After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Add new comment
15 comments
I think that a compulsory part of the test should be virtual/VR. Covering all sorts of hazards, including cyclists, children running across the road, someone with a buggy waiting to cross a side road whilst you are turning etc.
Then, following the test, the VR re-runs with you in each of the hazard roles so you experience what it is like to be the recipient of your own driving.
It won't do much for the hard-core murderous back-end on our roads but I do think it could be a genuine wake-up call for the inadvertently shitty motorists.
Great idea! Haven't we been doing this for some time already though?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DcnkOeslA
Some people will just take the chance that on the day the witness won't turn up in court and no further action will be taken.
Yes, I've had two switch to guilty pleas simply because I showed up - something which, unless a convincing mitigating explanation can be presented, ought surely as a minimum to incur extra financial penalties to compensate for waste of court and CPS time.
I've had two switch to guilty pleas simply because I showed up
You were lucky! In Lancashire we dream of having the opportunity to turn up in court!!
A BMW driver!!! What a shock!
Is BMW an acronym for Bloody Move Wanker?
Surprised it wasn't rejected due to the 'filter', after all 'footage upside down' was used by northhants police.
I'm presuming the driver was shown the video evidence - and still pleaded not guilty? I understand that a "it's a fair cop" plea often attracts a more lenient sentence, so let's hope this idiot got the appropriate mark-up for their stubborn arrogance.
Well done, WMP! This illustrates the difficulties experienced by those of us in areas with cyclist-hostile constabularies. Lancashire has never prosecuted anyone for close-passing or performed any 'close-passing operations', and this one received no response and (obviously) no action despite being very close, not slow and accompanied by crossing of the double white line in a dangerous position on a humped bridge. This is DU61 VHJ- Stuart and Braithwaite builders in Garstang
As per @markandcharlie (Twitter) on reporting to WMP: "the only time people who submit get feedback is if there's a court case, same as ourselves, traffic officers, hopefully that will change in time"
So no feedback doesn't mean no action, just no court case.
This is something @mark&charlie are looking at following a Twitter conversation. I did offer some time to assist with responding but apparently the matter is in hand.
And the dumb a55' pleaded not guilty, clearly demonstrating ZERO knowledge of the Highway Code. Should have had his licence confiscated.
Indeed. It's worrying that they plainly thought they'd done nothing wrong.
Just sheer arrogance and not at all surprising.
Unfortunately, I think a significant number of motorists would view that footage and say "I don't see what the problem is". The real issue is that many drivers have not cycled on a road with modern traffic...and so simply cannot comprehend why close passing someone (who clearly should not be in the road in the first place) is something worth shouting about.