“Safe cycling, illegal and dangerous driving”: Motorist lambasts cyclists for riding two abreast – while filming them on his phone; Police accused of victimising cyclists and spreading “misinformation” over “dark clothing” post + more on the live blog

Except that if the cyclelane really did need gritting he'd be wearing big gloves...

ktache wrote:

Except that if the cyclelane really did need gritting he'd be wearing big gloves...

I was out at just below freezing yesterday, and had my gloves off for a bit of the ride. No problem with enough layers and heat output if you don't suffer from Raynaud's.

I have full HD footage of a bottle being thrown out of a car window and in to the group i was a member of.

Car number plate is readable, no mistaken id as it's the only vehicle on the road other than us, and the bottle can be clearly traced in the video coming from the car.

Police Scotland did not make any prosecution as "the driver couldn't remember the incident".

I'd have put in an official complaint asking if the same "defence" could be used for any other crime up to and including murder.

Police Scotland's response is no doubt disappointing, but I can see where they are coming from legally. 

Whilst the number plate might be clearly legible, that only identifies the vehicle/registered keeper, and potentially the registered keeper could be compelled to identify the driver (although it does depend on the offence under investigation).

However, I'm assuming the bottle was thrown by a passenger as is normally the case in these sorts of incidents? Unfortunately, the police would struggle to bring a prosecution against the driver (possibly there could be an argument for joint enterprise, but unless it is obvious that the driver deliberately aided the passenger I don't think that's likely to go anywhere). The police also have no power to compel the driver (or registered keeper) to provide any further information or the name of the passenger.

"I can't remember" is therefore, for all intents and purposes, the same as "no comment" (which unfortunately is often a sufficient defence against all sorts of crime). 

No problem with the driver getting close to commence an overtake, (it minimises overtaking time and is actually considered good practice under Roadcraft), but it is not a sensible follow distance where no overtake is possible - the "always beware of cyclists attempting to throw themselves under your vehicle" rule.

The issue really is that I don't think there was any point on that video where the driver could have overtaken safely - junctions, traffic calming, oncoming traffic, unsighted by the bend in the road, and the big issue is that even if singled out, the driver would still have to wait for a section of road without junctions, oncoming traffic (because the road width is insufficient) and traffic calming and decent forward view.

Overtakes should not be commenced from close, and acceleration should be in the nearside lane so that the time in the oncoming lane is minismised.

As it happens, Ashley Neal has an excellent video on this one. 

That is not the Roadcraft method where you are following another road user. Basically they have two scenarios, approaching another veicle when the road is clear and you can pass immediately, where they allow for acceleration before overtaking. However, if you end up following due to hazards, there is a different approach they recommend.

The principle is:

1) Establish the potential to overtake.

2) Draw forward, within the 2 second rule gap because you have established the road is safe ahead and there not going to be any unexpected surprises. (This should not be intimidatingly close, and you still have to allow for unexpected events but as you have established the road is suitable for overtaking you have minimised that risk). Make sure you are in best overtaking gear.

3) If clear, pull out without accelerating.

4) Assess the road again. If clear, accelerate and overtake. If not clear, draw back in and back off. As you have drawn close behind another vehicle, you cannot abort without braking, which has potential for all sorts of nonsense with following vehicles, but if you are simply maintaining speed, aborting is boring and uncontroversial!

The point is that if you accelerate behind a vehicle before you overtake, you then have to account for the braking distance if you abort. The classic 100 metres back dive bomb overtake that people think is safe because you pass quickly actually has a very long period where your excess speed means you cannot abort without risk of collision with the vehicle you are trying to pass. You can only do this when you have got a well established safe overtaking zoen. In our example above, our friend is faced with a rapidly changing street scene and while there may be opportunities, it requires a conservative approach.

I can copy the pages of Roadcraft if you'd like, and having done the training and had the chance to apply it over a number of years, it really is quite surprising how calm, quick and uncontroverisial overtaking in this manner is.  

Edit: to editorialise, the point is not to maximise the possibilities of overtaking, but to maximise the safety of overtaking.

wycombewheeler wrote:

"Nothing against cyclists, I’m actually an occasional cyclist"

which of course means, there was an occasion when I used a bicycle.......once........a very long time ago............I didn't like it.

And it had stabilisers.

Well, if our new American acquaintance on the other thread can claim that an acceptable definition of "cyclist" is "somebody who rides a bicycle at least once a year…"

Well same thing in respect to teachers. Everyone has been a pupil once, which makes the experts in learning, teaching, educational policies and what not...

It does seem to make people think that they are an expert on cyclists and considering the absolutely apalling standards of driving on our roads from people who are drivers I would suggest that being a cyclist doesn't make your opinion any more correct on cycling that being a driver makes your opinon on driving correct. 

To be fair, there are plenty of cyclists I do know who don't seem to identify as a vulnerable road user and seem to think that any cyclists not behaving how they would deserves to be around bad driving. 

Personally I would have gone single file in that situation to allow traffic to pass easily but thats just what I would do. I have absolutely zero issues if those cyclists don't want to do that though. They are entirely within their rights not to and there is no issue with that. 

mctrials23 wrote:

It does seem to make people think that they are an expert on cyclists and considering the absolutely apalling standards of driving on our roads from people who are drivers I would suggest that being a cyclist doesn't make your opinion any more correct on cycling that being a driver makes your opinon on driving correct. 

To be fair, there are plenty of cyclists I do know who don't seem to identify as a vulnerable road user and seem to think that any cyclists not behaving how they would deserves to be around bad driving. 

Personally I would have gone single file in that situation to allow traffic to pass easily but thats just what I would do. I have absolutely zero issues if those cyclists don't want to do that though. They are entirely within their rights not to and there is no issue with that. 

road looks quite narrow, so bike plus two cars does not fit. at start of clip there is a speed hump (so no overtaking), then they are too close to the bend, then there was an onccoming car. I didn't see anywhere that enable a safe pass. Plenty that would accomodate a squeeze pass though, if only the cyclists would single out.

I wonder if the speed limit is 20?

Agree. Considering the clip shows them riding in a part of the road with a solid white line, when would he have overtaken single file cyclist anyway? The flash to the dash confirm they were going faster than 10mph. Just a total knob cheese tbh. 

His annual jaunt to Central Parcs and a half hour spin on the forest trail with a hire bike. 

giff77 wrote:

His annual jaunt to Central Parcs and a half hour spin on the forest trail with a hire bike. 

has center parcs opened up a new place in New York?

wycombewheeler wrote:

giff77 wrote:

His annual jaunt to Central Parcs and a half hour spin on the forest trail with a hire bike. 

has center parcs opened up a new place in New York?

Central Parcs?