Regent's Park driver speeds into cyclists following altercation with another motorist; Pozzato snaps seat post avoiding truck; New bike lane too narrow to use; Velomobile stopped by police; Cafe stops back on the menu; Time Matters + more on the live blog

I half agree. The policeman seemed polite and reasonable and was mainly concerned about safety, but obviously the onus is on traffic to look where it's going and a bright orange velomobile is easy to spot.

I think Karl should have been a bit friendlier and he might have been able to get his point across - that officer wasn't his enemy.

I'd have more faith in the concerned about your safety line,if the police lifted more than a darn finger most of the time we report actual law breaking stuff to them that distinctly concerns our safety.

It was all a bit cringey, the impression I got was karlonsea trying to make something out of nothing for YT views.

The police officer seemed reasonably polite in that bit of video. According to the original tweet, before the video started, the officer also told Karl to cycle on the footway (which would have been illegal) and threatened to book him if he came past again (despite no offence being committed).

Even if we just consider what we have on video:

1) He was still pulled over by the police whilst breaking no laws. No-one wants to be stopped by the police, it's unsurprising that Karl would be a bit annoyed and/or defensive.

2) The officer claimed to be concerned about Karl's safety. It is a pretty sorry state of affairs if you think a careful and competent motorist would not spot that thing - it's not exactly small and it is bright orange. 

3) I don't want to accuse this individual officer of hypocrisy, but as a cyclist it's frustrating to see that concern for safety is expressed by giving the cyclist words of advice, when we've seen time and time again police forces around the country ignoring dangerous and illegal driving by motorists.

I can see both sides really.  But it brings to mind one time in Southwark when there was a focus on cyclists (perhaps a 'charm offensive') for about a week or so and the police were having polite words with cyclists while they waited at red lights. One evening, I stopped at a junction alongside another cyclist who the police officer decided to speak with. The first thing he advised was that he ought to have lights on his bike... he did, and they were switched on, as were mine.  While the officer continued onto other safety concerns, a huge lorry pulled into the ASL at the red light behind us. I pointed this out to the officer and he said that today they were speaking with cyclists as there had been a few cyclists killed/injured on the roads lately. 

Yes. People are much easier to stop and speak to when they are on bikes. If you stop a huge lorry, you have to consider where to put it while you talk to the driver.

That isn't how policing decisions ought to be made, but I guess convenience is often the overriding factor.

OnYerBike wrote:

3) I don't want to accuse this individual officer of hypocrisy, but as a cyclist it's frustrating to see that concern for safety is expressed by giving the cyclist words of advice, when we've seen time and time again police forces around the country ignoring dangerous and illegal driving by motorists.

Paticularly when that advice is that he shouldn't ride it on the road. Where does he suggest he should ride it?

How is it any different from a recumbent?
I wonder what crippled biker would make of it?

The copper was being a dick. Obviously he's pulled over a vehicle because he's got no idea what it is, and there's no registration tag, and instead of having the balls to admit he was wrong to pull over a cyclist for no reason chose to make up a cock and bull story about visibility, as if nobody can see a bright orange canoe on wheels proceeding down the road.

Its a simple concept, to drive on the road you must look at the road therefore you should be able to see what is on the road. If you can't then it's not the fault of what you failed to see. This shifting of responsibility from drivers to the vulnerable road users has to stop. Pisses me off even more when cyclists buy into that crap.

Somewhat ironic that the officer was concerned about the visibility of a bright orange velomobile whose rider was committing no offence, yet was uable to spot an electric scooter whose rider definitely was.

It pisses me off when people think being vunerable road users absolves them of all responsibility to make other road users aware of their existence, or allows them to defy the laws of physics, and in this particular case I dont think he's trying enough to do that, YMMV of course.

I personally kit myself and my bike out for the roads and traffic that exist today  - as me being in the right if I get hit by a motorist wont be much consolation to my friends and family, or me if I survive. 

If I was him I'd have a nice eye level flappy flag,  and I've exercised my personal judgement accordingly - end of story.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

It pisses me off when people think being vunerable road users absolves them of all responsibility to make other road users aware of their existence, or allows them to defy the laws of physics, and in this particular case I dont think he's trying enough to do that, YMMV of course.

I personally kit myself and my bike out for the roads and traffic that exist today  - as me being in the right if I get hit by a motorist wont be much consolation to my friends and family, or me if I survive. 

If I was him I'd have a nice eye level flappy flag,  and I've exercised my personal judgement accordingly - end of story.

Trouble is, I can't make other people aware of my existence, being physically there is all I can do. I'm not wearing a f*cking invisibility cloak FFS.

His vehicle is orange, and he left his cloaking device behind. What more is there except  lights at night?

Secret_squirrel wrote:

It pisses me off when people think being vunerable road users absolves them of all responsibility to make other road users aware of their existence, or allows them to defy the laws of physics, and in this particular case I dont think he's trying enough to do that, YMMV of course.

I personally kit myself and my bike out for the roads and traffic that exist today  - as me being in the right if I get hit by a motorist wont be much consolation to my friends and family, or me if I survive. 

If I was him I'd have a nice eye level flappy flag,  and I've exercised my personal judgement accordingly - end of story.

Velomobile in front of car is easy to see. Velomobile easy to see for drivers pulling out of side roads.

There is potentially an issue when the velomobile is beside a car, presumbaly the user is smart enough not to put themself in that position. Drivers on the other hand..... Howevr a little flag is not going to help much when you are beside a car, afr to easy to miss sucha  small object.

These things are much more commonplace in europe I have seen them on significant length audax events, they don't get hit by cars because they are not difficult to see.

In the UK the attitude of the police seems to be to tolerate poor driving, and expect vulnerable road users to compensate.

Right, so a bright orange velomobile that is 8 feet long and 3 feet wide isn't visible enough, but a little flag on the end of a stick will make all the difference 

A little flappy flag at eye level, eye level for whom? The man driving his midlife crisis sports car, or the HGV driver that requires you to have a ten foot pole to put that flag at eye level?   Never mind asking if those drivers can see the lane markings painted on the road, and potholes and manhole covers and avoid running over them, why they can't see another vehicle in front of them…

Philh68 wrote:

The copper was being a dick. Obviously he's pulled over a vehicle because he's got no idea what it is, and there's no registration tag, and instead of having the balls to admit he was wrong to pull over a cyclist for no reason chose to make up a cock and bull story about visibility, as if nobody can see a bright orange canoe on wheels proceeding down the road.

This! What's wrong with "interesting vehicle sir, care to talk me through it?"

It wasn't about concern, it was about "oh shit, he is entitled to do that but I haven't got the interpersonal skills to back out gracefully"

Philh68 wrote:

Its a simple concept, to drive on the road you must look at the road therefore you should be able to see what is on the road. If you can't then it's not the fault of what you failed to see. This shifting of responsibility from drivers to the vulnerable road users has to stop. Pisses me off even more when cyclists buy into that crap.

No no no, you are responsible for whether other road users have got their eyes open or not.....

Philh68 wrote:

The copper was being a dick. Obviously he's pulled over a vehicle because he's got no idea what it is, and there's no registration tag, and instead of having the balls to admit he was wrong to pull over a cyclist for no reason chose to make up a cock and bull story about visibility, as if nobody can see a bright orange canoe on wheels proceeding down the road.

Its a simple concept, to drive on the road you must look at the road therefore you should be able to see what is on the road. If you can't then it's not the fault of what you failed to see. This shifting of responsibility from drivers to the vulnerable road users has to stop. Pisses me off even more when cyclists buy into that crap.

Amazing he got stopped at all really, since the police officer presumably couldn't see him

wycombewheeler wrote:

Amazing he got stopped at all really, since the police officer presumably couldn't see him

Like all the drivers complaining about the invisible cyclists; that they saw last night.

Philh68 wrote:

This shifting of responsibility from drivers to the vulnerable road users has to stop. Pisses me off even more when cyclists buy into that crap.

This; a thousand times this.

I was concerned for the safety of the police officer - who chose to crouch down (thereby making himself less visible) in live traffic, to patronise a road user about being unsafe, instead of moving to the pavement, to do so.

belugabob wrote:

I was concerned for the safety of the police officer - who chose to crouch down (thereby making himself less visible) in live traffic, to patronise a road user about being unsafe, instead of moving to the pavement, to do so.

He was wearing dark blue too (under the hiviz of course, just like Karlonsea was under the orange shell. Probably)

Neither of them wearing lids.

Asking for it I'd say.....

makadu wrote:

Police really need to track down that regents park driver so they can issue him a warning letter

If only the other cyclists had thought to take his reg.

Warning letter? They need to be prosecuted and given a ban.

Makadu is making a sarcastic reference to the pathetically light treatment that car drivers get when they've damaged (and even killed) cyclists.

Yeah I watched it several times yesterday,think theres a longer version of the clip too out there but I'm still none the wiser how it all started and then ended up like it did. Hopefully they can find some CCTV of the car at least.

hirsute wrote:

Why are motorised vehicles allowed anyway?

Because there is a zoo, A college, A Mosque, A Church, A school, A Rotary Club and some posh residential areas and probably a lot more stuff (and im not even counting all the places of interest inside the park itself...) all within the same vicinity of the park.

It isnt as simple as closing all the gates to stop all vehicles from entering.

It could easily be made not a through route with some bollards.

then that would require some form of manned or unmanned gate keeping or a carpark built away from the park within short walkable distance to the zoo.

Either way, that all costs money...lots of money. Lots of people park in the outer ring to visit the park, the zoo or any of the surrounding area. Imagine if you were disabled but couldnt visit the park or the zoo because you couldnt park close by.