Police close pass campaign met with the usual 'but cyclists' complaints; Cycling dictator back on the bike; Don't text while cycling; Is this the coolest jersey money can buy?; Fabio Jakobsen is back; Vote for Jumbo-Visma Tour kit + more on the live blog

I turned into the wrong drive and hit a van that shouldn't have been parked there.

hirsute wrote:

I turned into the wrong drive and hit a van that shouldn't have been parked there.

I think the Jasper Carrot quote was "I inadvertently turned into the wrong drive and hit a tree I haven't got".  

Do you reckon that was a real event, though, or just a comedy set-up for the likes?

You're right: the insurance avenue is a dead end, or a red herring. Perhaps a dead herring. Smells fishy, anyway.

Some interesting comparisons though:

• Typical houshold liability insurance cover (inc. if I'm on a bike):  £5m
• CyclingUK membership liability insurance cover: £10m
• British Cycling membership liability insurance cover: £15m
• Road Traffic Act minimum motor vehicle insurance cover ('RTA' insurance*): £1m

(* This is the minimum insurance cover that a motorist is required to have for damage to property; injury/death is unlimited.)

So, if the insurance can be stacked, I typically pedal out with 30x the cover a motorist is required to have, at no additional premium cost to me.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I find it difficult to comprehend that someone is able justify willfully dangerous driving around person A (who happens to be riding a bicycle) on account of they once saw (or heard about) Person B doing something illegal on a bicycle.

And yet people do it all the time.

In most arguments about cycling, in my experience it is the first subject to come up ("You're complaining about being close-passed on the road?  Well, only last week somebody passed me on a shared-use path at high speed!  No, my dog wasn't on a lead, but why is that relevant...?")

The same would work in South London. in fact, setting off from my house taking my usual commute, if you count going over the ASL into the cycle zone, they'll see more cars going through red lights at the very first t junction we encounter than they'll see cyclists doing so combined for the rest of the route there and back.  

Then you also had the one that maybe the cyclist had undercut the car at some lights. The Police have stated it was stills from a video clip of an exceedingly close pass and still people are arguign the the pics don't give the story. Although as others on there have pointed out, the Police didn't state what prosecution was done against this motorist which might have either hammered home the seriousness or the offence or the actual care most Police actually take in these situations. 

I did like the one who couldn't work out whether the twitter photo was showing the front or back wheel of the bike...

It was a unicycle !

Velophaart_95 wrote:

If they can't be bothered to read it, maybe we need public information films on prime time TV.

Daytime TV for this demographic I would have thought - and perhaps the darkest corners of Facebook.

HoarseMann wrote:

Velophaart_95 wrote:

If they can't be bothered to read it, maybe we need public information films on prime time TV.

Daytime TV for this demographic I would have thought - and perhaps the darkest corners of Facebook.

That's a bit unfair.  Maybe prime time on Channel 5...?

I've got a new TV format

"How to understand the Highway Code and drive better"

I reckon it's 8pm of Channel 5. Now who's going to host it?

IanMK wrote:

I've got a new TV format

"How to understand the Highway Code and drive better"

I reckon it's 8pm of Channel 5. Now who's going to host it?

Nick Ferrari and Lawrence Fox.....

IanMK wrote:

I've got a new TV format

"How to understand the Highway Code and drive better"

I reckon it's 8pm of Channel 5. Now who's going to host it?

I don't know, but I bet it would be narrated by John Thomson or Jamie Theakston...

My vote would be for John "wrong'uns" Thompson.

"The Highway Code, but how many know what's in it? Very few, I reckon; which is why we hear complaints from drivers "
I could not agree more. At a (pre lockdown) family get together I mentioned the 1.5m rule. A relative was unaware and genuinely shocked that this was the law. Guess what she drives? A sodding huge Rangerover!

To be clear, it's not the law.  I think many people would like it to be, but it isn't.

(The law simply says something like "give as much room as you would when passing another car" which is kind of meaningless...).

brooksby wrote:

To be clear, it's not the law.  I think many people would like it to be, but it isn't.

(The law simply says something like "give as much room as you would when passing another car" which is kind of meaningless...).

I'm not sure the law even says that. The Highway Code says it, but it's a SHOULD, rather than a MUST, so doesn't appear to be based on a legal requirement.

But it is a rule in Ireland and many other European countries. The highway code is being reviewed at the moment. The consultation finished Oct 2020. One of the proposals is :

"give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:

─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph

─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

─ for a large vehicle, leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres in all conditions

─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 15 mph and allow at least 2.0 metres space

─ allow at least 2.0 metres space where a pedestrian is walking in the road (e.g. where there is no pavement) and you should pass them at low speed"

This is where the 1.5m comes from but it is not yet in the highway code and I suspect is the reason so many police forces find it difficult to prosecute close passes.

As usual the government doesn't seem to be any rush to get this change made.

Remember how long it took to get seat belt wearing to be accepted? And that was the law, and it was manifestly for their own good.

Still it took a hard hitting emotive campaign on our TV screens, at a time when there were only two other channels to watch.

So what chance is there for safe-passing cyclists, with the occasional 'jobsworths' reading the Highway Code at you? (no disrespect to the police only doing their best here).

Most drivers don't have a problem with it. That's one thing I look out for when looking at my cam footage when deciding whether to submit a close pass or not. There's typically good overtakes by lots of vehicles and then a noticeable difference with the poorly skilled driver not changing their line to give me room.

A lot of drivers will tend to copy how other drivers behave and the majority are careful and considerate. It's just a matter of getting through to the minority who don't understand why their driving is so sub-standard.

Absolutely, it's only a very small minority of drivers, most are golden. It's not even all the close passes, some would be mortified by the consequences of their own lapse of competence.

It's the ones who know exactly what they are doing and feel justified, would be happy to tell anyone listening down the pub about the idiot cyclists they'd just had to educate, again.

But given the numbers, a very small percentage still means too many.

Sriracha wrote:

Remember how long it took to get seat belt wearing to be accepted? And that was the law, and it was manifestly for their own good. Still it took a hard hitting emotive campaign on our TV screens, at a time when there were only two other channels to watch.

God bless Jimmy Savile.