Mr Loophole fury at perfectly legal two abreast cyclists "riding with impunity" (+ Surrey traffic cops aren't impressed); Cattle grid conundrum; Van Aert hopes to make peace with Remco; Josh Quigley set for round the world finale + more on the live blog

Garage at Large wrote:

New rules won't make any difference, as clearly they were not "considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups".

"considerate of the needs of other road users" does not mean, "get out of their way".  "Consider" doesn't mean "yield to".

Considering others' needs implicitly requires a road user to consider their own needs and balance accordingly. I don't mean some fake argument about Freeman & co rushing to some conveniently important appointment, I mean weighing the inalienable right of each party to use the way as of right.

It is not incumbent on road users to get out of the way, just because somebody else wants to go faster.  There is a right of way along the road, not a right of speed.  And that right of way does not equate to priority - if it did, the priority arising from the legal duty of care rests with the vehicle users (cyclists) in front.  If somebody in a car behind does have an urgent appointment, the general advice is to set out leaving good time allowing for things that might slow down your journey.  

The cyclists have every expectation of the same consideration in return.

And since there is nowhere for them to go that would enable safe passing on this section of road, the prevailing speed of the traffic will be 20mph for the time being.

In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman's driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.

GMBasix wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

New rules won't make any difference, as clearly they were not "considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups".

"considerate of the needs of other road users" does not mean, "get out of their way".  "Consider" doesn't mean "yield to".

Considering others' needs implicitly requires a road user to consider their own needs and balance accordingly. I don't mean some fake argument about Freeman & co rushing to some conveniently important appointment, I mean weighing the inalienable right of each party to use the way as of right.

It is not incumbent on road users to get out of the way, just because somebody else wants to go faster.  There is a right of way along the road, not a right of speed.  And that right of way does not equate to priority - if it did, the priority arising from the legal duty of care rests with the vehicle users (cyclists) in front.  If somebody in a car behind does have an urgent appointment, the general advice is to set out leaving good time allowing for things that might slow down your journey.  

The cyclists have every expectation of the same consideration in return.

And since there is nowhere for them to go that would enable safe passing on this section of road, the prevailing speed of the traffic will be 20mph for the time being.

In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman's driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.

Spot on.

The list of "Needs of Others" in this situation would be topped with Safety, with Safety a close second, followed then by Safety.

"Get outta my facking way so I can get to the queue at the next junction first and grind my teeth as I watch you filter past" is an entitled want, not a need....

Captain Badger wrote:

Spot on.

The list of "Needs of Others" in this situation would be topped with Safety, with Safety a close second, followed then by Safety.

"Get outta my facking way so I can get to the queue at the next junction first and grind my teeth as I watch you filter past" is an entitled want, not a need....

I believe the case law for tractors would apply;

Consideration is pulling over where safe when significant traffic builds up behind; Where safe having been determined for tractors to be laybys as anything else could be tresspass and you can't guarantee surface quality, visibility lines, sufficient room etc so don't know if it is safe to pull in (or rejoin afterwards). So for example farm field entrances DON'T qualify.

I was once walking with my wife on a very narrow country lane. An old lady, probably mid-70s or older was making a hash of reversing out of her drive else we might have waited. A couple of minutes later she came up behind us. I said to my wife: keep going as there isn't anywhere safe to stand at the side.

The woman revved and as I turned round to give her my best Paddington stare, she drove at me. In one of those stupid moments, I stood my ground, though in truth there was nowhere other than Hawthorne to hurl myself. After a face off, she wound her window down, and she berated me for not stepping aside to let her pass. I explained I was not prepared to clamber up a slippery verge to do so and risk slipping down in front of her, so she would just have to wait till I got to a suitable point. She seemed to think this was entirely unreasonable, and indeed declared I was rude (as opposed to her polite use of a car as a battering ram) but didn't really have a choice.

What really p*ssed me off is that when there was a widening and I stepped to one side, it turned out to be about 6" of mud caused by cars running off the tarmac, so I got wet boots anyway.

GMBasix wrote:

In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman's driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.

Not forgetting that there is no mandate against crossing lines, unless they are double lines with a solid line on your side.

The line exists so that WHEN vehicles are passing in opposite directions, each driver knows how much space they have priority in. when nothing is coming the other way use of the whole road is fine, indeed desirable in the case of overtaking.

wycombewheeler wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman's driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.

Not forgetting that there is no mandate against crossing lines, unless they are double lines with a solid line on your side.

The line exists so that WHEN vehicles are passing in opposite directions, each driver knows how much space they have priority in. when nothing is coming the other way use of the whole road is fine, indeed desirable in the case of overtaking.

Fine, but less than necessary and far from ideal on a bend where ther fence creates reduced visibility of oncoming traffic.  If something comes the other way, the driver has the task of swerving quickly onto their own side of the line.  Moreover, advanced driving would take the outer line of the bend to make effective use of sight lines.  A good driver would tend to be over to the left (subject to other road users) on a right-hand bend and vice versa. Basically, and without overdoing the comment, it's just a bit slioppy and telling of the entitled gammon attitude expressed in the video.

A word on priority. Very few signs or road markings actually give or imply priority to anybody; they state the opposite: that the road user has a duty to give way to other road users.  Giving priority to road users is risky, because it leads to entitlement and an attitude that ploughs on regardless.  The one exception I can think of is diagram 811 from the TSRGD.  In the video, the driver did not have priority over anybody in view.

I thought the siight lines in this case were ptretty good, given that the fence is mostly see through

There are a lot of verticals in the fence that could mask a lot of smaller elements on the road, such as a pedestrian that an oncoming vehicle would have to negotiate.  Admittedly the video quality is not good, but I can't make out the cyclists through the fence.

Even assuming you can see through the fence irl, the sight line is limited to the coniferous tree, which excludes a view of anything approaching the bend and which may be travelling faster.

Garage at Large wrote:

New rules won't make any difference, as clearly they were not "considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups".

"when you feel it is safe ot do so"

which clearly would not have applied to the clip in question, because there was no place in that footage where a car could safely have passed a single line of 7 cyclists

Garage at Large wrote:

New rules won't make any difference, as clearly they were not "considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups".

nor were the motorists considerate of the needs of other road users. 

sean1 wrote:

The soon to be introduced Highway Code amendments can be viewed here:

Highway Code Amendments

This is the revision to Rule 66 and riding in groups:

"be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so"

So both MR LoopHole and our beloved Nigel are going to go ballistic when they read this.

Also worth pointing out that this is only guidance and not legally enforceable.

And this is how it will actually stick in the minds of loopholier-than-thou types and the ABD:

"be considerate of the needs of other road users CAR DRIVERS when riding in groups. [blah-blah-blah-unimportant-waffle]... Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so IMMEDIATELY WE [I mean car drivers] APPEAR"

I agree.

The phrase "be considerate" will be interpreted without question by the petrol heads of this world as meaning  "get out of my way now....".

I am not keen on the wording around "stopping when safe to do so".

This will be argued that it is always safe to stop so by definition cyclists should stop immediately and get out of the way when a car is behind them.

At least the trope of "riding two abreast is illegal" is clearly addressed here and emphasised as being both legal and safe.

sean1 wrote:

I agree.

The phrase "be considerate" will be interpreted without question by the petrol heads of this world as meaning  "get out of my way now....".

I am not keen on the wording around "stopping when safe to do so".

This will be argued that it is always safe to stop so by definition cyclists should stop immediately and get out of the way when a car is behind them.

At least the trope of "riding two abreast is illegal" is clearly addressed here and emphasised as being both legal and safe.

None of this means anything until behaviour changes in reality. That will take time since there's little enforcement against most law breaking by drivers. (Pavement parking anyone?). There are also no "refreshers" for motorists and it's likely these changes will be brought in without huge fanfare e.g. no campaigns with this across the national media.

I agree this will be interpreted in favour of the defence (the driver). However that's not news as there's already a general bias in their favour operating in the courts. That's because most people drive, driving is the "normal" mode and far fewer have much road cycling experience - or know people who do so. But you can clearly fall back on "but it says 'when you feel it is safe to let them do so' " though. So the wording there - at least - is favourable.

sean1 wrote:

I am not keen on the wording around "stopping when safe to do so".

We have to be clear, when challenged, that the rules is, "... allow them to overtake... when [the cyclists] feel it is safe to do so"

peted76 wrote:

Ref those Lawyer scumbag posts @SurreyRoadCops are on fire at the moment!! 

In fact all the comments are on fire, that's one of the 'funnest' tweets I've perused for some time.

Renault Kipling said it best:

If you're chain-ganging the highway
Or you're making an attack -
Know you must get out of my way
When my car is at your back.
You could single out or pull in
(For that choice is up to you).
Legality's irrelevant
When I want to get through.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I take back some of my previous comments about Nick Freeman, from this video and accompanying commentary it appears that he does not know traffic law as well as his reputation suggests, with respect to cycling at any rate.

As his name implies, he only knows about loopholes, not laws.

Garage at Large wrote:

However, there are other means to ensure this kind of antisocial behaviour is discouraged

Absolutely right.  We should take his phone away from him and his mummy should restrict his access to the internet.

road is not narrow (narrow roads tend not to have centre lines), road is not busy, there is nothing coming the other way for the entire duration of the film, and likely only two cars behind the cyclists, or else your mancrush would have demonstrated the long line of cars behind in the video.

cycling single file would not enable any cars to overtake here, infact as the group would now be twice as long it would be harder.

The car in front is a particularly small car and still fills nearly the entire lane. so there is no way any car could share the lane with the cyclists even for a dangerous pass.

Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll......

Wow - that's a lot of fuckwittery to unpack this early in the morning, Nige.

For the record - those cyclists aren't more than two abreast, and the road is neither narrow nor busy, so they don't have to drop to single file to ride round the bends, plus, at no point in this clip would it have been possible to overtake them even if they were in single file. Given the road conditions, I doubt very much the driver would've been able to get near 60mph either. 

Calling what they're doing - like every other driver moron - 'antisocial' despite it being perfectly legal is basically hate speech, to say nothing of the fact that you think Freeman is a 'road safety expert'. No he is not. He helps drviers get away with breaking the law, and that's it. (BTW, he says '60mph derestricted road', which doesn't exist - top 'lawyering' that)

Maybe you could get your Mum to make your breakfast a bit earlier in the morning, so you don't show up firing on no cylinders. As usual.

Garage at Large wrote:

...and one which I've shared with my mum.

your mum?

Argos74 wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

...and one which I've shared with my mum.

your mum?

yo momma....

Captain Badger wrote:

yo momma....

Yo momma's so classless, she's a Marxist utopia

Captain Badger wrote:

Argos74 wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

...and one which I've shared with my mum.

your mum?

yo momma....

Yo momma's so fat, she will have to ride at the front of every peloton so as to not block motorists' view of the other riders.