“It’s not like we’re breathing exhaust pipes every day”: Tadej Pogačar confirms carbon monoxide rebreather test (+ reacts to ‘Mou’ team mole rumours); “A massive failure”: Cyclists organise solidarity ride calling for safer roads + more on the live blog

I like how the BBC have stated how many hours 'driver delays' the protest caused.  I wonder if they can do the same for the hours of life lost for deaths on the road, for example 1 person's life cut short by 30 years, thats over 260,000 hours lost.

Or how many hours of 'driver delays' drivers cause. Just thinking about the time I spent three hours on the Severn Bridge last time I tried to drive to Chelt. Or the time it took me nearly 12 hours to get fron Newport to Swansea the year berfore.

The delays these protests cause is irrelevant compared to the delays caused by "I only need to go half a mile down the road, I'll grab my car keys".

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Or how many hours of 'driver delays' drivers cause. Just thinking about the time I spent three hours on the Severn Bridge last time I tried to drive to Chelt. Or the time it took me nearly 12 hours to get fron Newport to Swansea the year berfore.

This afternoon the local paper reported 4 miles of tailbacks and a 60-minute delay after a car fire closed a lane on the M54. There had been a less disruptive car fire on the same road this morning.

Also this morning the A41-to-A49 roundabout near Whitchurch was closed from 5am after a lorry trailer became detached while a little later a 3-car collision on the A41 closed this notorious road at Hinstock, with 2 occupants suffering "potentially serious injuries".

Shrewsbury town centre has more than its share of bottleneck junctions. Drivers must waste so much time trying to use the town centre streets as a shortcut. I was told that the High Street was at a standstill at lunchtime. I happened to be in the town centre just before 5pm (cycling, of course) and found a long stationary queue then as well. Apparently there were still queues near Welsh Bridge at 6.30pm. Madness!

All these drivers want to blame someone or something else for the queue but the plain fact of the matter is that every single vehicle is contributing to the problem.

Oh no! Don't tell me the market is overheating, with high transfer fees for the prized most highly anti-cyclist and pro-motorist officers?

At least they didn't "lose" it like they did to this report I sent in. 

The mad thing is that it shouldn't matter if they lose it. I wouldn't expect to murder someone, steal from or assault someone and then turn around and say "well, its been a few months since I 'apparently' killed them so you can't do me for it". 

Somehow thats how it works in driving related crime. 

How close does a driver need to get ?

Much closer, if there are indeed 'ringers' working there on transfer from Lancashire- don't forget these are (in the words of Indiana Jones and the Ark of the Covenant) Top Men, trained since recruitment under the stringent '2 O-Levels or Less' criterion to ignore even hitting a cyclist while driving down the wrong side of the road and to claim it was 'only a momentary loss of concentration'. They ignored this Sainsbury's 44 tonner driver, so they would have no trouble binning any close pass report from some whingeing Essex cyclist who hasn't even been KSI'd, or phone offence, or unbroken white line offence, or red light offence, or No MOT offence etc. etc

On the plus side they're still publishing numbers, I've not seen anything out of Suffolk, not even a local press round up article, for going on two years now

Here is a still from a report in Gloucestershire.

NFA but the PC did see fit to explain the decision. A return to feedback after a year of hearing nothing from any of my reports during 2023.

Quote:

Thank you for your submission to Op Snap

I have reviewed the two clips submitted. While I believe it probable that the vehicle passed less than 2 metres from you there is no offence of ‘close pass’ in law.

I have considered the offence careless/inconsiderate driving and in doing so have applied the evidential test as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, relevant case law and the Directors Guidance on charging (sixth edition). I do not believe the evidential test is made out in this case and have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of conviction. No further action will be taken.

I appreciate this will not be the outcome you wanted. Every case submitted to Op Snap is reviewed in the same way and the outcome determined on the available evidence. Please do not be put off making further submissions as you feel warranted.

Here is my reply

Quote:

Thank you for getting back to me. You are correct that I am disappointed.

Had I moved out slightly to avoid a pothole I would have been dead but thank you for explaining your decision, it is much appreciated.

I understand you have to work within the constraints of the law but I would question whether the law is sensible if nothing can be done about the driving I experienced as a vulnerable road user on this occasion.

Thank you again.

And here is another email I got from a different PC but for the other close pass a few seconds earlier

Quote:

Thank you for the above submission to OP SNAP.

I have reviewed your submission and I believe that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

As you may know there is no offence of ‘close pass’, the changes to the Highway Code did not create any new offences. We must therefore consider existing road traffic offences, in this case careless or inconsiderate driving. We must consider the available evidence against the charging standards for that offence and the Full Code Test as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors as well as the Directors Guidance on Charging (Sixth Edition).

To instigate prosecution I need to believe there to be a realistic prospect of conviction if the matter was to go to trial, in this instance I do not believe that to be the case.

Specifically, the vehicle speed cannot be judged, the distance between the vehicle and yourself passed may be less than set out in the Highway Code but could not be proved. Our role is to review each incident on the available evidence against the tests set out.

Yes, that's the way they do it. As far as most PCs involved in OpSnap are concerned, it is impossible to prove to his satisfaction that a pass is too close. They begin with that conclusion, cut and paste in the standard letter, alter a few words- job done! When the driver actually hits you, you're either KSI'd in which case: job done again, because the only witness is the driver who did it- who is unharmed and our thoughts and prayers go out to him for having to live with it- or you're OK in which case there's still no problem and you must have done something wrong or it wouldn't have happened. The quality of evidence doesn't matter to them, they'll still think of something really stupid to say about it. If they really can't think of a way to dispute the closeness, or blame the cyclist, then they resort to not responding for a couple of weeks or years and blaming pressure of work

That never made much sense to me because surely they were just moving the helium from one place to another, which would not affect their weight at all?

A balloon would be a bad idea, the aerodynamic drag even at climbing speeds would offset any reduction in weight. According to tinternet 1 litre of helium at atmospheric pressure will lift about 1g, so you need a large volume that would be aerodynamic and not noticeable to the officials/ your rivals.

CO is highly toxic, so I would assume that the levels introduced into the body during one of these tests is minute, you wouldn't do it every day and as a result the body would not have the drive to adapt (at least not to a significant level compared to the effect of sleeping/ training at altitude).

My understanding is that the time it takes to get rid of it is depedent on the amount of oxygen you are breathing in, so getting rid of the CO at altitude would take longer than at sea level.

CO is highly toxic

Yes and no! The dimwit smokers will have levels of carbonmonoxyHb up to 10%

This is a complete non story. The test involves taking a short breath of CO. It has no effect on red cell count and due to the toxicity of CO is restricted to a single breath.

The circumstances aren't merely that Pog is winning, but that up certain climbs he has demolished the times of riders of doping eras past.

The situation is that the sport has completely changed in basically every single way since those days. Training, diet, nutrition on and off the bike, equipment, tactics. Something as simple as fuelling on the bike makes a monstrous difference. I would love to see what would happen if we took a modern athlete and doped them up to the levels those guys were. 

mctrials23 wrote:

The situation is that the sport has completely changed in basically every single way since those days. Training, diet, nutrition on and off the bike, equipment, tactics. Something as simple as fuelling on the bike makes a monstrous difference. I would love to see what would happen if we took a modern athlete and doped them up to the levels those guys were. 

Pantani's bike was probably 300g, perhaps closer to 0.5 kg, lighter than Pog's.

Paul J wrote:

Pantani's bike was probably 300g, perhaps closer to 0.5 kg, lighter than Pog's.

Interesting comparison here:
https://road.cc/content/feature/pantanis-1998-bianchi-vs-pogacars-2024-c...

The questioning is entirely legitimate given the sport's long history of doping. If nothing else then hopefully it reminds riders to stay honest and clean.

NickSprink wrote:

Remember that Pog was 7' 23" down on the stage winner yesterday, so not exactly blistering.

Hardly relevant, even Armstrong would let a breakaway go when it suited him. I'm a huge fan of Pogacar and don't believe he is doping but the fact that he finished down on the breakaway on what was effectively an armistice day for the GC contenders doesn't prove anything.