of Ireland’s National Bus and Rail Union told a parliamentary committee that all cyclists should be made to wear hi-vis, in order to make the job of a bus driver “inherently easier” by ensuring “potential hazards” are “easier to spot”.
That story was picked up, naturally, by GB News, who bizarrely linked it to the UK’s Highway Code, while live blog favourite Jeremy Vine also pounced on it for a segment on whether hi-vis should be mandatory for cyclists.
And it’s far to say this prolonged focus on cycling clothing on both sides of the Irish Sea hasn’t gone down too well with some online commentators.
“‘Everyone must be in high-vis all the time’ is a great way to victim blame and shift the focus from dangerous drivers and poor infrastructure. Unfortunately, it doesn’t actually make anyone safer,” Gravel Influencer wrote on BlueSky.
“One of the problems with suggestions like this is that it just redraws the line further back,” added Real Gaz in response to the bus union’s call. “It’ll be implementing jaywalking next perhaps.
“The problem isn’t about being seen, it’s about drivers, professional or not, looking, and looking longer and harder. Reduce speed limits perhaps.”
“Absurd – this is one step from those little flags Americans are asked to wave as they cross lethal intersections,” said Rich.
“If you’re starting with the vulnerable road user, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to reduce safety risks.”
“Just make everyone else visible so drivers can be dangerous,” added Ian, while Noah wrote: “I’m gonna wear whatever the f*** I want because nothing is brighter than their phone screen.”
Meanwhile, IrishCycle.com’s Cian Ginty (who penned his own forceful response to hi-vis calls) shared this thing of baffling beauty from Ireland’s Road Safety Authority – a hi-vis pledge for schoolchildren…
According to the Hi Glo Silver Pledge, children in Ireland’s schools sign up to the following (not legally binding, I assume) agreement: “When I walk or cycle, night or day, after school or when I go to play, I promise to make sure that I am seen, in reflective clothing that is bright orange, yellow, or green.”
Pity you can’t see the hi-vis writing on the pledge itself, oh the irony.
“This is sadly real,” Cian said.
“The RSA doing what they’ve always done best: promoting hi-vis vests like they’re an agent selling jerseys of some popular football team,” added Citizen Wolf.
“It’s insane. You don’t see this anywhere else in the EU. We’re taking industry level PPE and trying to force it on normal social activity,” said Kevin.
However, Phil came up with his own road safety pledge that he’s offered to the RSA, shifting the onus for road safety onto, you know, the people in the big, fast metal boxes:
“When I drive my mighty metal box,
through city streets or country locks,
I promise to make sure I’m not obscene,
by driving legally and keeping my conscience clean.”
Somehow, I’m not convinced the Road Safety Authority will be rushing to the printers with that one.
“Incredibly poorly executed”: Cyclists praise town’s new bike parking facilities… but others question why “big and ugly” stand was placed on double yellow signs, on a corner next to a junction, and facing the road with no access from pavement
Ah, British cycling infrastructure. Even when it’s good, it’s still not that great.
This week, this new bike parking stand – or ‘bike coral’ – was installed in the centre of West Sussex coastal town of Shoreham-by-Sea, after years of campaigning by the local cycling campaign group:
“Research shows that lack of solid well-designed places to lock bikes can be a real disincentive to people’s choice to use a bike when they head into town,” the Shoreham-By-Cycle group posted on Facebook today.
“So it’s brilliant to see our application finally taking shape, in the form of these new ‘bike corals’.
“Thank you to West Sussex County Council, to SBC’s members, and to the councillors who supported our application. We know bike theft remains a problem, but steps like this do improve security, as well as convenience, giving local people more choices for their journeys into Shoreham. We love the signage too!”
> “Eyesore” cycle rack removed…but only because driver smashed into it
However, not everyone was as enamoured with the new facilities. In fact, local cyclist Alastair Reid had a list of complaints.
“Sorry to be a killjoy,” he wrote. “We know infrastructure of this kind is desperately needed and how hard you all have fought for it. But this just feels incredibly poorly executed.
“Why have they been put on a corner, on a junction on double yellow lines? This potentially creates a significant hazard. Cars weren’t allowed to park there for a reason.
“Why is there no access from the pavement side meaning users have to walk out into a tight road (on a blind corner junction) to access their bikes?”
He continued: “Why is it so big and ugly? Complete overkill when simple and cheaper Sheffield stands would have done? Like those parking sign poles are completely unnecessary.
“A huge pat on the back for finally getting some much-needed infrastructure. And something is better than nothing. WSCC once again failing to listen to the experts and failing miserably on execution. What a shame.”
So, apart from the terrible placement, odd design, and lack of safe access, I suppose they’re fine?
Wout van Aert to make season debut at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad after recovering from ankle fracture – but still no word on Mathieu van der Poel’s Opening Weekend plans
It’s official – Wout’s back.
Almost two months on from his race-ending crash at a snowy Zilvermeercross, leaving him with a broken ankle, Wout van Aert is set to return to racing this weekend at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad (Het Volk, to the purists).
The Belgian star, an Omloop winner back in 2022, will head up a strong Visma-Lease a Bike squad over the cobbled bergs of Flanders on Saturday, featuring co-leaders Matthew Brennan and Christophe Laporte, who crashed out of the Ruta del Sol on Sunday, but should be fit for Opening Weekend.
Laporte and British wonderkid Brennan will also lead Visma at Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne on Sunday, though Van Aert will miss out, instead opting to make his Le Samyn debut on 3 March. The Belgian will then head to Italy for a Strade Bianche, Tirreno-Adriatico, and Milan-Sanremo.
Van Aert’s Omloop return further strengthens an already stacked field for the Flemish curtain-raiser, with Tom Pidcock, Jasper Philipsen, Kasper Asgreen, Biniam Girmay, Arnaud De Lie, and Tim Wellens all pencilled in to tackle cycling’s iconic Muur-Bosberg double bill.
Whether Van Aert’s eternal rival Mathieu van der Poel will rock up in Gent on Saturday morning remains a mystery, however. The three-time Tour of Flanders winner, currently training in Spain, is not included on Alpecin’s provisional team sheet – though all that could change by the end of the week.
Basically, if Van der Poel fancies it, he’ll be there, in what could be his first Opening Weekend appearance in five years.
And I’ll be there too – though I doubt that news will leave any classics stars quaking their boots…
Could Tour de France stages soon be raced in the morning? Scientists warn climate change and extreme heatwaves could make afternoon racing too dangerous
Thanks to climate change (looking at you Ineos and UAE), are we soon going to see the Tour de France revert to the traditions of its heroic age a century ago, when riders used to sign on outside a café at 2am, before riding off into the pitch-black night?
I’m not sure what the CPA would make of that…
Cyclists versus footballers (again): Bournemouth boss Andoni Iraola tackles that age-old sporting question – what’s tougher, racing up the Angliru or being a box-to-box midfielder?
Here on the live blog, we love a football/cycling crossover. After all, we didn’t put together a ‘Footballers Who Cycle XI’, complete with subs and coaching team, for nothing.
So this week’s episode of the Gruppetto, Rob Hatch’s TNT Sports series, is right down our street (fun football/cycling fact: If you watch Manchester City’s official highlights package of Sergio Agüero’s debut back in 2011, that’s Hatch commentating).
> Footballers who cycle XI — the Premier League stars who love life on two wheels
In the show, Rob meets up with Andoni Iraola, the Basque manager (and cyclist) who’s busy guiding AFC Bournemouth towards the Premier League’s European spots this season, while also squeezing in time to get out on his bike and catch up with some early-season stage races.
Oh, and he also takes part in his local cycling fantasy league, battling against his old Athletic Bilbao teammates and coaches.
Yep, he’s our kind of football manager.
During their chat, Iraola discusses his early obsession with Miguel Induráin, his fondness for Mikel Landa and the cobbled bergs of the Tour of Flanders, and the similarities between football and cycling, while also bemoaning the lack of Basque-style hilly terrain in Dorset (which is why he’s bought a gravel bike).
And it wouldn’t be a football/cycling crossover without that timeless enquiry: who has the harder job? A pro cyclist racing up the Angliru, or a box-to-box midfielder covering every blade of grass for 90 minutes?
View this post on Instagram
“I discuss this a lot,” the Bournemouth boss laughed when posed the question by Hatch. “In the moment, it’s a lot harder what cyclists do. But football is very demanding in the muscle side.
“Cyclists do an incredible effort for five or six hours, then they have to do it again tomorrow, and then tomorrow, almost without recovery. For a football player, that would be impossible. On the third day, everyone would get injured.
“Probably the demands, the suffering, isn’t as high as in cycling, but the body doesn’t recover as well after you play football. I don’t know – but I think you should enjoy both.”
Good answer. And at least Rob didn’t broach that tedious, pointless, and completely irrelevant never-ending debate about whether cyclists are ‘tougher’ than their footballing counterparts. Just because they get back up after crashing, apparently (that’s because there’s no referee giving them an advantage if they don’t, for those at the back).
> Why pro cycling needs to ditch its ‘hardness’ obsession
Though that unfortunately didn’t stop a few viewers bringing that idiotic point up in the comments.
“Everyone is tougher than today’s football players,” wrote Rob.
“Yes, obviously. Cyclists don’t fall over and roll around on the floor when hit by a mild breeze,” added Marc.
Groan. And just like that, the point sails over their heads like a misjudged Arsenal corner…
Manchester United defender Leny Yoro says there was “little prospect of contact with vulnerable road users” after speeding at 72mph in 30mph zone near school and homes lands him driving ban… and then posts photo of himself texting at the wheel
Speaking of football, it really hasn’t been the most cycling-friendly month of PR for Ineos, has it?
A few weeks ago, Sir Jim did his best to alienate, well, everyone with his controversial comments on immigration, sparking backlash across the country (though his cycling team remained notably silent on the matter).
And now, another representative of the Ineos sporting empire hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory, either.
It was reported yesterday that Manchester United centre-half Leny Yoro has been banned from driving for six months after being caught driving at 72mph in a 30mph zone, past homes and a school, last August.
The 20-year-old Frenchman, who featured in United’s 1-0 win over Everton last night, pleaded guilty to the speeding and failing to identify the driver of the car. He was also fined £666 and ordered to pay £120 in costs, as well as a £266 victim surcharge.
Yoro was clocked driving at 72mph just after 4pm on 28 August on Mauldeth Road West in Withington, a stretch of road lined with homes, a sports club, and a secondary school.
View this post on Instagram
However, in a letter to the court penned by his lawyers, Yoro claimed that he was speeding because he was “rushing” to take a friend to the railway station, and that he believed he was unlikely to come into “contact with any vulnerable road users”.
Yoro’s lawyer Lisa Nevitt highlighted the defender’s “prompt guilty plea” and said he “would not seek to argue that he should not be disqualified”.
“He is not liable to a totting up disqualification but understands because of the speed involved that it is highly likely the court will impose a disqualification rather than penalty points,” she wrote.
“Our client would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the incident which came about as he was rushing to take a friend to the railway station.
“Our client further states that he believes where the speeding took place was at a point where the road was broad and there was little prospect of being any contact with any vulnerable road users such as pedestrians.”
Errr, probably best not to show the court this Instagram post from last week, then, eh Leny?
View this post on Instagram
I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure he’s learned his lesson.
Is this the “perfect endurance bike”?
On-course photo and video recording banned by Ironman
Endurance-loving content creators have taken a bit of a hit today, after it was announced that Ironman has updated its rules to prohibit any form of on-course photo or video recording, effectively banning the use of GoPros, bike cameras, smart glasses, run selfies (I know), and mid-race streaming.
Back in 2017, the triathlon organiser modified its rules to allow for the increasing ubiquity of smartwatches and phones. Competitors were allowed to carry these devices for tracking and data purposes, though they were banned from using them “distractive manner,” such as calling, texting, taking photos, or posting on social media.
However, under the new rules, this grey area has been removed, with all devices that can capture images or videos now banned under threat of disqualification.
Ironman says the revised rules are designed to “protect athlete safety, fairness, and the integrity of competition”, adding that recording devices can create distractions, compromise bike handling, or interfere with other competitors.
Cycle lanes done well
I know we focus on the negative side of cycling infrastructure quite a bit on the live blog (to be fair, there’s plenty of material to work with), but we should also give credit where it’s due.
Like Newham Council’s plant-astic Olympic Park cycleway, highlighted today by our old friend Laura Laker:
Kudos to Newham Council for delivering this fantastic cycleway in the Olympic Park, complete with rain gardens, and trees for shade
— Laura Laker (@lauralaker.bsky.social) February 24, 2026 at 9:04 AM
“The double standard: Endless acres for car parking. Space saving for bicycles”
Another disasterclass in terrible retail cycle parking facilities, this time from Ikea’s Croydon branch:
IKEA Croydon has loads of space for parking right by the store entrance.
Except they didn’t put it there, they put it here in a cramped spot away from the entrance with bolt down hoops.
— The Ranty Highwayman (@rantyhighwayman.bsky.social) February 19, 2026 at 1:58 PM
“We’ve been hit hard”: Organised crime gang steals “practically everything” from Barcelona e-bike brand’s warehouse in shocking overnight raid
A Barcelona-based electric bike brand has suffered a devastating burglary at its warehouse in Catalonia, LaBosch confirming more than 115 e-bikes were loaded onto a lorry by an organised crime gang during the overnight raid.
“Better late than never”: Dylan Groenewegen moved up from fourth to third in Clásica de Almería photo finish review… nine days after the race
I know cycling’s VAR system isn’t the quickest (another common trait we share with football), but this takes the biscuit.
This morning, the Unibet Rose Rockets announced that their sprinter Dylan Groenewegen has been upgraded from fourth to third at the Clásica de Almería, after officials reviewed the Spanish one-day race’s photo finish.
The weird bit? The Clásica de Almería took place nine days ago.
On 15 February, way back through the mists of time, Groenewegen was awarded fourth in an extremely tight bunch sprint, won by Binian Girmay, with Milan Fretin taking second, and Matteo Moschetti third. Or so we thought.
Unibet weren’t convinced by the commissaire’s decision, however, and appealed the result. And it paid off, the squad being told this morning by the race organisers, their extremely thorough review seemingly now complete, that their Dutch star’s sprint was worth a podium after all.
All third places at Spanish early-season one-day races come to those who wait, eh?
Meanwhile, the Rockets were up to their usual tricks on social media, posting an image of the Almería ‘podium’ with Groenewegen Photoshopped crudely on top of Pinarello-Q36.5’s now demoted Moschetti.
“So, Pinarello-Q36.5, you didn’t throw away those flowers already, right?” the team asked, though I think they’ll settle for the 10 extra UCI points.
Why don’t cyclists use the cycle lane? #732,871
Unfortunately, this New York ‘bike lane’ (if you can spot it) left it a bit late to be included in the Winter Olympics:
Can’t work out why no one is using this cycle lane
— Christopher Barrie (@cbarrie.bsky.social) February 23, 2026 at 7:33 PM
New cyclist visibility campaign launches (no, not really)
Another example of the kind of poster you’ll never see shared by a road safety campaign:
Quick Reference.
— Tom Flood (@tomflood.bsky.social) February 23, 2026 at 1:10 PM
Specialized and Trek among major bike brands suing US government to recover Trump tariff costs following Supreme Court ruling
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
49 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also 'be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.' It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast
@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.
Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?
@SVXY Ah, so it *is* the "flood the zone with shit" argumentation technique then? Or perhaps ... you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice? As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn't say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up - I don't think this is a direct summary of any law since "should" not "must"). Charitably I'm going with "*i* know what it says!" which as I noted many of people feel they do. Anyway away with you, I feel you've had your fill of attention for today.
Road tax was abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill because, as he said, "road tax makes motorists believe they are the moral owners of our roads." He got that right.
@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either
@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it's an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.
@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road
@chrisonabike maybe, but things that used to be banter & jokes in the 1960s/1970s have (thankfully) become socially unacceptable , and this is mostly because enough people spoke up about it. We even managed to make drink-driving a lot less acceptable, by the same means.
@Rendel Harris Yes, he was driving at 55mph in a 60mph road. The court verdict was he was not driving dangerously but carelessly eg he should have had his visor down to keep out the sun so he could monitor the road ahead.
49 thoughts on ““Make everyone else visible so drivers can be dangerous”: Road safety authority’s “insane” hi-vis campaign criticised for “forcing industry level PPE” on children cycling to school; Cyclists vs Footballers (again) + more on the live blog”
Per yesterday’s piece about report submissions to the police…
This clip on Cycling Mikey’s channel states:
“The public made 150,000 video allegations across England and Wales in the last year, and most were prosecuted/ 2/3rds from drivers with dashcams, and 1/3rd from cyclists and pedestrians.”
In the world of work life Health and Safety the Hierarchy of Risk Management Prioritises Elimination, Substitution, Engineering Controls, Admin Controls, PPE – PPE is the Least Effective. An Engineering Control would be something built into vehicles that prevent driving when the driver is drunk/drugged up, on the phone, driving too fast, or slow it when approaching a vulnerable road user etc. But moto-normativity leads us to wrap up the non-drivers in brightly coloured clothing and make it illegal for them to go outside if not.
I’m always astonished when people reverse H&S principles for driving. It’s been going on since the dawn of the motor vehicle age though, it’s the victim’s fault for walking/cycling in the wrong place at the wrong time and for not being covered in flashing lasers.
I finally got on to LBC two days ago, when they were talking about hi-viz and helmets, and put my point that both are victim-blaming and that helmets didn’t reduce the death rate of cyclists. It got the usual responses of “my mate’s helmet shattered and it must have saved his life” and “If it saves just one life….”
I once misjudged my braking [/skidding] distance when setting off from lights behind an artic that then stopped again sooner than I could.
It was my fault.
My head hit the stop bar of the trailer (I’m calling it the stop bar because that’s what it does to absolutely anything other than another artic that hits the back of an artic).
I was wearing a helmet. I am fairly convinced from the features of the stop bar that my helmet prevented lacerations and surface bruising. I still suffered from a bit neck ache. It didn’t deform. It didn’t save my life.
The driver was uninjured 😉
It didn’t save my life, but I’d still recommend wearing a helmet, because there are minor impacts that can be mitigated to little or no injury with one. It might mitigate more serious impacts, but it cannot have more than superficial influence in more significant impacts.
It is not possible for any individual
To that end, it should not be used as a means to mitigate the responsibility of a driver or other agent causing an impact if the cyclist is not wearing one. I would like to see legislation to the effect that the fact of a cyclist not wearing a helmet should not be used to mitigate the liability of a driver who has hit them, and the Highway Code advice to wear one modified accordingly.
That HC advice should really be saying (and parties to a collision should be inferring) no more than what I have said: a helmet might help, and you might like to consider the use of one; but there is no presumption that it will, nor should you be, or feel, obliged to wear one.
Oh. Left my draft unfinished…
* “It is not possible for any individual…” to say that a helmet saved their life. It’s supposed to deform and break in the event of significant impact. If it didn’t, the energy wouldn’t be dissipated around the head. That doesn’t mean it made the difference between fatal and non-fatal injury – especially if the casualty ended up with little to no injury as a result.
At the very top of the hierarchy would be separation of cyclists and motor vehicles, or reduction of car journeys. Safety features fitted to cars, while better than PPE, could fail or be override.
“According to the Hi Glo Silver Pledge, children in Ireland’s schools sign up to the following (not legally binding, I assume) agreement: “When I walk or cycle, night or day, after school or when I go to play, I promise to make sure that I am seen, in reflective clothing that is bright orange, yellow, or green.””
This is actually quite dark.
How about,
“When I drive I’ll use my lights, ‘cos unlike the dim drivers I’m quite bright,
I look out for others because I should and, erm,
the end.”
Whenever I drive my overlarge car
I’ll make sure I know where people are
And make it all the way safely home
By putting away my goddamn phone!
[Stupid comment editor – ignoring line breaks :o( ]
“I promise to make sure that I am seen…” Good luck with that. Hi viz doesn’t work for stupid and inobservant, as we all know.
I will make sure that pedestrians are missed, by not driving home from the pub while pissed!
Are there traits of devout Catholicism in the hi Viz statement?
And what is wrong with him Viz pink?
Hi Viz pink.
I think people are making errors deliberally now!
debiliary
Delibrary
on purpose!
The RSA is _obsessed_ with hiviz. They regularly have campaigns giving out hiviz to pedestrians, to school kids.
I am convinced someone high up in the RSA is very good buddies with a hiviz vendor, and is funneling the government money to them in return for kick-backs. Only way to explain the insane level of obsession RSA has with neon-yellow plastic.
And it’s not just the RSA, most Irish motorists believe that if they are barrelling down country roads, in the dark, in the lashing rain, travelling much faster than they can stop in the distance they can see, that if they encounter a pedestrian and only just miss that pedestrian, then it was _the pedestrian’s fault_ the driver didn’t see them in time cause they weren’t wearing high viz. Just check out the number of comments in this insane reddit post backing the bonkers driving of the OP:
Shite driving and victim blaming is utterly normalised now.
Hi-viz makes no difference if drivers do not bother to look and simply use so called “cycle lane” markings as the give way line.
My size and large orange hi-viz vest is visible in the reflection of this driver’s right side window.
The clip does not clearly show her mild shock at seeing me so close.
To keeps things even handed, how about mandating that all motorised vehicles must be painted fluorescent yellow at the same time as mandating that all cyclists and pedestrians must wear hi-viz clothing? That way all road users are treated equally…
Hi-vis is so effective that any SMIDSY, close pass, failure to give priority etc etc will then be presumed to be deliberate intent and charged accordingly?
I would very much hope so but depressingly know that won’t even come close to happening.
Yoro definitely has not learned his lesson.
“…72mph in a 30mph zone, past homes and a school…”
Given this sort of driving would lead to straight driving test failure, coupled with the attitude:
“…he believed he was unlikely to come into “contact with any vulnerable road users”.”
“He was also fined £666 and ordered to pay £120 in costs, as well as a £266 victim surcharge.”
Given his status how long would it take him to “earn” those amounts, alongside having to pay someone else to drive him around and any increase in car insured premiums?
Not long, I’m guessing.
The only thing that might lead people like this to think twice is a life-long driving ban, or as I advocate: loss of taste buds and libido.
His attitude is further shown by publishing a photos of himself using his the wheel knowing it is illegal.
A big middle finger to the law.
Using his phone at the wheel.
No, you can’t retrospectively try to edit your post, that is no longer allowed. You have to stand by what you initially post however bad your misteaks!
Clam down! Its only an eejiting function.
Look how cute and tiny level 4 replies are! So small that it looks like there’s no option to reply any further.
Much as it goes against the grain to defend Mr Yoro, who is clearly a cockwomble of the 1st degree, but there’s actually nothing in that picture to show that he hasn’t pulled over and is using his phone while stationary and with the engine off.
Possibly not.
But why post a pic like that with no commentary or distinguishing features indicating his location or reason for it?
Also he is, I hesitate to say, a “role model”, to many of his fans who may not know the legal intricacies of phone use behind the wheel (in traffic v stopped) so may think it is ok to do it themselves while driving.
Plenty of distinguishing features to identify the place including “Dubai, UAE” right at the top of that Insta post. And using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in Dubai and across the UAE.
Given that he is holding his hand on the steering wheel while controls on the central panel, including the driving mode selector, are illuminated, it is highly doubtful that the car is parked with the engine off.
Being at a loose end I actually did check out the car he is driving (Lamborghini Ursus), in that picture he has it in urban mode which means that the engine stops when the car is stationary, so he could be pulled over with the engine off even though the controls are illuminated. With reference to your other point about him being in Dubai, yes they have strict mobile phone laws but also the same proviso as ours that it is permissible to use a mobile phone from the driver’s seat provided the driver has pulled over and switched off the engine.
None of this, of course, is an attempt to excuse the offence he committed in the UK nor to claim that he is anything other than a complete cockwomble.
Seeing as his car is probably a gold wrapped Hummer or G Wagon, it would appear that his taste mechanisms have been out of action for some time.
It’s a Lambo Urus.
If Yoro has a crystal ball to see into the future, why isn’t he Man Utd’s best player by a mile?
Surely you mean “why is he still playing for Man U?”
Unless he acquired it in the last year and a half, wouldn’t it be “why did he sign for Man U in the first place?”
So what have we learned about this delinquent (juvenile?), who, while hugely over-compensated for his ability to hoof a pig’s bladder up and down a field, couldn’t care less.
The fine probably amounts to an evening out, and the points etc will be applied to a ‘ghost licence’, if he’s still using a French licence, which I am sure he will exchange when legally obliged to.
I am pretty sure that if he had been caught in France for the same offence, the vehicle would have been impounded, and licence withdrawn with immediate effect.
That children’s pledge poster looks like something from Scarfolk
[imghttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgur4PXFK52B9jdsypNSAvhzxGqL18bTlpjMShHR7-6oudqQNz36RVmzabRW-yl1766nmEucnSyhAhWfR7ed2G4HHjE6TKpfLlMnVNu_AZSsRRe608K5ZRsE9GctszOuRaj33bun0ymJvf-/s1600/fire_www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg[/img]
Where’s the edit button
And not at all to protect the exclusivity of their IP now that Rouvy’s allowing people to upload their own courses again, oh no….
Will they be painting them an attractive shade of pink? Or have they been growing them off the coast (which might explain the lengthy delivery time)?
Who has interest in promoting and pushing for the hi-viz fashion apart from the state that collects extra sales tax and importers/distributors of hi-viz gear? Always follow the money trail.
The RSA midleading narrative might create a false sense of safety creates a among children who wear fluorescent jackets, pants, gloves, … In broad daylight, with or without a high visibility jacket, an inattentive and/or reckless driver causes the same bodily damage.
Re Yoro
There was little prospect of a collision but I note he is wearing a seat belt in the picture. OK to take risks with other peoples lives but not your own?
> The Shoreham-By-Cycle group posted on Facebook today. “So it’s brilliant to see our application finally taking shape, in the form of these new ‘bike corals’.
Corral (two r’s) is the word they’re looking for, as in Gunfight At. Granted, it’s pleasant to imagine a tropical reef slowly forming over a submerged bike.
Re. Hi Viz. Don’t think it should be made compulsory, but it’s certainly something to be encouraged, especially in the rainy weather we’re having now.