Steep descent + all the mud in Belgium = cyclocross crash chaos; Pro donates 75kg of team kit to Rwandan riders; Cyclists win right to photograph cars parked in bike lanes; Van Vleuten targets double hat-trick; Weekend round-up + more on the live blog

I thought it was going that way to start with - grrr! - but tbf he did book her, and pursued when turned out to be disqualified. So on balance, feel the point was made.

I was thinking of the audience voting and comments rather than the presenter's story.

Yup - as the comment says, this is the work of someone who can't tell the difference between a bike and a car.  Or rather just doesn't understand bikes.

Bicycle Dutch has a couple of articles explaining this sort of misunderstanding:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/a-bicycle-roundabout-in-bo...
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/a-bicycle-roundabout-that-...

Now a real "cycle roundabout" would be if - and only if you need to get cyclists at-grade across a roundabout.  Better ways might involve sending cars another way entirely or a grade-separated design - because roundabouts are motor vehicle infrastructure.  If you need to though: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/riding-random-roundabouts/

Or some early (e.g. new) UK versions: https://www.camcycle.org.uk/blog/2020/07/cambridge-celebrates-arrival-of...

a rather unchained melody.

eburtthebike wrote:

Can we have a round of applause for the two Bavarian cyclists who took their case to court to allow them to photograph illegal drivers; if they had lost the repercussions would have been disastrous.

How would Cycling Mikey fill his day?

👏👏👏👏👏

eburtthebike wrote:

Can we have a round of applause for the two Bavarian cyclists who took their case to court to allow them to photograph illegal drivers; if they had lost the repercussions would have been disastrous.

How would Cycling Mikey fill his day?

I find it strange that GDPR was invoked at all  as the UK version of it allows exceptions (or doesn't apply to) processing for the purposes of crime detection/prevention. It also doesn't tend to apply for non-commercial, personal use which I would consider should apply to citizens wishing to report unlawful parking/driving etc.

The Germans are really sensitive about data protection, particularly when it comes to government held data. Don't forget that it is within living memory that a significant proportion of the population lived under a police state, so the authorities try not to get involved with anything that could allow tracking of individual's movements. Thankfully it appears the courts can demonstrate their indepedence and common sense in cases like this.

Two cyclists in Germany have won the right to photograph badly-parked vehicles blocking cycle paths and pavements

I find it strange that GDPR was invoked at all  as the UK version of it allows exceptions (or doesn't apply to) processing for the purposes of ...

This doesn't stop the Filth trying it on as a work and motorist-saving dodge. I have demonstrated several times the stupid dodging on OpSnapLancs which introduces this nonsense which they claim requires you to have a sign on your legs if you're filming offenders going through red lights or using handheld mobile phones while driving:

I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR

With apologies to 'Catch 22': it's some dodge that Lancashire Constabulary dodge!

Of course you can happily tick that because of the sloppy language: "I [the submitter] confirm... you [the police] should be informing the public that they are being filmed" etc 

My solution to the fact that you have to lie to have the submission accepted by Lancashire Constabulary is to declare the opposite in the text. It doesn't matter because they don't respond to anything anyway

Get some sticky letter sheets with a font size of say 3mm and put on the side of your top bar "I am filming you" job done!

Impossible, everyone knows that we have to move faster for business and to grow the economy!  Why, you'll be saying much of the premise of HS2 is spurious next...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Why, you'll be saying much of the premise of HS2 is spurious next...

Just like every independent analysis of the project.  It didn't have an economic case when it was only £30bn; it's somewhere north of £100bn now.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Impossible, everyone knows that we have to move faster for business and to grow the economy! 

Well that's just it - saving the Government (or society) from spending money doesn't actually help grow GDP - quite the opposite. Think of all the doctors, nurses, police officers, ambulance drivers, car repairers, insurance claims handlers, personal injury lawyers etc. that would be out of jobs if we didn't have car crashes!  

A good point.  That's how much of the government sees "active travel".  It seems to be a cost.  A "nice to have" but at best an indulgence.  Anyone can see that motoring generates lots of money, right?  Except of course that analyses are increasingly showing that because we ignore many of the costs motoring is actually a net cost.  It is also rather "centralising" and not as great for "resilience" as walking and cycling.  However in its favour it certainly generates large concentrations of money for some people / organisations - far more than e.g. cycling - and that can be converted into political capital (Big Bung theory).

The police officer, whilst trying to be "reasonable" eventually ended up accidentally dumping the lady on crutches on the ground.

Interesting that a police officer believes that being reasonable means permitting people to break the law. I think there is an 80 year old cyclist wondering where this guy was when he got ticketed in a pedestrianised area. 

I read that story on one of the tabloids and the 'newspaper' was saying that the road wasn't actually closed to motor traffic at all and the woman was 'being a fanatic'.

Except that five seconds on google shows that road IS closed to motor traffic, except it's open for deliveries between 5pm and 10pm (and apparently the road closure was lifted completely earlier in the year because of maintenance works on a nearby road).

Seems to me that (1) the delivery driver was there too early, and (2) the police were indeed facilitating lawbreaking by just waving through a queue of traffic.

It's apparently 4pm on now, but his video was shot outside of those. Times

just install either bollards or gates, and then there won't be a choice given to the police of facilitating law breaking or just ticketing drivers instead.  Simple and effective.

im really hoping the IPCc got a submission from those involved.  

We have a similar situation in the centre of Spalding where there is a notionally  pedestrian area but with no barriers or enforcement. I would have thought ANPR cameras at the entrance to it should be sufficient to resolve the problem...

Well if the police have no interest in it, it would be down to the council to apply to the DfT for moving traffic enforcement powers and find the ~25k needed for the camera.

obviously they could use the same reasoning that led to the restrictions being introduced in the first place to do it, but normally they like to balance it back with it improves bus journey times or lowers congestion, whereas this is just well makes it nicer for pedestrians to walk down.

but local traffic regulations like this, will often include an exemption for Royal Mail deliveries, and its also technically a crime to delay the delivery of mail...so Id be interested to see if the postie there could actually have driven down that road to deliver post, even if no-one else is supposed to, and there is a priority post box on the corner there.

as for the rest well yes the police can order you to break a traffic rule, just like if they tell you to go through a red light.