Jeremy Vine highlights grim reality of gridlocked London route where cycle lane was ripped out... as council due in court over early removal; Chilly commutes; Manchester to host 2023 Tour of Britain Grand Départ + more on the live blog

But aren't seatbelts tested at 30 - 40 MPH so are tested and designed to work in a collision. Hence the law requiring them (plus the rest of the car safety features help). It is not the same with cycle helmets which are tested on very low speed/ standing falls. But then it is no surprise as the same material trusted to protect a TV in a box falling 3 feet is the same as used in cycle helmets. And I still have dents and broken glass on deliveries of goods even with that protection. 

So again, false equivalence relating "required" seatbelts with helmets in a collision. 

BTW, if you feel upto it, what was the personal incident which put you as such an advocate for helmets. Was it a car collision or just a fall?

I do choose to wear one, mainly to ensure it's absence is not used as an excuse for a driver. The one time I was knocked off, I landed on my chest and the helmet never hit the floor. However it has helped with low branches on canal paths and the once when I came off on ice, however again I'm also aware it adds a few inches to the circumference of my large melon anyway, so can't guarantee the head would have been hit.

Enough. Back under the bridge please.

Nah, don't agree with this. He is not being deliberately anti-cyclist, just pro-helmet. 

"So the police shouldn't get involved in close passes then?"

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:

-  driving too close to another vehicle;

You are clearly unable to concede your tailgating example was incorrect and it is unclear whether you even think it constitutes an offence.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don't think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.

So the police shouldn't get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a 'should' in rule 163)

You cannot be prosecuted for not wearing a helmet.  All of the driving examples you have come up with you can be prosecuted for.

So the police shouldn't get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a 'should' in rule 163)

The police aren't (in Lancashire anyway) involved in close passes, in the sense that it's impossible to pass a cyclist close enough so that Lancashire Constabulary will take any significant action- defining 'action' as a number of options for the police which includes no action at all where they won't tell you what they did doesn't count!

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Interesting. Rule 125 only has 'should' for stopping distances. So that one isn't a 'moral' issue?

As an aside - there's often a clear disconnect between the law and moral issues. Throughout history there are tonnes of examples of laws that have been clearly immoral, so it's worth bearing in mind that laws are just an approximation to how some people think that society should behave.

hawkinspeter wrote:

As an aside - there's often a clear disconnect between the law and moral issues.

Tell that to the Indonesian government..

brooksby wrote:

Tell that to the Indonesian government..

They didn't listen to me when I wobbled up to them on my bike (no ocifer, I've only had a few ales) and thrust some peer reviewed studies on helmet efficacy into their faces.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Comments on that suggesting that police are wrong to stop them because it's only a recommendation in the highway code, and not law, are frankly ridiculous.

I'd consider it okay for police to have a friendly chat if the cyclist was already stopped, but it's bizarre for police to actually go out and stop cyclists just to deliver the least effective road safety message possible. The time spent doing that would be far better spent monitoring for careless/dangerous driving or maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles.

As St Chris puts it: https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

Quote:

“It’s a bit like saying ‘people are sniping at you going down this street, so put some body armour on,’” he said.

Government encouragement to wear helmets was therefore “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message.

“Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.”

There’s a better solution to the problem of cycle safety, Boardman said. In the Netherlands, just 0.8 percent of cyclists wear helmets yet the Dutch have the lowest rate of cycling head injury, thanks to segregated cycling infrastructure. Thirty percent of journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, he said, and 50 percent of children’s journey to school.

”The best way to deal with [the head injury issue] is what the Dutch have done,” he said. “Where you have the Highest rate of helmet use, you also have the highest rate of head injury: us and the US.”

Yet there’s also an almost-fanatical, knee-jerk devotion to helmet use among enthusiast and sporting cyclists.

Now I'm not anti-helmet per se (I pretty much always wear one when cycling), but I appreciate that cycle helmets are not the answer. The reason I shared some info with you in that other thread was to demonstrate that there are real reasons to think that banging on about cycle helmets is counter-productive. Yes they provide some head protection, but they're being promoted in place of actual safety measures that would help cyclists and grow cycling. Having police going around and re-inforcing a political message is a waste of their time and taxpayer's money.

Right, 2 threads going on this so it's time again!

From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party).

I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party). I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

If they're stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I'd be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me - it's like pulling over a car and telling them "you can't park here".

I'm not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.

Or as my neighbout found, cycling in a very straight line can lead to being stopped.

He was basically diverting from the norm and hence attracted attention. I think they let him off with a warning.

hirsute wrote:

Or as my neighbout found, cycling in a very straight line can lead to being stopped.

He was basically diverting from the norm and hence attracted attention. I think they let him off with a warning.

There was an amusing cartoon in Private Eye many years ago of two coppers standing by a car with a beaming driver inside, one saying to the other, "He's relaxed, cooperative and courteous; he was driving in an exemplary manner well under the speed limit. There's no way he's not pissed."

hawkinspeter]<p>[quote=ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

If they're stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I'd be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me - it's like pulling over a car and telling them "you can't park here".

I'm not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.

Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a 'productive' use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for...

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a 'productive' use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for...

The only way the police can arrest and charge a cyclist for being drunk is if they are incapable, i.e. they are doing what HP said, wobbling around. There's no point in police randomly stopping cyclists who are not doing so because, as I mentioned in my previous post, they can't breathalyse them.

They can breathalyse them. The cyclist just has the right to refuse. And you're right to say that a preliminary breath test is not all that is needed to prosecute (same as for drivers actually).

I disagree that there is no point. It shows that police can and will do something about it, which discourages the unsafe and illegal behaviour in the first place.

Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can't remember if you're one of them to be honest.

Presumably that's to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can't remember if you're one of them to be honest. Presumably that's to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

Drivers often kill people due to their careless/illegal behaviour. Cyclists kill so rarely that we know the names of the people involved in the last dangerous cycling case.

It's not so much them vs us, but huge danger vs tiny danger. Surely you must understand that by now or are you just upset that we are looking to the wider issues?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

They can breathalyse them. The cyclist just has the right to refuse. And you're right to say that a preliminary breath test is not all that is needed to prosecute (same as for drivers actually). I disagree that there is no point. It shows that police can and will do something about it, which discourages the unsafe and illegal behaviour in the first place. Lots of people in here seem very keen to have a more active police presence on UK roads. Can't remember if you're one of them to be honest. Presumably that's to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

So there is no point really, because they have to inform the cyclist that they have a right to refuse and clearly any cyclist who is over the limit (of which, for the avoidance of any doubt, I thoroughly disapprove) would refuse. It's also fairly pointless because there is no legal limit for alcohol for cyclists.

I'd be very happy for there to be a more robust police presence on UK roads and for them to charge cyclists who are breaking the law (without wanting to be holier than thou, wouldn't bother me in the slightest, I never jump red lights or ride on the pavement, I don't ride if I'm drinking and I ride around at night lit up like a Christmas tree). I don't think that police should be wasting their time lecturing people on non-compulsory safety precautions such as wearing helmets. Given that roughly 5% of vehicles are uninsured, 2.5% of drivers are banned or don't have a licence at all, and around one million cars are being driven on the road without a valid MOT, I wonder how many lawbreaking vehicles/drivers passed the police while they were busy ticking off cyclists for not having equipment that is not a legal requirement?

Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don't tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don't tell you that you have a right to leave if they've stopped (but not arrested) you

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don't tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don't tell you that you have a right to leave if they've stopped (but not arrested) you

I expressed myself badly, I meant that if a cyclist refuses the police will have to accept that, i.e., they can't tell you that you're going to be in trouble if you refuse.

I think you're wrong about being allowed to refuse the police permission to search your car, as far as I understand it under stop and search law they have a right to search it if they have reasonable suspicion that the car may contain illegal or stolen items, and indeed they have a right to search without suspicion if they have permission from a senior officer.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Why do you think the police would have to tell a cyclist that they have a right to refuse? The police don't tell you that you have a right to refuse if they ask to search your car, and they certainly don't tell you that you have a right to leave if they've stopped (but not arrested) you

I expressed myself badly, I meant that if a cyclist refuses the police will have to accept that, i.e., they can't tell you that you're going to be in trouble if you refuse.

I think you're wrong about being allowed to refuse the police permission to search your car, as far as I understand it under stop and search law they have a right to search it if they have reasonable suspicion that the car may contain illegal or stolen items, and indeed they have a right to search without suspicion if they have permission from a senior officer.

I'm not wrong because I never said you can't refuse. I said that the police don't tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like "can I have a look around your car?" and never "can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don't want me to".

When breathalysing a cyclist, I bet they don't even ask really, I bet they say something like "please blow into this tube".

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm not wrong because I never said you can't refuse. I said that the police don't tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like "can I have a look around your car?" and never "can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don't want me to".

If they believe they have reasonable grounds to search, or they have permission from a senior officer without reasonable grounds, they are not going to say to you that you can refuse if you don't want them to, because you can't.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm not wrong because I never said you can't refuse. I said that the police don't tell you that you can refuse. They always say something like "can I have a look around your car?" and never "can I have a look around your car? By the way you can refuse if you don't want me to".

If they believe they have reasonable grounds to search, or they have permission from a senior officer without reasonable grounds, they are not going to say to you that you can refuse if you don't want them to, because you can't.

Yes Mr Harris, sir. I understand that. My point is that even if they DON'T have reasonable grounds, they still don't tell you that you are able to refuse. The citizen is required to KNOW that they are able to refuse. The police officer doesn't tell the citizen that they are able to refuse. This invariably leads to legal searches being conducted without reasonable grounds, because the police officer asks, and permission is not refused.

Just to be a bit pedantic, there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist, because there is no specific limit that applies to cyclists.

The test is whether they are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle. So you can be three times the drink driving limit, but if you can still manage to control your bike, no offence has been committed.

It's similar to it being illegal to be drunk in a public place (yes, including a pub!). But the police don't routinely breathalyse people drinking in pubs.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling...

HoarseMann wrote:

Just to be a bit pedantic, there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist, because there is no specific limit that applies to cyclists.

The test is whether they are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle. So you can be three times the drink driving limit, but if you can still manage to control your bike, no offence has been committed.

It's similar to it being illegal to be drunk in a public place (yes, including a pub!). But the police don't routinely breathalyse people drinking in pubs.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling...

That doesn't mean that 'there is no point the police breathalysing a cyclist'. If the cyclist is found to have a large amount of alcohol in their system, it enables the police to make further enquiries.

It also means that others might think 'gee I better not drink too much tonight, I've gotta cycle to work in the morning and I might get stopped'. I think that's pretty worthwhile.

It would be an abuse of police powers to request a cyclist or pedestrian to take a breath test. The legislation does not allow for it, it only applies to motor vehicles:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/6

Don't be daft. It's not an abuse of police powers to request that someone do something. In exactly the same way that a police officer can ask to look in your car, they could ask you to provide a breath sample.

It would be an abuse of police powers to say "you, as a cyclist, are required to provide a breath sample and you are not allowed to leave until you do, in accordance with The Road Traffic Act", but there is no mention that any police officer did this when obtaining the samples (6, I think).

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

but there is no mention that any police officer did this when obtaining the samples (6, I think).

I doubt they sampled 6 cyclists, it was a general road safety op and they were stopping motor vehicles too.

I do think it would be an abuse of powers to request a breath test of a cyclist or pedestrian, they're not even allowed to stop and search people without good reason.