The Cycling Lawyer

Imperial Winter Series Race 10 28th January 2012

2012-01-28T19:22:00.002Z

We have been so spoilt this year with mild weather that today seemed exceptionally cold at about 5 º with a breeze from the North to propel us down the back straight and to slow us up to the finish. The pace seemed altogether more sedate this week especially when working (or not) into the wind. We passed the 4^th cats but just before they were getting ready to sprint for their finish. As a consequence we all came over the line in a coagulated lump for their finish followed by some hairy moments as those still racing got apart from those who had finished. Unluckily I punctured again this week though more luckily this time it was in the second lap, not the second to last. I finally got to use one of the spare wheels I have been dutifully carrying to the hut. I did spend most of the race at the back of the pack but at least this time I remained within the bunch until the finish. From what I could see there was not a lot of activity off the front this week.

I have a lot of catchup to do before March and time is starting to run out.

Thankfully no crashes today. Must get onto Wiggle for new race tyres.

What a relief not to be blogging about my commuting dramas for a change.

Stats: 27.79 miles in 1h06m. Average 25.3 mph. Max 34.8 mph.

Couple of radio chat shows about the threat to kill case.

2012-01-26T15:30:00.002Z

Radio Berks http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00n260q scroll to 0:18:25

or London http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00n0d02 scroll to 2:36:40

'Sorry', but is sorry always good enough?

2012-01-21T17:45:00.007Z

When confronted by the police and by his employer the driver of this Asda branded tanker said he was sorry and that he would 'endeavour to give cyclists a wider berth in future'. His transport manager put him on a computer based hazard awareness course. He has been driving for the same company for 20 years with no previous driving infringements. A prosecution was not thought to be in the public interest.

The problem I have is that he was aware of 'the hazard' (oka me) but chose to hoot and to drive close enough to both intimidate and to endanger. For all I know he has been doing this for 20 years to hundreds of cyclists who just will not have been in a position to do anything because they did not have a camera on their helmet.

His conduct gave every appearance of being from the type of motorist who resents cyclists using 'their' road.

I am sure there is an underlying thought that it may have been close but no harm was done. But again I have a problem with this. It is this type of conduct that frightens people off cycling as a rational mode of transport. Incidents like this make me think twice about cycling to work, notwithstanding that I know the statistics and I can be remarkably stubborn. It is the subjective fear of danger that holds back the longed for 'cycling revolution'.

Getting cyclists off the roads maybe what drivers like this are seeking to achieve. There is an overwhelming public interest in ensuring that they do not succeed. This ought to rank above the job security of professional drivers who prove themselves to be temperamentally unsuited to their work.

Imperial Winter Series Race 9

2012-01-21T16:26:00.001Z

Another very mild day but with a strong westerly wind today. I am afraid that anyone coming here via the Imperial site hoping for a meaningful race report is going to be disappointed again. I was not well enough to race last week (or indeed ride at all) due to the heaviest cold I have had for many years. I was not really up to it this week either; that and the wind saw me dropped as the race blew apart 30 minutes or so in. As I took a breather, I was passed (lapped) by a lead group, a chasing group and the remainder. I hopped back onto the third group since I was there and badly need the training and because I never voluntarily abandon a race. I understand the front two groups got together again and then 2 got away in the final stages.
The race felt, and was, safe this week. No crashes and no close shaves. The main thing, as always, is to remain upright.
Today brings home that I have a lot to do before the road racing season gets underway. I hope to make it to the first of my local reliability rides tomorrow with that in mind.

Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill

2012-01-20T17:56:00.000Z

Andrea Leadson MP was not in the House of Commons today to move her Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill which was called on at 14:35 after a lengthy debate which talked out a Daylight Saving Bill. I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but I think we can assume that it will not be back.

Scott Lomas Convicted and Sentenced for Threatening or Abusive Words or Behaviour

2012-01-18T14:52:00.005Z

Here's the film, yes I have edited it; an unedited version is out there.

On 4th November 2010 while cycling into work I was subjected to a barrage of abuse from a motorist, Scott Lomas, which culminated in a threat to kill me. I have documented in this blog the efforts I have had to make to get action taken after I reported this to the police.

Today Lomas was finally convicted, on his plea of guilty, to the Public Order Act offence of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

It transpires Lomas was in breach of a suspended prison sentence imposed by the Crown Court in April 2010 following his conviction of a crime of violence, malicious wounding, He was not referred back to the Crown Court for consideration of whether to activate that earlier sentence.

For the offence involving me, he was fined £250, a victim surcharge of £15 and prosecution costs of £300 (total £565).

It is sadly too much to hope that all mindless aggression and violence directed at cyclists will instantly cease but at least this conviction may help to discourage similar incidences of ‘roadrage’ against vulnerable road users. I hope it may also serve to encourage police officers to treat complaints of this type of crime seriously. I commend the CPS for having the moral fibre to reverse the Metropolitan Police Constable’s attempts to drop this case, notwithstanding the strength of the evidence due to my use of a helmet mounted camera.

Regular readers will know that I am not slow to criticise public servants who fall down on the job, so it is only right that I emphasise that this case would have got nowhere if it had not eventually landed on the desk of a Crown Prosecutor highly endowed with both integrity and competence. I am grateful to prosecuting counsel (a cyclist it transpires!) who dealt with the case today both efficiently and courteously. Finally I am grateful too for the moral support I have received from the CTC, Roadpeace, The Road Danger Reduction Forum and the vast majority of cyclists who have contacted me.

Imperial Winter Series Race 7 Saturday 7th January 2012

2012-01-07T16:36:00.000Z

I have had to miss a few over the Christmas season and shockingly we are now already on race 7 of 12. It could have been an April evening rather than an early January afternoon. The sunshine brought a large field out today. Temperature was 12ºC though with a stiff north westerly breeze which gave a cross wind over most of the course. (Nothing as bad as the wind on Waterloo Bridge last Thursday though which had me climbing off my Brompton for fear of being blown under a bus).

It seemed fast this week, interspersed with some very slow periods, but this perception may be because I have not been on a proper bike for 3 weeks. There was an attempt to go straight off the start by 2, they did not seem to have their heart in it and were quickly reeled in with most of the work done by the lady Wycombe rider. Two thirds of the way through the race 5 or 6 made a good effort to get free but there were enough fast riders in the bunch to bridge that gap stringing us out and in the process sending me gasping to (but thankfully not off) the back.

Thereafter things seemed to get more and more twitchy. Shouts were going up chiding other riders and there were a few wobbles and near misses. Then trouble started. First at the tight bend, I was taking the inside when alongside me on the outside several riders went down. Shortly afterwards at the turn before the clubhouse, there was trouble on the inside of the bend when I was on the outside. 7 casualties in total though I understand none severe (at least not to bodies, bikes may be a different matter). The sprint as usual left me behind.

Stats: 1h 04m at an average of 25.0 mph. Max 31.8.

Imperial Winter Series Hillingdon Race 3 Saturday 17th December

2011-12-17T17:41:00.002Z

Another bright sunny but cold day (5ºC) with a blustery west wind. The long shadows even at 1pm served as a reminder that we are close to the shortest day. After last week's experience we started with a lecture on safe riding but I am afraid there were crashes in both the 3^rd and 4^th cat races again. The one in the 3^rd cat race unfolded before my eyes on the short uphill section between the right hand and left hand bends. Started as a wobble near the front and got amplified so that the rider a few back had nowhere to go but the grass where I believe he at least got a soft landing. The woman in the 4^th cat race [correction: I see from Lucy's report she was in our race, I had not noticed] was not so fortunate and was lying on the circuit for several of our laps. I hope she is ok.

The racing seemed fast today. Again we did not catch the 4^th cats, but at least they did not catch us either. There were some spirited breaks and we were lined out at several points as the pace increased to get them back. A good race though not for me personally. I punctured with one and a half laps to go. I now take spare wheels with me but you cannot have a lap out to change your wheel with under 5 laps to go. I fell rapidly off the back as my rear tyre deflated. I had hoped there would be sufficient air left for me to finish the race but at half a lap to go I was onto the rims. I was not going to ride my racing wheels on the rims so I walked the last half lap both to finish and to pick up my spare wheel at the hut.

My stats will be a bit out because of the puncture but from the start to when I started walking: .

52 mins at 23.8 mph, max 29.2mph.

I stayed to watch a teammate in the following E/1/2/3 race.

E/1/2/3 midrace

E/1/2/3 Finish

Imperial Winter Series Race 2 - Saturday 10th December

2011-12-10T16:29:00.002Z

A bright sunny day with a much lighter wind than last week but also a lot cooler at 6ºC. I felt a bit more comfortable in the bunch this week only at the back on the occasions that the pace picked right up. We passed the 4^ths(or most of them) a couple of times today but on their penultimate lap, half a dozen or so of them passed us at the finish of their race, whilst at the same time they were lapping a substantial part of their own field. We slowed to let them past and once their race finished the attacks in ours began. Once again a small group got away n the final laps – Lucy’s report will have far more detail than I was able to observe. At the bell I was at the back of the field and happy to stay there until we crossed the line.

Unhappily there was a crash in the 4^th cat race, on the bend just before the clubhouse, and as I left the circuit two ambulances were there. I hope those involved were not badly injured and recover soon.

Stats: 1h04m at av 24.9mph. Max 30mph.

Porter v Denman

2011-12-07T11:05:00.000Z

Those of you who have been following this blog for a while may recall that I was assaulted on 12th December 2010 and that the following weekend the Thames Valley Police interviewed my assailant, one Timothy Denman of Charvil, and gave him a simple (police) caution for assault.

I have commenced proceedings for assault in the Slough County Court. Denman has now served a Defence which reads as follows:

"The Claimant is abusing his power and traping (sic) people that (sic) drive car's (sic) he was pushed due to provicatien (sic) and criminal damadge (sic) caused by his friend then used abusive langue (sic)."

I will let you know how matters progress.

Imperial Winter Series Hillingdon Race 1: Saturday 3rd December

2011-12-03T20:40:00.004Z

Courtesy Mark Hopkins who has some great shots

permission applied for.

A mild sunny winter's day with a stiff westerly breeze. When I looked on the Imperial site this morning I saw the 4th cat race was fully booked so I grabbed one of the few remaining places in the 3rd cat race before they also went. It is an indication of just how popular racing in general and the Imperial Winter Series in particular is. There must be some WyndyMilla sponsorship as the pink flags were out and I am now the owner of a WyndyMilla bidon (always useful).
This was my first race for 4 months and it showed. I sat in towards the back for most of the race. A break of 6 got away entirely unnoticed by me and we alternated between the literally conversational and the fairly frantic. We never did catch the 4th cats, who I think must have had an exceptionally fast race today. Perhaps because it was all now about 7th place the gallop for the line started much later than usual and with half a lap to go we were free wheeling in a close packed group down the back straight. I was happy just to hang on in there and come in with the bunch.
Stats: 1h05m at av 24.6 mph. Max 29.7 mph.

No Further Action "NFA"

2011-12-02T10:21:00.005Z

An expression I am getting used to. Applied by the Met Police in this case to the driver who ran into me on 20th September, while I was stationary, and buckled my wheel when he emerged from a side road to turn right. Had I not anticipated his poor driving and come to a complete halt to let him out well before the junction, it could have been a lot worse and it is massively inconvenient to have your bike put out of action half way to work.
I knew he was most unlikely to be charged, notwithstanding powerful evidence handed over on a plate in the form of a video, an extract of which I have put back up onto youtube. (Forgive my swearing I initially thought it was going to be worse than it was).

Why not send him, and other drivers like him on a bikeability training course (the full cost of which they would of course pay) as an alternative to a prosecution?
On the bright side I did get a full prompt payout from his insurers, so credit to them.

EDIT: I do not want to get too bogged down in this but in deference to those who have expressed the view that I was wholly or partially to blame for this collision I attach a google earth aerial view of the location. On any sensible view I stopped well short of the junction. Perhaps the film does not clearly show this. It seems obvious to me but then I was there. The camera is attached to my head and so is moving about a bit even after I have stopped with my foot on the ground. I am a bit sceptical of those who claim that if it had been them they would have stopped even further back, or who claim that it was not safe to use the hatched area to overtake.
I know this will not convince some (nothing will because I was on a bicycle). I have made some people cross by deleting their comments. I regret this but the one that remains is a reasonable representation of their views and there is no point in having it over and over again.

This is just about where I stop, just short of the zig-zags

BBC Radio Berkshire discussion

2011-12-01T08:48:00.001Z

Radio Berkshire's Andrew Peach Show had a discussion (about 0840) about cycling this morning. The parents of a child, Stephen Millington, tragically killed while cycling near Basingstoke in 2007, have called for compulsory cycle training for motorists.
As I said to Andrew Peach, I think this is a good idea. Motorists sometimes get upset with cyclists who do not follow the rules, but in my experience, just as often get upset (even aggressive and violent) with cyclists who are following the rules. It would help if motorists at least knew what the rules are.
There would be an added bonus that many more adult cyclists would, in practice, then get cycle training without discouraging cycling.(i.e. it is a condition of driving not cycling).
I can see there would be resistance to introducing this but, as a start, it could at least be an option for those who would otherwise receive Fixed Penalty Notices for road traffic offences. As I noted when I was with the Cycle Task Force of the Metropolitan Police last month, there are many options for police officers to offer cyclists training instead of a ticket, but in marginal cases with motorists they seem to get off with a warning.
So I am with the Millingtons on this.

Updates from the Crown Court; R v McQuinn; R v Shapland

2011-11-16T17:04:00.000Z

The Wirral Globe reports that today Mr McQuinn was cleared by a jury in Liverpool Crown Court of causing the death of David Noble by careless driving in Spital at 0950 on 20th October 2010. Mr Noble was riding a bicycle at the time of the collision. There was no suggestion that Mr Noble was in any way riding improperly when he was run down by a car driven by Mr McQuinn. Mr McQuinn explained that the accident was unavoidable because the sun was in his eyes. The jury took 17 minutes to return a not guilty verdict.

Last week the South Wales Evening Post reported that Mr Shapland was cleared by a jury in Swansea Crown Court of causing the death by careless driving of Olin Poulson after a collision on the A40 near Carmathen on 3rd September 2010. A tachograph and telephone records revealed that Mr Shapland had been driving his articulated lorry at 52 mph (speed limit for lorries 40 mph) and had been on his hands free 'phone at the time of the collision. He explained that Mr Poulson had turned right across his path as he was overtaking.

I am not privy to all the evidence in either case. Clearly, in my view, each driver had a case to answer and it was only right that the prosecutions were brought. The jury verdicts do not affect that and no prosecuting authority should expect a 100% success rate in the Crown Court. It is an improvement over some cases in the past where prosecutions have not been brought and the drivers have never been called to explain their actions to a Court.

One Cyclist sues another; Brown v Brent & British Cycling

2011-11-15T22:03:00.000Z

On the last weekend in August 2007 the Surrey Cycle Racing League with the assistance of the Army CU organised a three day stage race comprising four stages for 2^nd and 3^rd cat racers. Proceedings kicked off with a short time trial up Boxhill on Friday evening and this was followed on Saturday afternoon with a 70 mile road race. 4^th up Boxhill, but not so hot on the road race was George Brent, a 2^nd cat rider with Addiscombe CC. On Sunday, Stage 3 in the morning was an 11.5 mile time trial and the final stage on Sunday afternoon was a 60 mile road race on the Ewhurst Circuit with a final climb up Leith Hill.

The Ewhurst Circuit takes the riders down Ockley Road into Ewhurst where there is a sharp left at a mini-roundabout outside the Bull’s Head Pub. At this point in the race (it may have been the 4^th lap but this is not entirely clear), there was a breakaway group of 5 or 6 riders being chased by George Brent who was attempting to bridge the gap between the bunch and the lead group. Given those circumstances it is not really surprising that he was going at speed and that he needed to take a racing line around the left hand turn, taking advantage of being a sole rider at this point.

Unhappily for both men another cyclist, Carlton Brown, came down Shere Road (from the right in the above Google earth shot) and turned into Ockley Road, apparently oblivious to the fact that a road race was in progress coming straight towards him. The two cyclists collided close to the mini roundabout. Any initial uncertainty as to which side of the central dotted white line the collision occurred was dispersed by the existence of video camera footage. This demonstrated that the cyclists came together somewhere to the right of the white dotted centre line (as the picture and George Brent saw it.)

Mr Brown sued both Mr Brent and the British Cycling Federation who were ultimately responsible for the running of the race. The report that I have seen indicates nothing about the extent of the injuries of either man but I see no indication that Mr Brent counterclaimed (as he might have done) against Mr Brown.

Mr Brown claimed that Mr Brent should not have crossed the white line in the middle of the road into his path and that he was riding too fast. The Judge, His Honour Judge Atkins, sitting in the Croydon County Court accepted these allegations. The fact that Mr Brent was competing in a road race did not exempt him from the obligation to comply with the Highway Code. As the Judge put it:

“as has been accepted, and I think rightly accepted, this was a race which was taking place on a public road and the fact that it was a race does not mean that people can ride or drive in a different way. They have to be aware that members of the public can use the road and they are governed by the same rules as anybody else.”

The Highway Code (rule 160) requires traffic to keep to the left of the centre line unless overtaking or turning right. This is a rule that is breached frequently by cyclists (and I daresay motorcyclists) taking a line around a bend but I think the moral is that if you are going to do it, do it only in circumstances where you are quite sure nothing is coming the other way and that means not doing it on or near a junction.

Mr Brown also brought a claim essentially against the race organisers. His most interesting allegation was that the organisers ought to have ensured that the road was closed to members of the public. The judge gave that short shrift:

“the position about that is that it is possible to ask the highway authority to close the roads. It is obviously an extreme step to take. I simply say that in the circumstances of this case I do not think it was a proportionate or appropriate step for the organisers to take. I think that they under an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of road users whether participating in the race or otherwise, and I think they did take all such steps.”

I hope the police forces who are most wary of races on the open roads will heed those words. It is not proportionate or appropriate to close the roads for an amateur road race.

Mr Brown also criticised the organisers for their control of the race. He said he should have been warned but the Judge found there were appropriate warning signs and marshals that Mr Brown did not see or hear. A marshal had done his best to communicate to Mr Brown but, perhaps because Mr Brown was wearing ear-phones, had not got through (the Judge observed that Mr Brown was wearing head-phones but found both that that was not negligent and that it had not caused the accident). Whether the lollipop signs that are now being trialled, and which will enable a marshal to compel a road-user to stop, would have prevented this unfortunate accident must be conjecture but certainly they should help. He also said the organisers should have prevented Mr Brent crossing the white dotted line but the usual Commisssaire’s briefing (‘obey the highway Code’) had been given and there was no more that the organisers could reasonably have done.

Finally the Judge examined Mr Brown’s own responsibility for the accident. He found that he should have heeded the warnings and was in the circumstances travelling too fast. The finding that he was not negligent in wearing headphones is of potential interest. The law (and the Highway Code) do not prohibit it but the DirectGov ‘Cycling Safely’ website advises “Stay alert! Don't listen to music or use a mobile phone while cycling – distractions cause accidents”.

Ultimately the Judge found Mr Brent two-thirds to blame for the collision and Mr Brown one-third to blame. He acquitted the race organisers of any blame at all.

Although this is a County Court case (and strictly not citable to any future Court) it is illustrative of the duties that race competitors owe to members of the public who are not involved in the race. Road races in this country are almost invariably very well organised and this is the first case of which I am aware where a competitor has been successfully sued.

Though not involved in the race I should declare an interest as a member of both the Surrey League and British Cycling. I hope both cyclists have recovered.

Legal update: R (on application of Kate Cairns) v Deputy Coroner of Inner West London

2011-11-07T16:09:00.004Z

Today sitting in the Adminsitrative Court, Silber J has rejected the claim brought by Kate Cairns for a Judicial Review of the Inquest into the death of her sister Eilidh Cairns, who was fatally struck by an HGV in Notting Hill on 5th February 2009. There were complaints about case management which appear to relate specifically to the way in which that particular Inquest was conducted.

Of broader public interest was the Deputy Coroner's decision not to make any recommendation pursuant to her powers under rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984. This rule provides that:

"Prevention of future deaths

43.—(1) Where—

(a) a coroner is holding an inquest into a person's death;

(b) the evidence gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future; and

(c) in the coroner's opinion, action should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such circumstances, or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances,

the coroner may report the circumstances to a person who the coroner believes may have power to take such action."

As pointed out by Silber J, this rule provides the Coroner with a considerable degree of discretion, so that even if (a), (b) and (c) are all satisfied (which they surely are in all cases where cyclists are run down by HGVs), the Coroner may (not must or should) report the circumstances to a person who it is believed may have power to take such action.

What fortified the Judge in his conviction that the Coroner had not exercised her discretion in such a way that no reasonable Coroner could have done was that "PC Clark of the Collision Investigation [Branch of the Metropolitan Police] explained that he was unaware of anything which could be done to prevent accidents of the kind in which Miss Cairns was tragically killed".

The really worrying thing is that this counsel of despair from the police is both voiced and is so readily accepted. A Collision Investigator ought to start from the premise that this type of collision is preventable - a clue is in his title, in that the Metropolitan Police (and most Coroners) have, unlike the Administrative Court, abandoned the term 'road traffic accident' for 'road traffic collision'. The reason for the change in terminology is because of the potential to confuse 'accident' with 'unavoidable event'. A Police Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police's Cycle Task Force reminded me of this change last week. It does not take more than a moment's reflection to come up with the ideas of better (or any) mirrors, sensors, training and enforcement as areas for action that may eliminate or reduce the risk of a repeat of the circumstances that led to Eilidh Cairns's untimely death. My reading of the rule is that it is concerned not so much with a specific action that would have necessarily prevented the death inquired into (sadly the facts seem to have remained obscure in Eilidh's case) but action that would reduce the risk of future deaths in the same circumstances.

All of us who cycle on London's streets know that the quality of lorry driver is highly variable. Near misses from lorries are not pursued by the Metropolitan Police because (I learnt last week) a safe passing distance is thought to be too subjective. The quality of response from employers of drivers who have passed much too close varies from the highly responsible to the shockingly irresponsible (I have had one example of each in the last few days). It does not take many miles of cycling experience to recognize that action is required to reduce the number of HGV/cyclist collisions which so frequently result in death. A 'nothing can be done' attitude would be unthinkable if considering deaths in an industrial, disease, terrorism or virtually any other unnatural premature death outside the context of road traffic collisions (maybe even especially in the context of pedestrians and cyclists - I will wait with interest to learn, for example, whether a report is made in relation to the recent M5 tragedy).

Action by whom, the police officer or Coroner may ask? Happily the rule requires only that the recipient of a Coroner's recommendation may have power to take action. I suggest the (new) Secretary of State for Transport, the (new) Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London as my candidates for persons who may have such power.

My morning with the Metropolitan Police Cycling Taskforce

2011-11-03T12:05:00.001Z

Last month I referred in a blog to the Metropolitan Police Task Force in connection with my response to the latest public consultation by the Metropolitan Police Authority to set police priorities. This resulted in an invitation from the Inspector in charge of the Cycle Task Force to see the work that they did. I accepted and as a consequence I pedalled down to Chelsea football stadium yesterday morning to meet one of their officers.

I was a little early and was surrounded by some special constables so keen to security mark my bicycle that I felt it would be impolite to decline. That done, I had the PC, Michael, pointed out to me. He was a little way down Fulham Road, standing beside his bicycle staring intently at some pedestrian lights. The plan was to stop the cyclists who jumped the lights and invite them to enter the cab of a lorry to see what it was like ‘Exchanging Places’. I had just missed him forcing one reluctant cyclist to a stop by interlocking arms which had resulted in the cyclist falling from his bike and muttering about a possible complaint. The first lesson is clear enough; if a uniformed police officer requires you to stop, do so voluntarily. It is less hazardous than the other way.

Part 1 – Exchanging Places

Introductions made, I stepped up into the driver’s seat of a Keltbray lorry. In the passenger seat was another police officer who had experience (as it transpires, does Michael) of driving HGVs. Another officer pushed my own bicycle into various positions around the nearside and front of the lorry.

My first impression (possibly contrary to the one intended) was just how good the driver’s visibility was from the cab using the ‘standard’ side mirrors and an angled mirror at the front of the windscreen, revealing what was immediately in front, and a further angled mirror on the offside just above the passenger side window. I asked whether these were the standard required mirrors and was told that they were on new vehicles but there is no requirement for the retro-fitting of older vehicles. Without those two ‘additional’ mirrors there were huge blind spots both to the front and to the nearside of the cab. The officer explained that it would be unacceptable to require retrofitting because of the cost. I have to say that I disagree with that viewpoint. [I am also fairly sure that the position is quite a lot more complicated than that and retrofitting of at least some mirrors on at least some lorries is required. Furthermore Sir Alan Beith’s bill is reaching a critical stage and this merits a whole different post]

In any event, having seen how the simple expedient of carrying two additional mirrors so dramatically improves the ability of the driver to see areas which include the ones that he is directly driving into, if going either straight ahead or turning to the left, I am even more firmly behind the See me, Save me campaign set up in memory of Eilidh Cairns. Responsible companies will install these mirrors (and sensors because as the officer explained to me there will always be drivers who do not look in their mirrors, however good) but it is the less responsible ones about which we should be most concerned and who should certainly be denied any competitive advantage over their more responsible competitors. It is hard to see why having adequate mirrors/sensors should be thought of as anything other than essential equipment to lessen the risk an industry imposes upon other people. With or without mirrors or sensors, I will be continuing my policy of never trusting an HGV unless and until you have eye-balled the driver. (I was one of a tiny disappointing minority who would not be changing their behaviour as a result of the experience).

It was striking that from a lorry cab at the first stop line, anything in the cyclists’ advanced stop box is invisible without the additional mirror at the front. The police officer and I did agree that if you have a lorry behind, you get into a position where you can eyeball the driver even if that takes you over the second stop line. Perhaps advanced stop boxes should be deeper but I was told that was unacceptable because it would interfere with road capacity and therefore traffic flow! Perhaps careful lorry drivers should stop short of the stop line so that they could see the box ahead? No that was not practical either I was told (though the Sergeant I saw later said better trained drivers did do this)..

The officer in the cab was friendly and charming and I am sure police relations with the cycling public features largely on the agenda. He did not though appear to be an experienced cyclist (at one point I was shown how difficult it was to see the officer on the ground wheeling my bike ‘and that is with him standing up, never mind when he is sitting down on his bike’) and any suggested action on the part of lorry drivers and their employers to reduce risk seemed to be excused away with a rapid refocus on the actions of the cyclist.

I am sure this exercise is useful (feedback forms including my own confirm this) but it should not be thought to be tackling bad driving. ‘Exchanging Places’ is really a misnomer, I saw no lorry drivers invited to take the place of cyclists. I remain unconvinced that many of tragic cases we have of lorries running down cyclists are caused by the cyclist’s ignorance of a driver’s blind spots. As I mentioned in the cab, I saw bad driving by lorries around cyclists on a daily basis and had on my way to Chelsea witnessed (but sadly not filmed) a trailer lorry overtake a group of cyclists before turning left forcing them all to a stop. I was going to be interested to learn what action was taken to counter this sort of behaviour. Collision avoidance, it seems to me, requires not just a warning to cyclists about how they pass lorries but also to lorries about how they pass cyclists. The former is perhaps the easier to address.

Part 2 – The Patrol

I next followed Michael through the crowded streets of west London up to High Holborn then across the infamous Blackfriars Bridge to the Taskforce’s HQ at Palestra. We had only gone a few hundred metres before at a red light, Michael took the opportunity to warn a cyclist who had stopped way past the stop line. I waited in the advance stop box alongside a police motorcyclist (I really do not know the state of the lights when he got into that box; it was stop/go traffic) to whom the sight of a colleague on a bicycle seemed to be quite a novelty ‘Whatever next?’

Further on Michael stopped, said he was turning round and headed back towards a skip lorry. I was beginning to learn that Michael had extraordinarily keen vision. I see a lot of mobile ‘phone use by drivers; what I see must be the tip of an iceberg because Michael spotted many examples all of which I missed. This was the first. The lorry driver was instantly apologetic with a sob story so convincing it could almost have been rehearsed. Michael is kind hearted almost, in my view, to a fault. He warned the driver in relation to his use of a hand held mobile ‘phone and for failure to wear a seat belt. Once the driver had gone on his way promising never to do it again, I queried how an officer decides whether or not to issue a penalty notice. In this case the driver had picked up his ‘phone only for a moment before seeing Michael. Of course I had not seen it at all, but still the concept of a lorry driver in crowded Chelsea streets looking at his phone screen and deciding to take the call scares me. Michael did not, it seems, have any option of ‘encouraging’ him to attend a course in exchange for such leniency (I would happily help devise one which would probably involve lorry drivers on bicycles riding up and down the A30 from East Bedfont to Staines; though there would probably be some health and safety objection on the grounds that there were too many lorries about!)

We carried on up to Hyde Park Corner and to Piccadilly, where Michael again spotted a driver creeping forward and looking down at his mobile ‘phone either texting or dialling. He was pulled over and the intent was to issue the driver with a paperless ticket. This involved Michael using his own hand held electronic device during the course of which the system hung so it remained a matter of conjecture as to whether the Fixed Penalty had gone through or not. It is to Michael’s credit that he and the driver left on evidently friendly terms.

A little further on, a courier on a fixed wheel emerged from a side street through a red light without so much as a glance in our direction as we went through our light on green. Michael put on a burst of speed and forced the cyclist against the kerb to stop him. This one was definitely going to get a ticket but it was reduced in amount if the cyclist logged onto the Taskforce’s cycling safety website for some online training within the next couple of weeks.

We carried on up to Holborn. I had let a girl on a Boris Bike through a tight gap in traffic ahead of me and so she passed Michael as he waited for me to catch up. She therefore knew a police officer was right behind her but that did not stop her from going through the next red light (slowly it has to be said and without any sign of a pedestrian nearby, so rather different in quality from the courier’s offence). Michael had no difficulty stopping her and with, I thought, impeccable judgment, did not issue a fixed penalty. Instead he took the bike number of her Boris bike, as requested by TfL, so that they could write to her and ask her kindly to obey the law whilst riding one of their bikes.

It was then a first for me going over Blackfriars Bridge on a bicycle. I would have liked to have been there to protest but have never quite managed and my sense was that Michael shared my puzzlement that the speed limit on that bridge has just been raised (‘to ease traffic flow’).

Finally after we had parked up our bikes and were walking over to the Palestra entrance, Michael again spotted a white van driver on a handheld mobile. He indicated to him to put it down.

Part 3 – In Palestra with the Police Sergeant

Michael escorted me to the desk of his Sergeant, Simon, who was off his bike as a consequence of a nasty motorcycle accident. He had been asked by his Inspector to discuss tactics and performance with me and to answer my questions.

I was interested in the lorry side of ‘Exchanging Places’ and Simon did assure me that they ran some very successful courses for lorry drivers. It was stressed that a lorry driver’s time is money (rather like mine is, I thought) and they (or their employers) were incentivised to attend by receiving necessary continuing training points. When Simon told me that they terrify some of them, I at first thought he meant by putting them on bicycles in traffic, but it transpired what he meant was by stressing the consequences to them (financial, loss of liberty and psychological) of being involved in a collision.

On police discretion, he was very sure that we were far better policed by officers than by automatons and he had no time for ‘zero tolerance’. I moved on to ‘total tolerance’ which is how I see enforcement of advanced stop lines. The statistics on Simon’s computer did not break down how may traffic light offences were advanced stop line (only) but he did agree that the figure would be ‘zero or close to zero’. He felt that since this was an endorseable offence the penalty was disproportionate to the ‘inconvenience’ caused. I felt that these boxes potentially were there not just for convenience but for safety and were being ignored as a matter of routine by many drivers who knew there was no risk of enforcement action. Simon did think it was rather unpleasant for a motorist to have an officer give him a warning in the presence of other ‘intimidating’ cyclists. His knockout point was to ask me how I would feel if I was given a ticket for entering such a box on my bicycle other than through the designated feeder lane. I said that were that to happen I looked forward to challenging the penalty in the Magistrates’ Court (the hard part would be deciding whether to defend the case on the grounds of necessity or to plead guilty and ask for an absolute discharge but either way to ask for my costs). Apparently enforcement of advanced stop lines might happen in the future, particularly if it became a separate non-endorseable offence.

I wanted to raise the question of the reporting of driving offences, which in my view is a great deal more difficult than it ought to be, and about which I have blogged in the past. Simon indicated that in the event of a collision the requirement of the Road Traffic Act to report it to the police required the formality of attending a police station. We each tried to remind the other and ourselves of the precise reporting requirements of the Act and agreed that it did not apply to a report made by a cyclist. Simon’s point then was that clearly it would not be right to have cyclists in some privileged position compared to, say, motorcyclists. However what is clear to some is not to others, and I cannot see any principled objection to making cyclists’ lives easier than motorists; we are after all as a state or society trying to encourage cycling at the expense of motoring for an embarrassment of good reasons. Of course, Simon is not in a position to do anything to affect this (nor probably is his Inspector whom I did not meet). It is something that I think the Police Authority could look at when determining their priorities. During my waits in queues in Charing Cross Police Station I have had plenty of time to study the lists of dedicated numbers for the reporting of offences such as domestic violence or homophobic abuse to which some priority has plainly (and rightly) been given.

Looking at the feedback forms from ‘Exchanging Places’ the question of cycle training came up and I took the opportunity to ask Simon about what he thought of bikeability training and whether his officers were bikeability trained. Simon indicated he was enthusiastic about bikeability and his officers were trained to the same principles. He well understood the primary riding position and why cyclists took it. I mentioned that my own (limited) observations of officers riding was that they were not a shining beacon to enlighten the motoring public that occupation of a lane by a bicycle was acceptable and not provocative behaviour. Further I had heard second hand that some of the letters written by Roadsafe were said to have reinforced the perception that cyclists should be at the edge of the road. I am certainly not going to attempt to teach experienced police officers how they should ride but I nonetheless wonder whether an experienced outside bikeability instructor might be able to give them some insights.

My perception of the patrol was that is a very useful way of dealing with mobile phone users and traffic light offences. However nobody is going to act aggressively or close pass a uniformed police officer and I wondered if they ever went out undercover. The problem with that is that unless unformed they cannot require someone to stop. They have very good HD cameras on their helmets and so could usefully be gathering evidence but I suppose, on reflection, they have a steadily rising group of people doing that for them for free. This moved us on to the Roadsafe initiative (which is separate from Simon’s group). Simon thought prosecuting close passing motor vehicles was not sensible because it was all very subjective. I disagree, in many cases a vehicle is much too close in clear contravention of the Highway Code and driving at the very least without due consideration. It further represents a powerful disincentive to cycling (if it make me think twice it must make countless others never take to their bikes again). We discussed the effectiveness of writing letters and were able to agree that it was better than nothing. I mentioned that the Surrey Police had taken the view that one of my shots of a close pass was sufficient for a prosecution and I will let Simon know the outcome of that in due course.

Finally I slightly abused my invitation by raising my own personal disappointment that a motorist who attacked me had been given a police caution, and how I thought that violence against cyclists was a pernicious evil that ought to excite a determined response. I had just read about yet another case of a motorist taking the trouble to stop and get out of his vehicle to assault a cyclist, this time in Cambridge. Simon had heard of the Bexley case but had not heard the suggestion that the police had required a bit of encouragement to track down and pursue that yob. Simon’s take was that the caution in my case had nothing to do with the victim being a cyclist and illustrated a more general problem.

Overall

It would certainly not be fair to suggest that the police are doing nothing to counter poor driving on our roads (and I make clear I have never suggested this). It was amply demonstrated to me that the Cycling Taskforce is in a very good position to spot and deal with mobile phone and traffic light offences. The statistics Simon showed me demonstrate they do even more with, for example, a handful of drunk drivers apprehended (they do have breathalysers in their substantial panniers). I mentioned that I felt some greater emphasis of this part of their work on their website could be useful. Certainly I do not see it as my role to promulgate this information for them. The observational powers of Michael were truly impressive and this is unquestionably a good use of hard pressed police funds. Indeed out of patrol cars and off motorbikes and onto bicycles is a good way to go in Central London.

As I mentioned to Simon on the lift downward, I am more likely to be harmed by a bad driver than by a terrorist and the status and resources of traffic officers ought to reflect that. I maintain the view, which I have represented to the Police Authority, that greater priority could be given to the easy reporting and serious enforcement action, against those whose poor driving endangers vulnerable road users.

Eilidh Cairns - was the inquest into her death adequate?

2011-10-18T21:40:00.000+01:00

BBC News has been reporting the Judicial Review proceedings heard today by Mr Justice Silber in the Administrative Court. The legal action has been taken by the family of Eilidh Cairns against the Deputy Coroner of West London, Dr Shirley Radcliffe. Dr Radcliffe was responsible for conducting the Inquest into the death of Eilidh who was killed by a lorry whilst she was cycling in Notting Hill in February 2009.
Counsel for the family is quoted as arguing that Dr Radcliffe failed to comply with her duties to "fully, fairly and fearlessly" investigate the facts of the death. "There was a failure to consider the wider impact of Eilidh's death and the huge problem facing cyclists in London."
Counsel for the Deputy Coroner is quoted as arguing that the type of accident was "tragically common".and that there was no element of the accident which gave the coroner reason to think it "illustrated a systemic problem or that it might call for some specific response".
I confess that I find this response challenging; the fact that this type of accident is 'tragically common' may be thought to suggest that there is a systemic problem to which there could helpfully be 'some specific response'.
The death this month of fashion student Min Joo Lee in the motor-centric area of London around Kings Cross means that another Inquest will shortly be examining another death of a cyclist under a lorry. Her death is the subject of an interesting article at The Guardian Bike Blog
An active participation in the prevention of future unnecessary deaths might be thought to be one of the strongest justifications there is for the coronial system of investigation that has come down to us from Medieval times.
I, for one, will be awaiting Silber J's Judgment with interest.

Metropolitan Police Consultation

2011-10-07T17:37:00.000+01:00

The Metropolitan Police Authority are consulting us on the priorities to set for the Metropolitan Police. The closing date is 25th November. I have responded indicating what I believe might be an appropriate priority for them.
I have written before about the Roadsafe London website of the Metropolitan Police. I have reported many instances of bad driving to them and my hope is that they have written to at least some of the miscreants I have identified. However they have clearly rewritten their webpage in order to clarify what their priorities are:

"Please tell us about people who:

Drive under the influence of drink or drugs
Drive with no insurance
Drive without a licence or whilst disqualified from driving
Using an un-roadworthy vehicle

We are also happy to hear about:

Drivers who race or excessively rev their cars close to homes.
Road layouts that you think may be dangerous or could be improved.
Criminals who deliberately cause crashes to defraud the insurance industry"

There is an old legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius which helpfully identifies that if you list a lot of things you want to be told about then it suggests that you may not be too interested in other things. Equally if you list a lot of things that you are happy to hear about, it rather suggests you are not happy to hear about other things. So where does bad driving around cyclists, use of mobile phones whilst driving, roadrage and the like fit into all this? Possibly somewhere below the interests of the insurance industry and the peace and quiet of residential areas (not that those things do not have some importance, but they are not life and death).

I thought I had better look to the Metropolitan Police Cycle Taskforce in the hope that they were working hard to keep us cyclists safe from harm on the road. Their priority appears to be very clearly on cycle theft (again important but not life and death) though they have set up a lorry in Trafalgar Square to show cyclists lorry blindspots (with an emphasis it seems on changing the behaviour of cyclists rather than that of lorries). I could not see that there was a way of reporting bad driving to them.

Having hunted around a bit on the Metropolitan Police website, I thought I might make a contribution to what I thought might be prioritised more highly than at present.

What's that camera doing on your head (Part 2)?

2011-10-01T10:45:00.002+01:00

It has been nearly 15 months since I last answered this question. Since then I have filmed two incidents that have resulted in prosecutions in the Magistrates' Courts (neither yet concluded) and have some footage of a collision which could be useful in the event that liability for the damage becomes an issue. The camera, modest as it is, has served a useful purpose.
Alas, I did not have my camera when I was assaulted on a Sunday club run but I read from The Dartford Messenger that as a consequence of helmet camera footage, the man who assaulted a cyclist in Bexley has been convicted and punished. This follows the conviction of a motorist in Manchester of assaulting a cyclist and driving without due care as reported in The Manchester Evening News. There is no doubt that neither criminal would have been brought to justice without helmet camera footage. Incidently the Bexley case leads me to nominate for judicial hero of the year District Judge Roger Ede who commented that:
“Cyclists are very vulnerable and they feel exposed and feel threatened when a car comes too close to them. Car drivers need to respect cyclists and understand that.”

Using a camera does though court a degree of controversy, even amongst the odd fellow cyclist. Some argue that those with cameras go out 'looking for trouble' or that they 'bring trouble on themselves', or that their expectation that the laws there to protect them be obeyed and enforced is insufferably self-righteousness. Others claim that they avoid all trouble through their superior riding skills and calm state of mind. I find it difficult to accept that any cyclist would look for trouble; there is simply too much at stake, and I am frankly astonished at how ready some people are to blame cyclists for any dangerous driving or other aggression that takes place around them. We surely want more people to take to cycling and they will, by definition, start off as inexperienced. How many will persevere in the face of experiences like the following?

It is impossible to convey how intimidating this is without camera footage and I defy anybody to explain how this is the fault of anybody but the lorry driver's, or how calm acceptance on the part of the cyclist (that's me) of current conditions on the roads would have helped prevent this.
I do not see how it can be anything but good for all cyclists to have this standard of driving brought to the driver, his employer's and the police's attention.

UPDATE 19.01.12. Since I wrote the above both the Magistrates' Court cases mentioned above have been concluded. Scott Lomas was convicted of a Public Order Offence committed near Hounslow and charges were dropped against Christopher Bootle for (alleged) inconsiderate driving in Staines because on review of the file it was discovered that the necessary notice of intention to prosecute had not been served.

Road Traffic Collision

2011-09-24T10:01:00.000+01:00

A car ran into me last week and buckled my front wheel. Fortunately my only injury was a sprained thumb in contact with the handlebars at the time of the blow. I did not come off the bike as I was already stationary with a foot on the ground by the time of impact. We exchanged details so at least it was not a 'hit and run'. However driving into a stationary bicycle who has right of way over you in the middle of the road smacks to me of careless driving and I wished to report it to the police.
'No', I could not report it to the Metropolitan Police Roadsafe site, they do not deal in collisions. 'No' I could not file the multi-page Collision Report Form on-line or send it in. 'Yes', I had to deliver it to a police station and hand it in (an effective way to deter reporting).
So, for the second time in a year, I found myself waiting for 20 minutes at Charing Cross Police Station behind a queue of people reporting the theft of their mobile 'phones so that I could hand over a form.
Will any action be taken? I doubt it but I will keep you posted.

Legal Update Autumn 2011

2011-09-22T21:47:00.002+01:00

This update has to return to the thorny issue of contributory negligence on the part of a cyclist for not wearing a cycle helmet. The issue arose in unusual circumstances in the case of Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP [2011]EWHC 2263. Judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Oliver-Jones QC (sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court – and apparently sitting in the Chancery Division!). The case has, in addition, implications for those who organise cycle races.

Mr Reynolds brought what, on the face of it, might be thought an ambitious claim against his employers for not making him wear a cycle helmet so as to protect him from the consequences of his own recklessness when taking part in a cycle race. The cycle race was organised by Mr Reynolds’s employers, a well known estate agency, and formed part of a social afternoon of team bonding. As part of the fun, Mr Reynolds and his co-workers were not told of the nature of the day’s events until they arrived at the site where the activities were to take place.

The race was between only four competitors and took place on a 3.5 km, 6 to 8 metre wide, closed road racing circuit at Fowlmead Country Park (built on the site of the former Betteshanger Colliery near Deal, Kent.)

Much of the Judgment is taken up with a discussion as to whether there was an adequate risk assessment with what appears to be an assumption all round that such an assessment should require the use of helmets. The Highway Code recommendation about helmets is not of course directly relevant since the race was not on the Highway. Instead there was reference to a Health and Safety Executive recommendation that cycle helmets be worn. Unfortunately the Judge does not indicate where this recommendation is to be found. Some of the witnesses clearly thought that there was a relevant HSE recommendation. At one point the Judge refers to ‘the recommended use of helmets by the HSE, which itself was, in my judgment ignored’ and at a later point that one witness ought to have discussed with his colleagues ‘what was said to be an HSE recommendation for the use of helmets’. There appears to have been a very curious failure to get to the bottom of what the HSE did recommend and how. I am not aware of any HSE guidance on the topic and perhaps if any reader is they would be kind enough to post a comment with the reference.

Possibly the rather sketchy consideration as to whether helmets should be worn is explained by the fact that the Claimant’s case against his employer depended upon proving that they were in breach of duty in failing to provide a helmet and the employer was in turn running a contributory negligence argument that Mr Reynolds was at fault in not wearing a helmet. Furthermore on the Defendant's version of the facts they had advised Mr Reynolds to wear a helmet. There was nobody there then to interfere with the cosy consensus that helmets should have been worn.

Obviously the competitors themselves did not have helmets (or presumably any other cycling kit) as they did not know they were going to be racing until they got to the Park. The Park had some helmets and, on the Judge’s findings, when presented with their bicycles the twelve competitors were told that helmets were available, but were not encouraged, still less required, to wear them. Apparently only one of the 12 competitors in the event wore a helmet. The deeply unattractive prospect of putting on a helmet in which somebody else has raced does not appear to have struck anybody in Court.

The 12 racers were split into groups of 4 who competed, as two teams of two, in heats so the race in which Mr Reynolds was injured started as a four horse race. It appears that Mr. Reynolds led much of the way but the tactically more savvy colleague, one Mr Cracknell, looked like passing him in the sprint for the line. The Judge found that Mr Reynolds then made a deliberate decision to prevent Cracknell passing him and forcing him to brake. ‘He was making a deliberate decision to behave in an aggressive manner, reckless as to the consequences.' As every racing cyclist knows the deliberate blocking of a rival, especially in the sprint is, absolutely not on, highly dangerous and almost certain to end in disaster. So it was in this case: Mr Cracknell was fortunately uninjured (had he been injured he could presumably have sued Mr Reynolds); Mr Reynolds unhappily was injured sustaining a serious brain injury.

Causation was addressed in as perfunctory manner as the assumed need to wear a helmet and for similar reasons. The Defendant did not have an expert at all and the Claimant had no medical evidence (described as a fundamental evidential omission by Griffith Williams J in Smith v Finch). The Claimant did have evidence form Dr Bryan Chinn (the same expert who gave evidence for Mr Smith to the effect that a helmet does not protect in a high speed impact). On this occasion he gave evidence that a helmet would have helped because the speed with which Mr Reynolds’s head struck the ground was within the range where use of a cycle helmet was effective. There was, however, a notable absence of a finding as to the speed at which Mr Reynolds’s head did strike the ground, and it seems improbable that it was less than the 12 mph standard to which helmets must conform. Possibly with an eye to the argument to be run that Reynolds was himself at fault in not wearing a helmet the Defendant ultimately conceded that the absence of a helmet was causative of some injury (how some injury differed from the actual injury was not further explored).

These findings of breach (carelessness) and causation were necessary both for a finding of liability against the Defendant employer for not encouraging/requiring the Claimant to use one of those proffered helmets and also for a finding of contributory negligence against the Claimant for not wearing one of those helmets. The ultimate division of responsibility was one third (Defendant employer) and two thirds (Claimant Mr Reynolds) so that the Claimant recovers one third of the dmages he would have got if the Defendant was wholly liable. Given that Reynolds had deliberately and recklessly blocked his opponent one has to assume that the deduction for not wearing a helmet was marginal compared to the deduction required for deliberately reckless cycling (the two elements were never separated out).

For reasons expressed above the Judgment is not really a satisfactory authority for anything. It will perhaps reinforce upon race organisers a need for a risk assessment to contain provision for requiring the use of cycle helmets. It has no sensible bearing upon the situation where a motorised vehicle collides with a cyclist.

Final thought: is it better that people race without helmets or that they do not race at all; a consideration relevant to section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006? The Judge thought requiring helmets would not put people off taking part in this type of recreational activity; maybe not if you have your own helmet.
So far as I am aware there is no appeal against this decision. In his litigation, at least, Mr Reynolds has been fortunate.

My Spring update dealt with another helmet case, Phethean-Hubble v Coles. This case is due to come before the Court of Appeal in late November though I doubt that the helmet issue will feature prominently.

Helmet Camera Prosecution Updates

2011-09-06T16:02:00.002+01:00

Scott Lomas - the trial on a charge of threatening/abusive words/behaviour which was due to take place tomorrow has today been adjourned at Lomas's request. There will be another preliminary hearing, this time at West London Magistrates' Court on 20th September.

[UPDATE: Lomas was apparently unwell on 20th September and appeared instead on 4th October. The trial is now set to take place on 28th November 2011 at West London Magistrates Court (Hammersmith) at 0930.]

I have also learnt today that an individual whom I filmed has been charged with careless driving and his first appearance will be before Staines Magistrates' Court on 13th October.

[FURTHER UPDATE 09.12.11: The Lomas case has been adjourned to 18th January 2012. The Staines case against Christopher Bootle has been withdrawn due to an administrative failure to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution in time].

My etape and Roadpeace - An update - £1,000 raised.

2011-08-30T13:47:00.000+01:00

Many thanks to those who have so generously supported my etape this year by providing sponsorship for Roadpeace. With all contributions presumably now in, the donations with tax relief have come to £1,000, which I am hoping the Charity will find a useful addition to their resources.

Riots

2011-08-29T16:18:00.002+01:00

There has been considerable media interest in the reaction of the Criminal Justice System to the summer rioting that broke out in many major cities this month. This morning on the radio I heard a representative of magistrates argue with a representative of prison governors over whether there had been a frenzy of disproportionate sentences meted out to those involved in the riots. I am not particularly qualified to comment -it has been many years since I regularly attended the criminal courts. Some of the sentencing does strike me as tough, but no more so than on other occasions when the Establishment is under threat.
Also on the radio over the summer I heard a senior London Crown Prosecutor indicate that no cautions had been given to offenders involved in the riots. A document leaked from the Metropolitan Police to The Guardian appears to confirm that as a matter of policy no cautions have been considered by the Police for such offenders either. I will keep to myself thoughts on whether all this is a good or a bad thing; happily I blog my views on cycling not rioting.
What all this does suggest, however, is that the 'Gravity Factors Matrix' used by the police before issuing a caution , is no more than a fig-leaf to cover a police assessment of what the public interest requires. It is naive in the extreme to suppose that these decisions are not influenced by political, media and public pressure. We need to send out the message that the public interest requires the prosecution of those guilty of harming a cyclist, whether using a motor vehicle or fists. Such people may never be at the receiving end of the iron fist, as if they were in on a riot, but if we make enough fuss, the kid-glove treatment may at least cease.

(Yet) Another Assault on a Cyclist and musings on The Establishment

2011-08-04T11:59:00.002+01:00

Another cyclist using the roads in a lawful manner, and negotiating a roundabout in precisely the way that is recommended and taught on training courses, is subjected to a violent assault. The consequences could well have been even more severe if the cyclist did not have the presence of mind to adopt a submissive apologetic attitude (something I am totally incapable of doing in similar circumstances).

Only a small minority of cyclists are equipped with helmet cameras, yet this type of assault is recorded on a regular basis. What we see on youtube is the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.
I understand that this assault occurred in Essex so it is now the turn of the Essex Police to reveal their attitude. I hope they do not share the approach of my own home force, Thames Valley Police, who would not even countenance the possibility of a prosecution unless the thug was either daft enough to deny it or had done it before.
I cannot resist musing upon why a leniency is extended to those who attack cyclists that would never be extended to a comedian who attacks a media moghal with a harmless plate of shaving foam or, still less, somebody committing an offence in the course of a demonstration. Many years ago I worked, as a very junior barrister, with a senior wily old QC for a client who sought to take on the Government and (quite wrongly) lost. The QC explained to me quietly that the decision could be explained by The Establishment closing rank. At the time I thought he was being preposterous; and I sure some who read this will think the same of me. However as I now approach becoming a wily old QC myself I see the wisdom of his words. When I put on a wig and a silk gown, I am a member of The Establishment and enjoy the respect, privileges and (I have no doubt) full protection of the law should I require it. In contrast when I get on my bicycle, I step outside The Establishment. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mayor of London are all more or less cyclists, The Establishment still expects travel by limo, taxi or jet. Threaten the Duchess of Cornwall (say) through the plate glass of a limo window and you can expect trouble. Had she been threatened by a motorist for taking a line through a roundabout on a bicycle of which he disapproved then The Establishment reaction would be confused ('Royalty on a bicycle, don't be absurd!').
The last Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for all his purported enthusiasm to promote cycling, declined to cycle himself, claiming to fear the targeting and abuse he might get from other roadusers. As Mayor he could expect to, and did, get the full protection of The Establishment, but he could not be sure he would get it on a bicycle. Whether the current Mayor gets abused and threatened on his bicycle and whether if he does he would wish to make that public, I do not know.
I have now for several years been pressing for a sea-change in the attitude to cycling and to cyclists. The Establishment is certainly encouraging cycling (particularly for outsiders) but I want The Establishment to embrace cycling to such an extent that I step down from its protection no less when mounting a bicycle than were I ever to step into a limo or be required to account for my actions before a Parliamentary Select Committee. With the advent of the internet I am prepared to speak less softly than the wily old QC. Do I risk being thrown out altogether? Possibly, but it is worth it, and if Mr Murdoch's place within The Establishment is still secure, there must be hope yet for me.

My etape 2011 - Sunday 17th July Issoire to St Flour

2011-07-19T08:41:00.028+01:00

The numbers heading into the start pens in the grey dawn of that Sunday morning in Issoire did seem to be down on those at my previous etapes. Up until now there had only really been a light drizzle and I had even felt slightly overdressed as I set out from my hotel in Parentignat 20 minutes earlier. The organisers report that there were just 4,000 riders at the start and I can well imagine that with the dire forecast, if I had not come so far, I might well have decided to ride the route another day. Looking around I was in a minority with covered knees and seemed to be alone in having covered fingers.

As we set off South towards the hills of the Massif Central, the rain became more steady and the roads more slippery. I recall standing on the pedals close to the start to accelerate and the rear wheel slipping around. At one point there was a large police presence and a cacophony of whistles at a railway crossing where every few seconds another rider would slide off.

At Massiac we turned right onto the first real climb and into a headwind. As we got higher the wind blew harder and colder and the rain turned to sleet. This is where I first saw riders heading back towards Issoire. Initially I thought maybe they were going back to look for friends but then it dawned to me as this trickle turned to a steady stream that they had had enough and were going back either to Issoire or to find the broom wagon. At the top of the climb was a long flat but the power of the headwind was sufficient to make it seem a steep uphill. The short descent when it arrived was no relief as it was bitterly cold (the organisers say 4⁰C) and went down to the first feed station at Allanche. Here many were shivering violently and did not appear to be in a fit state to continue. The organisers were suggesting direct routes on to the finish at St Flour.

I persevered and started to warm somewhat on the ascent of the Col du Pas de Peyrol. The rain had finally started to ease though the roads were still very wet. On the descent of the Peyrol, the pros had come unstuck a week earlier in drier conditions. The writing on the road ‘Vino Out’ at the point where the controversial Kazak rider had come off the road and broken his hip served as a reminder not to allow the speed to build up. Every time I applied my brakes it took several seconds for the water to get squeezed out and for any force to appear to counter the acceleration due to gravity. This was going to be a long slow day.

The road carried on up and down with no significant flat in between. At some points you could see the riders ahead tacking up the mountain and then disappearing into the cloud. At the top I was nearly knocked sideways by a massive crosswind before descending in cloud down the other side. The little I could see of the scenery was breathtaking and on a clear day it must be quite stunning. We entered a world of ski resorts which had fantastic roads where it was finally possible to pick up speed on descents because the roads were so wide and straight you did not need to think about braking.

The Chateau d’Alleuze guards a deep valley but by the time I reached this point it was again pouring with rain dashing any hope of completing part of the ride, or arriving at the finish, dry. As I passed the Chateau the sun did come out and cause the wet roads to steam but it was still raining heavily. We carried on eventually arriving at a flat section where Johnny Hoogerland had been knocked flying into a barbed wire fence by the driver of a TV car.

Finally with just a few kilometres to go, the rain stopped and the sun came out just in time for me to see Saint Flour perched spectacularly on the top of a rock with a smattering of buildings at the bottom that looked as though they may have fallen off the main town. The sun had brought out spectators and there were hundreds of them cheering enthusiastically as we made the final ascent to the top of the town and the finish.

Apparently just 1982 people finished. I took 10 hours of which I spent 9.5 hours moving. The advertised limit was 12 hours and people were still finishing for a couple of hours after I had. I heard subsequently that the organisers had brought forward the cut off times though I am not sure that it was not more a case of people by necessity taking much longer than would be usual, and the organisers being rigid in their adherence to times that would have given trouble to far fewer in better conditions.

I had had vague plans of riding back to my hotel in Parentignat but it was soon raining again and happily I found a lift with a couple form Kent.

Back at my family run hotel I had a huge plate of the local cheese. They are very proud of their cheese round here with ample justification. Sadly it is not available at my local Waitrose.

Please sponsor my Etape 2011

2011-07-10T19:56:00.001+01:00

My post yesterday reminds me of the need for an outbreak of peace on the roads. Watching Stage 9 of the Tour this afternoon shocked me. Pile ups in the peloton are one thing but the fact that a cyclist is still not safe from a careless motorist when riding in a break-away in the Tour de France is profoundly depressing.

Looking at today's stage also brought home to me how long and hilly it is. This is the route for next Sunday's etape, the one that I am signed up to do. So I have decided to seek sponsorship in support of Roadpeace, a charity I have mentioned before on these pages.

The Etape

For the past 18 years one of the mountain stages of the Tour de France has been available for amateurs to ride. The popularity of the event is such that the organisers this year have arranged two Etapes. The first, held tomorrow, on the Modane - Alpe d'Huez stage covering 109 km, will be the shortest in history. This is the same stage the pros will ride in stage 19 on July 22. The second Etape for 2011, on July 17, will be the longest in history, covering 209 km, from Issoire to Saint Flour in the Massif Central (south of Clermont Ferrand). The pros have just ridden this stage today in stage 9 of the Tour and this is the stage I am riding. In addition to being long it is very hilly with 8 categorised climbs. It will possibly be the hardest day of cycling I have done.

Please consider sponsoring me at http://www.justgiving.com/Martin-Porter0

Thanks

Another assault on a cyclist

2011-07-09T17:19:00.002+01:00

There is far too much of this going on and it should be taken seriously by the authorities. It seems in London the trail initially ran cold when the registered keeper said the car was taken without his consent and subsequently returned, though subsequent publicity has I understand resulted in an arrest. In Thames Valley any such offender, if unlucky enough to be caught, would be given a simple caution. In Manchester the police have led the way with a serious investigation followed by passing the evidence to the CPS for prosecution.

There really ought not in any part of the country to be any doubt that this conduct consitutes a serious crime which calls for deterrence. 'Road rage' does not excuse, it exacerbates, the conduct. Currently the State is encouraging us all to get out of our cars and onto our bikes but providing patchy protection at best for those of us who receive aggression in consequence.

Passing laws about passing bikes

2011-07-09T12:13:00.000+01:00

Cycling in France I again noticed the prevalence of signs urging motorists to pass cyclists with at least 1.5 metres and almost without exception they did (the exception was a Belgian driver on an Alpe d'Huez hairpin!).
Now I am back to my familiar commute and nothing has changed.

Hounslow yesterday evening

A couple of weeks ago we had Nova Scotian friends staying with us. Naturally I asked them about the new law in Nova Scotia requiring (as of 1st June) that motorists leave at least one metre when passing a cyclist. Both our visitors are drivers but neither had heard of the new law. One was also a cyclist but it did not mean much to him as he rides on the pavement, reasoning that the roads are not safe for cyclists. I rather suspect that if such a law were passed here it would be neither observed nor enforced; it will be interesting to see what, if any, real difference it makes to Nova Scotian cyclists.

I have some expereince of cycling in Nova Scotia. Not only am I required to wear a helmet but by law
"No person shall ride a bicycle on a highway except as near as practicable to the extreme right of the main travelled portion of the highway and no person shall ride a bicycle abreast of or generally parallel to another bicycle in motion on the highway except for the purpose of passing any such other bicycle." That is a tough one for anybody who has undertaken any cycle training here and must be even tougher for those on club runs. My strategy was to hold a secondary position about a metre from the edge as that is as near as practicable for me. In fairness they do have much wider roads than us and do not design in width restrictions as a means of traffic calming, so a bicycle and a car side by side in the same lane is not quite the adrenalin rush that it is here.

Having a lot of laws is not necessarily a solution. What we really need is more consistent and determined enforcement of the laws we have against dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention or due consideration to other road users. A close pass depends somewhat upon the speed and size of the vehicle concerned. It is more easily recognised than defined and is self-evidently driving without due consideration. Will the bus driver (see picture) be prosecuted for driving without due consideration? Not a chance. Would additional laws make a difference? Same answer.

La Marmotte and Grimpee de l'Alpe

2011-07-07T11:04:00.003+01:00

I pitched up last weekend along with 4 teammates to enjoy La Marmotte, the famous Alpine Cyclosportive that takes in four mountain climbs (Glandon, Telegraphe, Galibier and Alpe d'Huez). I had never riden in the Alps and this ride seemed more worth the trip than the Alpine Etape which takes in Galibier and Alpe d'Huez (I plan on doing the St Fleur/Issoire one instead now we have a choice!)
The day we arrived (Thursday) I clumsely put the rear derailleur on crooked when rebuilding my bike (rather easily done especially wiht a multitool with too short an allen key). Do learn from my mistake and exercise extreme care to screw your rear derailleur on straight. When I got to a slope (never far away in Alpe d'Huez) and selected the largest sprocket, my rear mech flew into my rear wheel causing a mangled wreckage of derailleur, chain and wheel spokes. Fortunately there was time on Friday for a jouney down the mountain to Bourg d'Oisans to find a new rear hanger and derailleur and then to the amazingly helpful Mavic van in Alpe d'Huez who replaced three spokes, trued the wheel and then fit a new chain all for the price of the chain only.
With all this kerfuffle I only had time for a short ride on Friday evening when I checked the bike out by taking a scenic route to Reculas

The next day it was time for The Marmotte, a little over 100 miles and around 5,000 metres of climbing - my hardest day on the bike since I did the Gran Fondo Sportful two years ago. I was very unsure of my staying power, which has not been tested a lot recently, and also my standard chainring (39/53 for the technically minded) was a definite departure from my triple (30/42/53) which I have used on all previous mountain adventures, though I did take the precaution of a 29 rear sprocket.. I set off at a steady pace nailing my heartrate at 130 bpm and not worrying about the time. The strategy worked as, apart from some annoying right foot pain, I had a fairly comfortable ride. Also I need not have worried about the gearing; all 4 passes averaged under 10% and did not exceed around 14% at any one point so the gearing was fine; although I would on occasion have rather spun a lower gear than grind on. Lots of British riders there, including familiar faces from London Dynamo and Kingston Wheelers and I was even recognised half way up the Galibier as 'the cycling lawyer'.

Snow on the Galibier. Photo from http://www.photobreton.com/

My certificate shows my times (minus the neutralised descent off the Glandon - an attempt to reduce accidents). The "Brevet d'Or" cannot be right and conflicts with the "Brevet d'Argent" on the certificate handed to me at the finish. I would never expect to get a Gold on a route that includes mountain descents as I lack the nerve to hurtle off a mountain at 50 mph.

Fancy a race?

The following day I went back to Bourg for the Grimpee. This is described in many places as time trial up Alpe d'Huez but it is not. Thankfully it is a mass start roadrace up Alpe d'Huez which is much more fun. Full race speed with a multi vehicle escort from the roundabout to the foot of the slope then inevitably the bunch split into a thousand pieces as we hit the slope. People turned out on a Sunday morning to cheer us on and this time the certificate I got at the finsih was a 'Brevert d'Or' with my time of 1h:04. I may just have to return and do a sub-hour.

The Grimpee de l'Alpe, the morning after the day before.

Photo from http://www.photobreton.com/

LVRC Road Race Chamionship 2011

2011-07-07T11:02:00.001+01:00

On 26th June I had the privilege of being one of the 45 riders lining up on the start line of the League of Veteran Racing Cyclists Road Race Championships in Oxfordshire. This was a superbly organised (by Reading CC) race and divided into 5 year age ranges so, a first for me, I was racing with people a maximum of 4 years youger than I am; a far cry from the British Cycling Road Races where I am, rather hopelessly, competing against many people less than half my age.
My hope had been to hang on to the bunch for the duration of the race. The first lap was sedate enough and I even got lulled into a sense of security. The circuit contained a steep descent from Stoke Row with a sharp bend at the bottom. Although it was a hot summer's day the descent was wooded and the road still wet. I find it hard to hold my nerve when descending (it is probably not helped by being a personal injury lawyer who has had clients whose bicycles have fallen apart underneath them at inopportune moments). My Garmin shows that 37.3 mph was the maximum I mnaged on that descent when the bunch was probably going 45mph. I had therefore to play catch up on the immediately following climb. I managed this twice but the second lap was fast (apparently the fastest of the day) and though I held on it was at a price and I just slipped off the back during a long upward drag on the approach to Nettlebed on lap 3.
I always try to finish a race I have started and before long I was doing a two-up with Paul Burgoine, whom I have known a few years now, and who has also blogged about this race. Initially he was more tired than I was and even suggested I left him (no way - it is no fun doing a road race on your own off the back), then as the remaining laps rolled by I tired and he recovered and then easily dropped me on the last downhill.
We succeeded in our objective in not getting lapped by the field but did not make it onto the list of finishers.
Better reports of the racing can be found elsewhere.
I would encourage anyone over 40 to join the LVRC. It seems to me that as we get to our middle years the need to remain active becomes more important than ever and you can have a good day out even if, like me (at least on my current form and weight), you are pretty hopeless.
It requires a lot of man (and woman) power to put on a road race; there are a lot of volunteers to be very grateful to in our sport. Also it was very decent of the ambulance to stick behind Paul and me, sheltering us from the traffic until the last lap meant that it really ought to be on hand for the sprint.

AAAAAAAAAARGH!

2011-06-28T12:35:00.002+01:00

The Freight Transport Association has issued a new guide called the FTA Cycling Code. It is a useful idea to produce something like this to attempt to reduce the tragic and unnecessary loss of life and injury that occurs when lorries come into contact with bicycles. The advice for cyclists is readily available elsewhere and the section is most useful for pointing out to lorry drivers that cyclists are advised that:

"Your road position should not be less than one metre from the kerb and should be further out if it is not safe for a vehicle to pass. If someone does pass you inconsiderately then you have more room to get out of harm’s way. Keeping away from the gutter will enable drivers to see you and also help you miss the drain covers and debris on the side of the road too"

My experience indicates that some of the advice to lorry drivers is badly needed. I hate to quibble but I believe the following section should urge 1.5 metres:

"3 ‘Give a metre’ or hold back until there’s room
Many roads have too little space for cyclists and hgvs at the same time. If an hgv cannot give a cyclist at least a metre’s clearance then they should hold back. Drivers should bear in mind that cyclists are trained not to ride too close to the kerb. The Highway Code advises that you should give at least as much room as when overtaking a car."

Drivers reading this who do not have experience of cycling are likely to feel that a metre is fine and ignore the 'at least' bit. My view, and it is one adopted in much of Europe, is that 1.5 metres is better practice and is definitely required if the lorry is overtaking the cyclist at speed. Furthermore if a metre is just fine then that cyclist who is travelling 1 metre out from the kerb is 'an obstruction' and 'should keep in to let me pass' as has been yelled to me too often.

The reason for the title of this post is that the above picture is reproduced on the guide without any obvious indication of irony or that it is illustrating a problem. Both the driver and the cyclist are ignoring the advice in this guide and the people who have selected the photograph do not appear to have noticed. I am sometimes close to despair.

..and here is one that happened to me yesterday

Helmet Camera secures a conviction

2011-06-18T13:47:00.000+01:00

Michael Stewart at Court yesterday. Picture from Manchester Evening News

Michael Stewart was convicted and sentenced yesterday at Manchester Magistrates' Court of driving without due care and attention and for common assault. He had pleaded guilty to both offences. He was acquitted of the charge of dangerous driving. After driving close to a cyclist, Neil Chatterjee, Stewart got out of his BMW car and grabbed Mr Chatterjee by the throat. The Magistrate accepted as beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Chatterjee's account of the assault was correct and that Mr Stewart's (that he had only grabbed his clothing) was false.

Sentencing Stewart, the Court described the attack as reprehensible, serious and road rage. The Manchester Evening News reports that Stewart was ordered to pay a £200 fine and £200 court costs. His licence was endorsed with five penalty points. He was also given a six-week community order with a four-week evening curfew.

Stewart admitted the assault and there is no report of any previous convictions. Accordingly had these events occurred in the Thames Valley Police area he would have been given a caution as a matter of course. Fortunately the Manchester Police and CPS are made of sterner stuff and deserve full credit for bringing this before a Court. Equally it is incredibly rare for a prosecution to arise from passing close to a cyclist without actually knocking him off. Police forces everywhere will hopefully note this result. The Manchester CPS were not afraid of erring on the side of the victim; the fact that Stewert was acquitted of dangerous driving does not mean that the decision to puruse the charge was incorrect.

"Use the cycle path!" (here we go again)

2011-06-16T20:58:00.003+01:00

The driver of this silver car LC10PYB has a number of excuses for nearly killing me. He responded to the policeman who wrote to him that I was presenting an unneccesary hazard by not using the shared use cycle path alongside this road. He was affronted that my presence caused him to have to move further into the offside lane (did he??) than was usually required to pass a bicycle. He was not apparently to blame at all, as I should not have been there. He reinforced these points by asserting that his passenger agreed with him. According to the policeman, who forwarded these comments to me, he is not alone amongst the drivers whose carelessness I have reported in expressing those sentiments. This is a motorist's mindset that ought, as I have explained in earlier posts, to have been dispelled finally by the quashing of the conviction of Daniel Cadden.

I have tried segregated cycling infrastructure. I tried it again this week on my way back from a race at Hillingdon when I was willing to spin out at slow speed, but I just cannot see it as a sensible way of travelling a moderate to long distance in a reasonable time.

There is a shocking irony here; that motorists many of whom are highly antagonistic to any attempts to get them to slow down in built up areas or even in some cases hostile to attempts to enforce existing speed limits(and thereby unquestionably to save lives), consider it perfectly reasonable to expect cyclists to sacrifice speed and convenience just to get out of their way or (so some like the driver of LC10PYB imply) it is perfectly alright to endanger our lives by passing by at 50mph with a couple of feet to spare.

Wessex 100 Cyclosportive. Somerset and Dorset Sunday 29th May 2011

2011-06-01T22:26:00.002+01:00

On the late May bank holiday weekend, Pendragon Sports organises a 3 day cyclosportive event running a loop out and back in different directions each day from Somerton. As I blogged last year I am full of admiration for those who do three days. I cheat and do only the second day which heads south to the Dorset coast and back.
There was a stiff north westerly wind which blew us down to the coast but then slowed progress on the return leg. Following the start, a fairly large group formed and this started to split on the steady climb out of Sherborne. I put in the effort to cross the opening gap and stick with the front group. This was probably a mistake as I ended up putting far too much effort in too early. I knew that the climb out of Cerne Abbas would be a point at which I could well get dropped so I passed straight through the first feed (which at 30 miles was too soon for my needs anyway) and tackled the hill at my own pace. The group passed me as I neared the top. I had thought I might hang on until the hill at the coast on the Lulworth army firing range but I actually got dropped a little earlier than that on the more modest climb out of West Lulworth.
After getting to the firing range on my own, I enjoyed taking the bigger hill with the views of tanks and their targets, Poole Harbour and finally open sea. At the top I took a quick break and another rider caught up so we two-upped to the spectacular ruins of Corfe Castle. Here we were caught by the next group who provided well needed shelter as we turned into the wind to head towards Wareham and the first feed where we stopped for 6 minutes enjoying sandwiches, pasties, pork pies and sweets (certainly the best food I have encountered on a cyclosportive). This group was well organised doing one mile turns at the front in rotation. We were now 66 miles in and as I led out of the feed I indicated I would not be able to do a mile - so we settled on one minute turns, which worked well for the next 15 miles or so to Milton Abbas.
We took the long relentless drag from there up to Bulbarrow Hill at a sensible pace altogether though I was by now definitely flagging. At around 90 miles there was another feed. All bar me stopped, I wanted to press on gently. This I did and when the group came by me I did not have the energy to latch on. I spent the last 29 miles of this 119 mile ride on my own, towards the end the next group came by me but by this stage I could only watch them flash by and limp to the finish.
Two years ago, on this event, I got a Gold, last year a Silver and this year a Bronze. These results mean little and do appear to be subject to significant vagaries and some subtle differences in route and less subtle differences in weather from year to year.
'Officially' the route was 117 miles and my time 6 hours 32 minutes
Stats from my Garmin were 119 miles in 6:24 with an average speed of 18.5 mph. Apparently I hit 43 mph somewhere.
A great ride, I will certainly be back though I suspect I will be sticking to one day; the following morning a repeat challenge did not seem an appealing prospect and not only because of the rain. Those that do the three days are hardy indeed.

Sir Alan Beith's Private Member's Bill

2011-05-19T18:02:00.000+01:00

Yesterday afternoon Sir Alan Beith spoke in support of his private member's Bill which would "require the Secretary of State to make provision requiring the fitting of equipment to heavy goods vehicles to eliminate driver blind spots; to make other provisions relating to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users; and for connected purposes". The Bill passed its first reading. This development, like similar proposals that achieved widespread support in the European Parliament and are now before the Commission, result directly from the hard work of the family of Eilidh Cairns.
I have said plenty on these pages already about the hazards presented to cyclists by lorries. Let us hope that the old acceptance that lorries can be permitted onto our crowded streets with 'blind spots' will soon be a thing of the past. I see that the Bill is also supported by Dr Julian Huppert, whose good sense I have already noted.

I am relieved to see sense being talked in Parliament after the disproportionate reaction to the unfortunate, but extremely rare, death of a pedestrian after being run down by a cyclist which led to Andrea Leadsom's private member's Bill earlier this year.

I have also seen this week on The One Show, James Cracknell calling for legislation mandating cycle helmets. Mr Cracknell is plainly a nice guy who cycles but he is in league with the definitely non-cycling Angie Lee (who chooses to lecture children on the hazards of cycling without a helmet rather than on the dangers of diabetes and heart disease). Despite the failure of his helmet to save him from a very serious brain injury, James Cracknell genuinely believes that he would be worse off without the helmet. He goes so far as to condemn non helmeted cyclists for not thinking of their relatives. What I cannot understand is where were the thoughts for Mr Cracknell's relatives on the part of the lorry driver who apparently slammed his wing mirror into the back of James's head at 70 mph? I would be interested in a follow up story that indicates whether this driver is now languishing in a prison cell or still driving a truck. I cannot understand why some are more focussed upon the dubious benefits of a helmet rather than on ensuring that these lorry/cyclist collisions do not happen. I applaud Sir Alan for grasping the right end of the stick.

Rights to privacy - am I invading them?

2011-05-18T14:31:00.001+01:00

We have been hearing a lot in the press lately about the tension between the individual's right to privacy, enshrined in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to freedom of expression (article 10). One vehicle driver (pictured) has got somewhat agitated about it on my youtube channel.

The most important human right of all is the right to life (article 2), not just my own (though naturally I attach great importance to it) but the right to life of all who venture onto the roads, as we are exhorted to do by government, and as directly benefits society as a whole including motorists. Unhappily some of those cyclists will be killed and disproportionately they will be killled by those operating larger vehicles. So if you do not wish to be filmed operating the controls of your mp3 player whilst behind the wheel of a large van do not pass me like this:

or (to take some other very recent examples) this

this

or, this

Almost every day I report a vehicle to the police or an employer to draw to their attention a driver's apparent total ignorance of:

Whether effective action ever results I do not know. 'Easykleen' have declined to tell me the results of any internal disciplinary process there may have been on the grounds of the driver's confidentiality. Prosecutions in the absence of actually knocking a cyclist off are unheard of.
Statistically we face greater dangers at junctions. However as cyclists we have no real control, other than through assertive positioning which is at best only a partial answer, over the vehicles which pass us too closely. I am sure this behaviour drives many would be cyclists from the roads.
So do I have any qualms about 'invading your privacy' when you choose to drive inconsiderately around a cyclist on a public road? No, I do not.

Fred Whitton Challenge Sunday 8th May 2011

2011-05-17T17:16:00.000+01:00

I started this blog two years ago with the FWC 2009 with no inkling that events would turn me into what the media types that contact me call 'a cycling campaigner' and this a correspondingly campaigning site. It is refreshing to get several hundred miles away from the stressed out competition between roadusers in the London commuter belt, to an event where everybody is at least aiming to enjoy a long ride in idyllic lakeland countryside.

My club had a team of 6 (down from 7 due to a nasty crash in the Masters' Race at Hillingdon a few days before). We had come ready for the hills but possibly not the weather. There was steady rain in the morning but by the time I started at 8am it looked as though there may be some respite from the worst of it. However I got the torrential downpour of hail with high wind as I was tackling the first really steep climb at Honister. The wind was still howling and the rain lashing down as I tackled the first really steep descent off the same hill when I found to my alarm that my newly fitted Bonti tyres, while virtually puncture proof, were not well suited to these conditions. The rider behind thought I was gone and it is true I more skied than cycled down much of this slope.

I left my two clubmates I was with to recover at the Buttermere feed; they would both have come in with much better times than I, had not both their chains broken; another indication of the taxing conditions of the day. I cautiously picked my way around the hills losing control on several more occasions before the rain dried up in the early afternoon and the roads started to dry, thankfully before I reached the monsters of Hardknott and Wrynose passes.

Time did not really matter after all this but I came in at seconds over 8 hours, establishing a trend of a slower time for each of the past three years.

An equipment review for these harsh conditions:
- The Ribble winter bike was perhaps a little heavier than ideal for all these climbs but I really had no option as I have moved my triple chainset from my carbon (so as not to look quite so daft racing). I had taken the trouble to remove the mudguards but it may have been better to leave them on. Ideally I would have a light bike with a triple or compact chainset.
- A chain tool. I always carry a multitool that contains one. I did not need it but two of my clubmates could have done with one!
- Tyres. Go for something grippy. I nearly came a cropper as a consequence of my unwise tyre choice.
- Good raingear. Fortunately my club rainjacket is excellent and proved worth its (insubstantial) weight in gold.

Will I be back? I am always doubtful soon after completing it but a clubmate and I have already made our hotel booking for 2012, and of course we do need to secure ourselves those sought after entries.

All credit again to the organisers. They do a fantastic job even in challenging conditions.

Lomas Court Date

2011-05-14T08:23:00.000+01:00

Scott Lomas has been summonsed to attend a Magistrates' Court on 25th May to answer a charge that he used threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress on 04th November 2010

Claim for damages against Timothy Denman

2011-05-12T16:36:00.000+01:00

I have today sent a pre-action letter to Timothy Denman of Charvil claiming damages for the assault in Twyford on 12th December last year. I have given him 28 days to respond before I sue.

Cycling Infrastructure

2011-05-05T15:00:00.001+01:00

Here is an interesting arrangement that I discovered cycling down the A30 in Hampshire between Camberley and Basingstoke. This piece of road used to be an important trunk road. I can just remember being driven up and down it to and from Dorset as a young child. However since the M3 was constructed running parallel and only a mile or so to the south then, like a lot of old trunk roads, it lost its importance along with most of its traffic.
What a great opportunity to use some of this space for long distance cycle routes. You could easily use one carriageway for bicycles and one for motor vehicles; alternatively one lane in each direction could be a high quality wide cycle lane.
However cyclists were obviously the last thing on the mind of the Highway Engineer who designed this. I was cycling down here with a lorry behind. I had no wish to hold him up but the 'blanking off' of one lane with projecting keep left traffic islands meant there was no way he could get by. To give the driver his due he was not a road rage moron and he waited patiently until the end of the previously dual section before he could get by.
This scene to me just typifies want of thought and wasted opportunity. Useful cycling infrastructure could be set up here and on roads like it at minimal cost. It is not that we do not have the space for infrastructure; we do not have the will.
Further up the A30 east of Staines, money has been wasted painting a cycle lane onto the pavement with give way markings at every junction and crossing point. Nobody will use it and motorists will wonder why not.
You can glimpse some of this exciting new infrastructure (and maybe some of the reasons I will not be making use of it) on the left in this footage.

Hounslow 'Roadrage' Incident 04.11.10. Driver to be summonsed.

2011-04-21T13:54:00.000+01:00

I have learnt today that a man is to be summonsed for an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act arising out of the incident recorded on my helmet camera near Hounslow last 4th November.
I have removed references to this incident from this site and from youtube pending his trial.

Hounslow Roadrage Helmet Camera Incident Update

2011-04-06T18:14:00.003+01:00

The ping-pong continues with the ball being batted many times between the CPS and the police with each in turn knocking the ball out of play then, following a complaint from me, batting it back. The lastest is that a senior metropolitan police officer has now reversed the decision taken earlier that no prosecution should take place and has instead referred it back to the CPS to decide. It is now for the CPS to consider whether the account given by my protagonist is remotely credible in the light of the video evidence.
A decision one way or the other will have to be made before 4th May, the six month anniversary of the incident.

Greater Manchester Helmet Camera Incident

2011-04-06T08:44:00.002+01:00

Michael Stewart, aged 47, of Daven Road, Congleton, has been charged with common assault and dangerous driving. He is due to appear at Manchester City Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2011. (More here though the link to the press release does not currently work for me).

Out-of-Court Disposals

2011-04-01T22:25:00.000+01:00

I have received from my own MP a copy of a letter from Crispin Blunt MP, an Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice. Mr Blunt explains that he is the Minister responsible for policy on 'Out-of-Court Disposals' which includes simple cautions. Mr Blunt is anxious to point out that the Home Office Guidance 016/2008 does not stipulate cautions in any particular case, rather the use of cautions is 'an operational decision to be taken by the police'.
Judging by rather better action taken by Greater Manchester Police recently, Mr Blunt may be right that the Home Office Guidance did not quite force the Thames Valley Police to issue a simple caution, in the way they have contended, to the man who pushed me from my bike last December.
Mr Blunt goes on to say that although the Government is satisfied that the circular does not stipulate the use of cautions in any particular case, the Government is considering its approach to out-of -court disposals such as simple cautions as part of a full assessment of sentencing policy. A Ministry of Justice consultation has been taking place (it closed on 4th March, Mr Blunt's letter is dated 9th March). There is a section on
'A simpler framework for out-of-court disposals' which appears to me to be proposing a greater discretion to police. Had I been in time to respond, I would have urged that there should be a strong presumption against the use of a caution in crimes of violence against vulnerable road users.
On a more positive note, I have received the name and address of my assailant from Thames Valley Police and will probbaly take the trouble to sue him. If he is not to be hauled before a criminal court, I can at least haul him before a civil one. I appreciate that the recovery of damages may be an uncertain and uphill struggle but I would like him to face some consequences for his actions. I intend to donate any damages I do recover to Roadpeace

Manchester Road Rage Incident

2011-03-13T21:31:00.000Z

Two Manchester journalists who specialise in news 'inside the M60' have reported that, following the publicity given to the helmet-camera footage, "A 47-year-old man was arrested on Saturday, 12 March 2011, on suspicion of assault and dangerous driving and remains in custody for questioning."

I will say nothing more now about the incident itself, but it does look as though the police in the North West compare (or contrast) very favourably with the police forces in the South East of the country.

Omega Circuits Mountbatten

2011-03-13T16:49:00.001Z

I headed down, with a teammate to Portsmouth for this 3rd cat race. My first time here, and first time with any kind of banking. Odd to just fly into a corner and let gravity take you around. There was a quite promising early break of 4 but that got reeled in, then a solo break got nowhere, then another break of around 5 went. As soon as they came back the pace slowed and I went for my jaunt off the front. I thought maybe it was cunning to go up the bank and slingshot down again; this apparently caused merriment in the bunch and delayed the organisation of a chase until I had been out there for a few laps. Then it was altogether for the last several laps and the bunch sprint with me on my teammate's wheel at the rear.
22.74 miles in 53:39. Average 25.4mph max 31mph
Saw ex-teammate Harry down there in the Elites' race and left him in a 3 man break which had a comfortable half lap over the field. He always makes it look so easy.

Road Rage

2011-03-09T22:27:00.004Z

Intrigued by the post I referred to a few days back by 'Innocent and proved so by the police', I have been chasing Hounslow Police for information. An officer finally got back to me yesterday and I can reveal the following:

A male was arrested on Friday 25th February on suspicion of offences arising out of an incident involving a car and me near Hounslow on 4th November. (That's the one described here). Interviewed under caution the suspect explained that he had been provoked by being called a 'wanker' and was released without charge. The police have decided that no further action will be taken.

The police wanted me to know that the suspect would pursue his counter-allegations against me 'if need be'.

I have, however, contacted the CPS who I hope will be reviewing the police decision.

Meanwhile the police in Manchester are looking for a man who assaulted a cyclist in that City on 26th January. The following appears from the cyclist's helmet camera.

Surrey League Road Race Dunsfold Sunday 6th March 2011

2011-03-06T15:56:00.002Z

My first road race (by which I mean a mass start race on the Highway) for the current season. A well organised Surrey League event sponsored by Kingston Wheelers, who supplied, with the NEG, excellent traffic marshalling (and cakes back at HQ!). A definite chill in the air as we 3rd cats gathered outside the Alford Crossways Village Hall for the start of the neutralised section down to the start proper. The pace during the neutralised bit was quite enough to get me warmed up and after a few miles we stopped just south of Dunsfold for a few minutes before the race got going. Soon there was a right into Chiddingford Road and we were onto the 6 mile circuit we would follow 8 times around. Chiddingford Road had a moderate hill, on some laps this was taken at a moderate pace but sometimes there were attacks here which left me hanging off the back gasping and willing myself not to be dropped irremedially. Then the road curved round left through a wooded section where the potholes began and we undulated more up than down to the T junction taking us back up towards Dunsfold, after which the road surface improved and we enjoyed a sweeping descent before turning left to face that hill again.
It was a race of breaks and attacks from the first lap to the last with the pace going up as they fought to get away and again as gaps were closed.
I hung on in there and finished (up another hill that had me completely spent) at the back of the main bunch which by the time we finished was around 40 strong from the 80 who started. I enjoyed the race and was pleased with that result (last year I did around half a dozen road races and did not manage to remain with the bunch until the end in any of them).

52.25 miles in 02h13m22s for an average speed of 23.5 mph. Max 37.5 mph.

Traffic was generally not a problem with oncoming vehicles in the main having the good sense to stop or at least slow and move over. There was only one vehicle that careered on at unmodified speed inches from the centre line. Why the police anywhere should think that every road race requires a road closure (as apparently some police forces do believe) puzzles me, certainly when the race is as well escorted and marshalled as this one was. All that is required is for traffic to stop or slow for the few seconds that it takes for the race to pass. It will undoubtedly be helpful if marshals and motorcycle escorts are given an express power to direct traffic in dealing with the very few individual road users who seem to have a problem with cyclists racing on the road.

Threat to kill and other updates

2011-03-03T19:19:00.002Z

Still nothing of any substance from the police or CPS over the threat to kill me. However somebody posting under the name 'innocent and proven so by police' is almost certainly the motorist involved and he has posted his account of the incident here. Road CC have kindly added my unedited footage to the page so we can all enjoy a 'spot the difference' competition between his account and my video. Whether it is true that the police have interviewed him and declared him innocent I have yet to discover, but I have contacted the police for an update.

Meanwhile I have heard back from my MP who has agreed to raise my concerns about the over-use of police cautions with the Home Secretary. I am hoping for a more substantive reply in due course.

Legal Update - Spring 2011

2011-03-03T18:49:00.002Z

First, it's cycle helmets again. Last week His Honour Judge Wilcox sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court delivered his Judgment in Phethean-Hubble v Coles. On 28th November 2005, Tobias Phethean-Hubble, then aged 16, suffered severe brain injuries when he was cycling and came into collision with a Rover motor car driven by the then 17 year old Sam Coles.
Tobias's cycling was not above criticism; immediately prior to the collision he was cycling at 8pm unlit along the pavement and moved onto the carriageway of the road into the path of the Rover. The street was, however, well lit and Sam had no difficulty seeing Tobias. The failure to carry lights at night therefore only affected the outcome to the extent that it may explain why Tobias had been riding on the pavement, where the Judge observed that 'strictly' he should not have been.
The area was subject to a 30 mph speed limit. At trial there was an issue over speed with Sam accepting a speed slightly in excess of the speed limit and those representing Tobias alleging a rather greater speed. In the event the Judge found that the speed was 35 mph and found Sam to be liable for Tobais's injuries because of his excessive speed.
The Judgment is promising in that it accepts the dangers of speeding and emphasises the vulnerability of the cyclist. There was a finding that a reasonable motorist ought to have anticipated that the cyclist riding on the pavement would move into the road and a prudent motorist should have been prepared for such an eventuality and driven accordingly.
Driving 'accordingly' essentially meant moderating his speed. At 35mph there was no chance of avoiding the collision, he should not merely have been driving within the speed limit but should have slowed to 3-4 mph or so below the limit. At that speed there was a greater likelihood that the cyclist would have become aware of the approaching car in time, and the motorist would have had longer to react so as to avoid the collision, or at least cause less serious injury. Emphasis was placed on the significant difference between the two road users. One a cyclist with little protection, the other a motorist in a stable enclosed vehicle that has fatal potential.
The Judge also found fault on the part of the cyclist in riding onto the road creating the emergency. He found this was an equal cause of the accident but given Tobias's age he considered a reduction of one third for contributory negligence was just and equitable.
There was in addition criticism of Tobias for not wearing his cycle helmet. The Judge accepeted as his starting point the words of Griffith Williams J in Smith v Finch who had likened fault on the part of a cyclist not wearing a helmet to fault on the part of a motorist for not wearing a seat-belt. On the face of it this is another blow for those who wish helmet wearing to be a matter of personal choice rather than external prescription. However the authority of the decision on this point is weakened by the fact that the contrary High Court authority A v Shorrock was not cited to the Judge and, rather extraordinarily, it appears that it was not even argued on Tobias's behalf that he was not at fault in leaving his helmet at home. As it was, the Judge made passing reference to risk compensation and to the fact that helmets may sometimes make injuries worse; suggesting a distinct possibiltiy that he may not have followed Smith v Finch had the matter been argued out.
As always (at least thus far) in cases of severe impacts, the finding was then made that the wearing of a helmet would not have made a significant difference to the extent of Tobias's injuries.

Comment. Although Claimant cyclists can usually be fairly confident that a Defendant motorist will be unable to establish that a helmet would have made any difference, this is not a good reason to permit assertions that a bare-headed cyclist is at fault to go uncontested. It is inimicable to the interests of cyclists generally to allow a series of cases to build up on a premise that not wearing a helmet equates to fault. I hope that this is the last time that such an assertion will be allowed to go unchallenged.
Aside from the helmet issue though there is much in the Judgment about the standard of care owed to cyclists by motorists and about the dangers of even 'moderate' speeding to merit a cheer. I believe it to be a useful antidote to the mantra that I hear often (even sometimes from cyclists) that cyclists are just as much to blame, just as responsible etc. As I have made clear before, I personally reject this artificial 'evenhandedness' which is blind to the degree of potential to do harm to others.

[UPDATE: The Defendant's appeal against this Judgment was heard yesterday (28.11.11) and Judgment is awaited. The Defendant did not appeal the finding that a cycle helmet would have made no difference but there may well be some observations form the Court of Appeal on the degree of contributory negligence].

Death on the roads is sadly continuing at much the same rate this year, notably the 18 year old potential Olympian, Lewis Balyckyi, was run down by a Transit van and killed whilst out training in Lancashire in January.

In the criminal courts, the motorist responsible for the death of Cath Ward of Solihull CC was sentenced last December to a community order and disqualified from driving for one year. Cath had been competing in a 10 mile time trial last summer in good weather conditions on the A46 dual carriageway when she was hit from behind by a car driven by Arron Cook. Prosecutors decided to charge Cook with causing death by careless driving rather than by dangerous driving. (It is possible this case differs significantly from that of Major Gareth Rhys-Evans, see my legal review a year ago, but I do not see it as obvious from any of the reports). The result of this charging decision was that the Magistrates were empowered to, and rather unusually did, deal with the sentence themselves rather than referring to a higher Court. I continue to wish for greater consistency in charging and sentencing decisions in cases that involve killing, harming or endangering vulnerable road users.

Update on assault and threat to kill

2011-02-21T11:13:00.006Z

I had not expected all this to drag on for months. However whether it takes months or years, once I have got the bit between my teeth I am not swift to let go. Unfortunately this determination is sometimes required to get effective action taken by those whose job it is to serve the public.

The BMW assailant

First, the case of the BMW driver who assaulted me and a colleague on 12th December (more here). I have received, and accepted, profuse apologies from Thames Valley Police delivered in person by a senior officer visiting my home. (Interestingly the Inspector concerned suggested I might consider using a helmet camera!). The apology is for deciding on a police caution without first seeking my views or awaiting details of my injuries. This admitted failing has been dealt with by providing managerial advice to the civilian officer who handled the case and the custody sergeant who approved the caution. I only wish that half the effort into investigating and pursuing police staff who have made a mistake, went into the investigation and pursuit of the assailant. It is of course only right that complaints against the police are taken seriously, but I am left with an uncomfortable feeling that the police involved have come off worse than the man who actually attacked me.

This feeling is reinforced by the fact that, rightly, I was given the identity of the police officers involved as soon as I asked; whereas the identity of my assailant has just this moment, many weeks after my request, been revealed to me.

When the apology was given the senior police officer insisted that Home Office Guidance required the police to issue a caution rather than to charge the offender. I have to say we disagreed about whether the offence was to be regarded as plain assault or as assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and further disagreed as to whether aggravating (unprovoked attack or vulnerable victim) or mitigating (heat of the moment) features were present. Nonetheless it is clear that the police genuinely believe themselves to be required to deal with an assault of this type by a caution. That being so, it is necessary to move on to criticise the content of the Home Office Guidance.

I previously wrote to the Home Secretary about this guidance. At first my letter was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice but I wrote again asking that it be placed before the Home Secretary. This was not done, instead I got a letter from a Home Office official misconstruing my point as being about police operational matters.

I have therefore now taken this up with my own MP as follows:

"Dear Mr Afriyie,

Police Cautions for Violent Assaults

I am very concerned about the guidance that has been given to Police Forces by the Home Office (Home Office Circular 30/2005 addressed to Chief Constables and copied to Crown Prosecutors) under the previous Government.
I have been assured by Thames Valley police that the ‘Gravity Factors Matrix’ contained within this guidance required them to deal with an offender who assaulted me on the street last December, causing me actual bodily harm and potentially risking far more serious injury, with a caution. As it happens, I was riding my bicycle (an activity that I know both you and the current Government encourage) when this occurred and was therefore particularly vulnerable to this kind of violent assault.
I will say no more about the particular circumstances of that offence as I am not raising with you the police action taken in accordance with Home Office Guidance but with the Guidance itself. This guidance needs to be reviewed.
Parliament lays down laws for the protection of society and as a citizen I consider it my right to expect the protection of the law. I question whether it can really be acceptable that the police are required by Home Office Guidance (apparently agreed with senior police officers and the CPS but by nobody democratically accountable) not to charge the perpetrator of a violent offence and bring him before the Courts.
I have tried to raise this directly with your colleague, Mrs Theresa May, (in whose constituency the assault coincidently occurred) but received only a dismissive response from a Home Office Official misinterpreting my letter as a complaint about operational police matters.
I would be most grateful if you could raise this policy issue on my behalf with Mrs May.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Porter"

The threat to kill

Second, the incident on 4th November (more here). I got excited in December when told that the investigation into this was to be reopened and self-imposed a news blackout. Two months on the police resubmitted the evidence to the CPS but (still) without taking any steps to identify the driver from his registration number. The CPS asked the police to undertake some minimal investigation (i.e who was the driver at the time?). The last I heard from the police was that they were 'in the process of tracking down the previous owner of the vehicle'.

I am not prepared to hold silence indefinitely and have now reopened the video clips for viewing on youtube (here, and here) and a short extract was shown on prime time television last Thursday, along with my statements of (what should be) obvious fault on the part of some motorists and my optimistic hope that video evidence could corroborate a cyclist's account of poor motoring. Some people maintain that cyclists with cameras are 'looking for trouble' but I do not see how this can possibly be said about any of the cyclists whose film appeared on 'The One Show'.

Most of what I said hit the cutting room floor and I suspect this item was considerably shortened because between the time of filming and broadcast BBC Breakfast ran a similar item. It is, I feel, a pity that what was left was the journalistic hyperbole of a 'war between cyclists and motorists'. It was left to the guest, Griff Rhys Jones, to make the rather obvious point that what is needed is peace on the roads. He is not the first to think of that; Roadpeace have been urging it for decades. The peace, though, needs to be not merely wished but also enforced.

Imperial Winter Series Race 11: Saturday 5th February

2011-02-07T17:02:00.001Z

A mild 12ºC but with a very strong and blustery southwest wind which meant that I was bound to struggle. My new Ribble winter training bike was introduced to racing today. I would like to think that I had learned something from the last time I was out in the strong wind. Possibly I did do a bit better for a while, keeping to the middle of the pack and avoiding the hazard area. However, there were some strong riders making a sustained effort to break away and the pace was relentlessly high while that was going on. After 20 minutes I was left hoping that the split would happen as I was on my limit and drifting to the back Once at the back at around 30 minutes in, I was holding the penultimate wheel straight into the wind but the inevitable gap opened up and we were sunk. We were by no means the first to be dropped and I believe that, frustratingly, the group of three got clear off the front just after I came off the back. With a bit of help from other dropped riders and from the 4^th cat race, I avoided being lapped until one to go.

For me it was 24.7 miles in 1hr 04m 50s. An average speed of 22.9 and a max of 29.3 mph.

I am away next week so this was my last Winter Series race for this year. It has, as always, been huge fun and provides some intense riding in the off season which I am just not motivated to find on the road or on a turbo. A huge thank you to the Collins family and Imperial Racing for promoting the series.

Cycling Infrastructure Again

2011-02-02T20:46:00.003Z

Responding to Dr Julian Huppert MP, the Minister of State for Transport Theresa Villiers stated in Parliament that, "Manual for Streets 2" was recently published after a lot of input from different stakeholders. My understanding is that those documents are heavily used by local authorities in their work on our roads and streets. The uptake of those documents is more extensive than my hon. Friend has been led to believe."

The trouble is that Dr Huppert is right and Ms Villiers is wrong; most cycling infrastructure in this country is useless or worse. The manual for streets does not descend to detail on the design requirements for cycling infrastructure but this is to be found in the sister document, Cycle Infrastructure Design

Take this example, on my commute home from work

The A315 west of Hounslow on my way home.

The lane on the left is perhaps 0.5metres wide

The Department for Transport's own design criteria provide that:

"7.4 Cycle lane widths

7.4.1 A cycle lane offers cyclists some separation from motor traffic. Under the National Cycle Training Standards, cyclists are trained to ride in a safe position in the carriageway which is usually at least 1 metre from the kerb edge to avoid gulley grates and debris, and to ensure that they are within the sightlines of drivers waiting at side roads.
7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For cycle feeder lanes to advanced stop line arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily accommodate tricycles or childcarrying cycle trailers wholly within the lane.
7.4.3 Cyclists can overtake each other within a 2metre wide lane and easily remain within it when looking back to check for traffic, or when avoiding kerbside drainage grates, etc. Drivers do not always realise that cyclists need to move away from the kerb to avoid surface hazards and may expect cyclists to stay in lane regardless of its width. A narrow cycle lane may therefore give motorists (misplaced) confidence to provide less clearance while overtaking than they would in the absence of a cycle lane."

That last part is too true

What should cyclists do faced with this hopeless provision? Ideally, we should ignore the lane and ride as though it was not there, but that runs a greater than usual risk of attracting aggression from uncomprehending motorists. I tend to follow John Franklin's suggestion of straddling the line. This is hardly ideal and Government complacancy about the design of our streets clearly needs to be dispelled. It would be much safer if the cycle lane were just removed.

Imperial Winter Series Race 10; Saturday 29th January

2011-01-29T16:36:00.003Z

Photo courtesy of LondonCycleSport

A distinctly cool 2ºC with a fresh northerly wind to add a wind-chill that left my hands numb until the race had been on long enough to get the circulation going. A few spirited attacks off the front but (as far as I could see) again nothing stuck. We passed the 4th cats twice, once whilst they were racing and again as they were warming down and not yet cleared the circuit. Every time the pace picked up to haul someone in I found my self at (but thankfully never off) the back. The sprint straight into the wind was interrupted by a sortie onto the grass on the right so I just kept left to roll in at the back of the bunch.

24.9m in 1h:01m:20s. Average speed 24.4mph. Top speed 32.9 mph.

Photo courtesy of Lucy Collin

CTC Cycle Magazine Article Clarification and Update

2011-01-27T13:06:00.003Z

There are, I fear, inaccuracies in the latest CTC magazine 'Road Safety Watch' about my experiences in two quite separate incidents.

1. On 4th November 2010, I was threatened by a motorist. I had helmet cam footage and took it to the police. Initially the Police and CPS decided to take no action. I complained, did get a response, and an investigation is now taking place. I had a letter from a Senior Crown Prosecutor yesterday telling me that the police had been asked to make further enquiries. I do not know, but I interpret this as suggesting that the police have still not interviewed the suspect. I await further developments.

2. On 12th December 2010, a motorist jumped out of his car and assaulted me and a club-mate. I did not have my camera but there was overwhelming evidence including that of an independant witness. The motorist was traced by the police, interviewed, accepted his guilt and was given a police caution. I queried the decision to caution the offender with the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. I received an e mail yesterday apologising for delay and saying that this would be investigated by an Inspector. I have asked Thames Valley Police for the name and address of my assailant but have been told that this request will not be considered until I put it into a letter.

I have separately written to the Home Secretary but have still not received any substantive response. I will now have to take this up with my own MP.

Some views from our parliamentarians

2011-01-27T11:57:00.002Z

I see that the MP for Cambridge, Dr Julian Huppert, secured the adjornment debate last Friday. His speech is reported in Hansard and he took the opportunity to raise cycling with the Minister of State for Transport. I do recommend reading his speech. It is stunningly good and he manages to raise in a few minutes some of the issues I have been raising in this blog. He deals with the merits of cycling, the importance of bikeability cycle training, the enforcement of cycle lanes, the poor quality of most 'shared use' cycling facilites built in defiance of the DfT's own hierachy of provision, the excessive advocacy of cycle helmets. I particularly like this in relation to motorists who harm cyclists,
"We must encourage the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to be more ambitious in the choice of charges and the decision to prosecute, so that judges and juries can decide whether an excuse is good enough. Driving with a reckless disregard for the safety of fellow road users should be treated very seriously."
Mr Huppert goes on to deal with cycle parking, showers/lockers at workplaces, integration with public transport and then raises the subject, close to my heart, of cycle racing on the Highway.

Mr Huppert is a Liberal Democrat, the sooner he is given a job at the Department for Transport the better.

Disappointingly, at least one motoring organisation, apparently intent on seeing the sharing of roadspace as a battleground rather than a matter for cooperation, has taken exception to Mr Huppert's words. This is not a party political blog, nonetheless it is rare to find a parliamentarian of any political party talking so much unadulterated sense and Mr Huppert gets my full support.

The response from the Minister of State, Theresa Villiers, was less impressive though she did point out that "Cycling can also help us to address the obesity problems that cost the NHS and wider society around £20 billion annually". She did not disagree with Mr Hibbert's comments about reducing the stigma attached to cycling by lowering the apparent dangers. She should really have a quiet word with her colleague in government, Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who attended a conference last week on 'Urban Planning and Liveable Cities.'

Asked a sensible question by Mark Ames of ibikelondon Mr Pickles gave a very silly response (transcript here). He did not seem too intent upon reducing the stigma some associate with cycling by refering to pedalling in rubber knickers up and down the place to go to work. I agree cycling need not be long or arduous and does not of itself require special clothing (and I include a helmet in that). Everyday cycling in ordinary clothes is much to be encouraged. However if you are going to go far or fast (and looking at Mr Pickles he may not need to be going too far or fast to sweat profusely into his cotton Y-fronts) you will soon learn that lycra (so far as I am aware a synthesised product containing no rubber) is vastly more practicable than cotton or wool. I cannot imagine that anybody save Mr Pickles would dream of trying to cycle dressed in rubber.

As for his comment that even he might venture out eventually if we make it just a little bit safer; there is no kind way to say this Mr Pickles, but Ms Villiers's response applies to you. You are endangering your health far more by not cycling than you ever would by 'venturing out'.

If only we had a few more who did not just talk the talk but ventured out properly as Dr Huppert does, we really might start to make progress.

So, two parliamentarians, guess which one 'ventures out' on a bicycle.

Imperial Winter Series Race 9: Saturday 22nd January

2011-01-22T17:16:00.002Z

Quite a large field of at least 40 riders turned out for today’s 3rd cat race. At the sign in Lucy kindly promised me no wind, which turned out to be a half kept promise. The wind was merely strong, rather than last week’s gale, and came from the North so forming a headwind up the finishing straight. A seasonal 6ºC. Perhaps because of the better conditions, and perhaps partly also because I took the precaution of taking the train to work yesterday, I had a much better race. There were some spirited attacks including a solo attempt in the last two laps. I often get this wrong but I do not think anyone stayed away. We must have been doing a reasonable pace as we lapped the 4th cat race twice today, not something that’s happened on the races I have done in this series so far. Came in within the bunch. No crashes.
26.65 miles in 1:06:09. Average speed 24.17 mph. Max 32.3 mph
As I was leaving my fellow cycling blogger Skippy found me and we had a quick chat, curtailed by the fact I had to get home to walk the dog before dark. He is clearly doing good work finding sponsorship for paralympic athletes. It was a pleasure to meet him in the flesh. He had struggled to find the circuit so it may be worth pointing to directions here (with added bonus of a rear shot of one of my clubmates!). Hillingdon is a good place to start racing especially if you first get yourself there for some Thursday evening Prime Coaching sessions in the summer months to get used to bunch riding at speed and the layout of the circuit.

Transport Policy again

2011-01-21T17:32:00.006Z

The Department for Transport has just laid before Parliament a report entitled Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon; Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen. It includes the following information:

"According to the Retail Price Index, the cost of buying a car fell by 29% in cash terms between 1999 and 2009, while general RPI inflation over the same period was 29%. However, the cost of car maintenance, petrol and oil, and tax and insurance all increased markedly faster than general inflation. The "combined" cost of motoring (covering purchase price and running costs) fell by 11% relevant to the general rate of inflation. Over the same period rail fares rose by 43% and bus and coach fares rose by 58% "

Meanwhile the Automobile Association, reported inevitably in the Daily Mail, are complaining again about petrol prices:

'Sooner or later, politicians will have to face reality - more and more drivers cannot afford these prices. They are pushing up inflation and taking money from other consumer spending.'

The inexorable rise in the number and mileage of motor vehicles, with the inevitable associated congestion and pollution, is surely related to the fall in the costs of motoring both in real terms and more particularly in comparison to public transport. The costs continue to fail to cover the 'externalities'.

This, from a briefing note prepared by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, continues to hold true:

"Why, in theory, should a government be concerned to change consumer behaviour through the use of fuel duty? The argument is that the costs of motoring exceed the private costs faced by an individual motorist. There are environmental costs, noise costs, road-damage costs and congestion costs which people may not factor into their decision about whether and how much to drive. This means that the costs to society of motoring exceed the costs to the individual, which will lead to a level of motoring that is both inefficiently high and inefficiently cheap from a social perspective. The duty is therefore a way of forcing the private motorist to take account of these social costs."

I am assuming the list of external costs does not include death, personal injuries and medical costs on the (slightly dubious) assumption that these externalities are covered by motor insurance. Certainly I would add additional external costs relating to obesity and lack of fitness due to no longer moving ourselves around in the manner we evolved (or were designed if you prefer) to accomplish without the assistance of fossil fuels.

I do not claim to know the price of fuel at which these externalities are properly taken into account but I am very sure the level must exceed that at which at least some AA members have to think about whether they should be saving money by using public transport, car sharing or even a bicycle. I see no evidence that our society is moving away from motorised transport as being overwhelmingly the default option for moving ourselves around.

I see a test of government mettle looming.

Postscript: for a more in depth analysis of fuel costs try the Road Danger Reduction Forum who recommend an increase in petrol duty

One thing you learn very rapidly as a cyclist is the dramatic effect of air resistance which is proportional to the square of air speed. One way to save petrol is therefore to drive at a slower speed. There are even better reasons to do this, of course, and I have now set myself a voluntary limit of 20 mph in built up areas. I find this has virtually no effect on the time it takes me to drive anywhere but it certainly does attract aggression from a few other motorists.

Imperial Winter Series Race 8 - Saturday 15th January

2011-01-15T15:25:00.001Z

Photo Courtesy LondonCycleSport

Unseasonably mild at 12.5°C but with a very strong blustery south-westerly wind which caught me out early in the race. I was on a wheel round a bend turning into the wind but a gap opened ahead and I just could not get by. I and a few others were dropped, though I did struggle on to finish last. So no meaningful stats or report from me this week. Lessons must be learnt from such failures.

Sentencing

2011-01-11T18:12:00.001Z

Motorist with clean(ish) record throws cyclist into road in front of an oncoming car risking life and limb, accepts responsibility. Police caution.

Non-motorist with clean record throws fire-extinguisher off high building risking life and limb, accepts responsibility. 2 years 8 months in prison

I fully understand the need to make examples and to make others think twice. Perhaps a little rebalancing of the criminal justice system to deter danger from motorists, though? I would settle for taking just one year off the student protester and giving it to the motorist who attacked me.

Postscript 14th January: My unease over the balance of our criminal justice system is not ameliorated by reading today that two protestors who tried unsuccessfully to talk their way into the staff entrance of Buckingham Palace armed with political banners were yesterday remanded in custody for a week.

Imperial Winter Series Race 7 - Saturday 8th January

2011-01-08T17:53:00.002Z

Not a good week for me mechanically with two punctures travelling to work on Wednesday and the folding pedal falling off my Brompton on Thursday (brilliant design but just not robust enough when grinding up a hill), so I suppose it should have been no surprise that I punctured on my one warm up lap before today's race. So, as Doug sent us off, my bike was upside down in the mud while I swapped a replacement back wheel borrowed from a kind soul. I first assumed he was there for the next race but maybe he was a spectator. Anyway this was not his spare wheel, you should understand, it was the wheel taken off his bike so I really do owe him one. The circuit has spares but all Shimano equipped.
So I spent my first half lap sprinting to get up to the group which had fortunately this week gone off at a moderate pace. I raced 'blind' as my Garmin was in my back pocket being protected from the mud. (Yes, I know, mechanically skilled people do not turn their bikes upside down but I find it reduces the chance of fluffing a rear wheel change and I was in a hurry).
The borrowed wheel served me very well, for a while I thought it was squeaking loudly but I eventually figured out that was number 50 who seemed to be in my vicinity for much of the race. There was a stiff West wind which served to thwart the attempts of the few who tried to get away. [Edit: no it didn't, there was a succesful break and clearly I did not know what was going on!]. I thought there might be a risk of a split with the crosswind so tried to stay near the front. Getting right to the front, though, was a definite mistake as it was hard to drop back without the entire pack coming by on the leeward side.
We eventually passed the 4ths reasonably cleanly though there was one rider who just could not resist latching onto our race.
It had been drizzling as I arrived at the circuit, but for the last 20 minutes of our race we were treated to glorious winter sunshine. This appeared to relax everybody and the pace slowed right down. The field was at least twice as large as it has been in recent weeks so as the race slowed and bunched it was hard to get by.
With 5 laps to go everybody decided simultaneoulsy it was time to move up the field so the pace distinctly quickened. On the back straight of the final lap quite a few of us lost contact with the bunch. With that number jostling in a sprint, there is always the risk of mishap; a few riders went off into the grass and one unfortunate rider fell heavily on the finishing straight.
26 miles in 01:05:40. Average 24.3 mph.

While I was racing, a journalist was trying to contact me. It sadly seems to require a high profile death before the editors of national newspapers are interest in cyclists' safety. Keep an eye out for an article by Paul Bignell in tomorrow's Independant.

Imperial Winter Series Saturday 1st January 2011

2011-01-02T20:56:00.000Z

This ought to have been the fifth in the series but due to the freezing weather has been only the second that has been run. Temperature 8°C with a light wind and persistent drizzle which combined with the mud on the circuit (cyclocross?) to leave riders and their bikes smeared brown from top to tyre.

I arrived in time to watch my two teammates in the 4th cat race start before readying myself for my race which started one hour later and was run simultaneously with the women’s race.

Not surprisingly, given that this was New Year’s Day, numbers were subdued and I guess there were about 20 on the start line. Perhaps we had all overindulged and undertrained over the Christmas period (I know I had) as, for the most part, a fairly sedate pace was set. We set off fast, hitting 30 mph on the second lap, and initially passed the ladies. However we then eased considerably getting in the way of the women, particularly one very strong rider who was on a solo break and travelling at a steady pace, passing us when we relaxed and being passed when we put in the occasional effort.

My aim again was to finish, and when the pace slowed again at 5 laps to go I thought, with nothing to lose, I might as well pull off the front and see what happened. Nothing did, and I was duly returned exhausted to the bunch and hung on in there to come in at the back of the bunch.

25.5 miles in 1h07m at an average of 22.8 mph.

Home Office Response

2010-12-31T19:55:00.002Z

A Home Office official at the 'Direct Communications Unit' has diverted my letter addressed to Theresa May MP to the Ministry of Justice on the grounds that 'the matters raised are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice'.
All in a day's work I suppose to redirect a complaint on to somebody else, but is it not truely deeply shocking that an official at the Home Office does not appreciate that his/her department is responsible for the police service?
I have heard that other complaints involving the police have been misdirected in a similar way.
I shall be e mailing again asking that my letter be put before the Home Secretary.

"Dear Sirs,

I have received a letter dated 23rd December indicating that my letter of 22nd December (a copy of which is again attached) has been passed to the Ministry of Justice by an individual whose signature looks like 'M. Mioh'.
Kindly note that my letter was addressed to, and intended for, Theresa May MP, the Home Secretary and should not be redirected to the Ministry of Justice.
I find it disappointing that anybody working in the Home Office should think that the matters I raise in my letter about the police are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. They are not.
I would be grateful for your early confimation that my letter has been passed to Mrs May.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Porter"

An open letter to the Home Secretary

2010-12-22T12:09:00.001Z

I have written to the Home Secretary, Theresa May MP. If you live in her constituency she can be contacted at mayt@parliament.uk, otherwise it may be more appropriate to contact her at the home office public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk if you have your own views. I would rather she did not think I was an isolated malcontent.

"22nd December 2010

Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Dear Mrs May,

Treatment of offences affecting cyclists

I am a keen cyclist and secretary of a cycling club, Thames Velo, which is based in your constituency. In the last couple of months I have had two interactions with the police after I reported circumstances in which I had been, in the first case, threatened and, in the second case, actually assaulted by a motorist.

I write, not to detail my individual cases (though I would be very happy to furnish details if you wish) but because my experiences chime with those of a large number of cyclists who find that the commission of criminal offences which endanger or intimidate them are not taken sufficiently seriously by the prosecuting authorities, the first stage of which obviously is the police.

Relevant Home Office guidance has been issued to Chief Constables in the past. Specifically, in relation to cautions, Home Office Circular 30/2005 addressed to Chief Constables and copied to Crown Prosecutors refers to a gravity factors matrix and also requires that the victim’s views about the offence and the nature and extent of harm are taken into account.

My understanding is that the gravity factors matrix does include the vulnerability of the victim as a specific aggravating feature.

My experience in the case of the assault on me was that existing Home Office Guidance was not complied with before a simple caution was administered. In the case of the threat I have had to battle against a total lack of enthusiasm on the part of the police and the CPS to take my complaint seriously.

When cases get to Court there are sentencing guidelines which indicate that harm to a vulnerable road user is an aggravating feature but there is a problem in that too few cases where cyclists are harmed or threatened are taken to Court.

On a practical level could I ask your department please to consider issuing clear guidance to Chief Constables and to Crown Prosecutors that the endangering of vulnerable road users is a specific aggravating feature in the commission of a criminal offence?

At the moment the Government correctly encourages more active lifestyles. An increase in the level of cycling is obviously of direct interest to both the Department of Health and Department of Transport and relieves public expenditure from both those departments. Unfortunately there are a small minority of motorists who resist with aggression what they see as an invasion into ‘their’ road space and justify their malevolence towards cyclists with misunderstandings about ‘road tax’, safe cycling techniques, use of cycle paths, condemnation of all cyclists as ‘lawless’, and other misconceptions. Mass cycling will never become a reality while so many people are afraid of cycling on the roads because of inconsiderate, and even hostile, motor traffic.

May I suggest to you that it is a completely false economy, and wholly unjustified, to ‘go soft’ on motorists whose conduct tips over into criminality that endangers or threatens those using a form of transport that the Government is seeking to encourage?

I am not suggesting that a ‘soft’ policy has been directed from the top; rather it has emerged from the bottom and now needs to be tackled from the top.

I would be very happy to meet with you or your officials in your constituency or in Westminster (perhaps with representatives of relevant cycling organisations) to explain further the concerns which I know are now shared by a very large section of the cycling community.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Porter"

Police Caution for Unprovoked Assault by Motorist on Cyclist (me!)

2010-12-19T19:32:00.007Z

I have this evening received a telephone call from Thames Valley police informing me that a motorist who assaulted me and a friend last week is to be dealt with by way of a police caution.

Last Sunday (12th December) I was out on a club run. Towards the end of the ride I was with (and following) just one club mate heading back towards home. As we made a right turn off a main road, a BMW passed me on the inside cut between us and also turned right. I let him go, so I was rather behind as he then passed my companion. As he passed, he swerved into the kerb when alongside some 3 times forcing my companion to a stop. Apparently (and understandably) my companion banged on the side of the car, though I did not know it at the time.

I was though aware that, after I had passed my mate and before I reached the BMW, it stopped by the left side of the road and the driver got out, swore at my companion and, as I understand he subsequently admitted, pushed him before checking his vehicle for damage. While this was going on I stopped alongside his car with a view to turning into a side road on the right. As he returned to his car he came up to me shouted something abusive about cyclists and pushed me hard so that I fell into the other side of the road and into the path of an oncoming car. I fell onto my right elbow and hip and saw the oncoming car braking hard and stopping around 18 inches from me.

The driver of this car was good enough to stop and leave her details and the police confirmed to me that she had provided a statement indicating that she had seen the assault on me and had to brake hard to avoid hitting me.

The Thames Valley Police investigated including spending 2 ½ hours with me taking a very detailed statement. I showed them where my right elbow was skinned and informed them of the bruising to my right hip. They suggested I went to a doctor which I did the following day. It is clear he did not consider my injuries insignificant and referred me for a hip X-ray. I rang the police officer last Wednesday to tell him but as he was unavailable sent him an email.

I have kept quiet about this until now as I had thought it inevitable that a charge would follow. I do though think it desirable to publicise it now that I know no prosecution will follow, although I know there are some who will (again) seek to exculpate the motorist on the grounds that I must be doing something to attract this hostility!

My understanding is that the driver, when interviewed by the police, admitted both assaults, said he had lost his temper, thought his car had been dented and claimed to have been provoked by my companion. I still call that a wholly unprovoked assault on me (even by the assailant’s own account), though the police and I had to agree to differ on that.

In law there is no real doubt that the assault amounted to one occasioning actual bodily harm, though I am told that under CPS guidelines it would be likely to be regarded as a ‘common’ assault. I was told it was not a serious enough matter to be referred to the CPS.

I must be out of touch with the practicalities of the criminal law as, I have to confess, it had never occurred to me that a caution would be thought a suitable disposal for an offence of unprovoked violence even assuming (as I must) that the offender has an unblemished record. I was also surprised that I was not informed of the possibility of a caution before it happened, so that I could make a representation about it.

Roadrage is dangerous and far too prevalent. Roadrage directed at vulnerable road users is especially dangerous. I regard it as a severely aggravating feature. Sadly ‘it’s just roadrage’ seems to be regarded too often as an exculpatory explanation. I do not think it very reassuring that someone is violent only in the vicinity of his car.

I am, not for the first time, disappointed in the level of protection that our criminal justice system provides to cyclists.

Before anyone mentions it, the CPS has a clear policy of taking over any private prosecution and discontinuing it if it relates to an offence where a caution has been given and accepted.

Update 20th December: I have now written to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and await her response with interest. My letter sets out the facts much as above and identifies all the officers involved. I included the following paragraph on the public interest,

"Further there is a small, but significant, minority of motorists who express aggression towards cyclists and justify their aggression by reference to misunderstandings about road tax, safe cycling technique, use of cycle paths etc. There is a clear public interest in protecting cyclists from this dangerous form of malevolence."
and the following on the views/injuries of the victim:
"Home Office Circular 16/2008 states, paragraph 20, that it is important to establish both the victim’s views in relation to the offence and the proposed method of disposal and the nature and extent of any harm and its significance to the victim." Neither was established in my case.

Update 21st December: A commendably prompt response from a Chief Inspector tells me this will be investigated.

More thoughts from a snowbound cyclist

2010-12-18T17:15:00.004Z

Time for a new camera?

I have collected no useful footage from my helmet camera in the last few weeks because the battery life has deteriorated to just 17 minutes. I need to decide whether to get a replacement. There are arguments either way:
Against:
1. Some of the publicity I am getting is not great. My clerk has kindly been keeping an eye on it for me. The other day he announced looking up from his screen, "It says here you are a brilliant barrister....it also says down here you are a total prat". I already have a thick skin and have learnt the hard way not to seek to defend myself on these open fora; it is never constructive.
2   Perhaps I have done my bit, made a point and can now revert to just shrugging off bad driving in the way I used to in the past.
3. I may be adding to the perception that cycling is dangerous. This is the one that concerns me the most. It is perhaps worth pointing out that I cycle a lot of miles. Judging by DoT statistics I ride 200 times further than the average male cyclist! The statistic must include a lot of very low mileage cyclists (or even everybody who owns a bicycle), but it is reasonable to suppose that what I encounter occasionally may be encountered by a moderate level cyclist only once or twice in a riding lifetime. [Afternote: I ride about 1,000 miles a month and the 'average' male cyclist apparently only does 200km a year.]
For:
1. Some of the publicity is, I hope of assistance to cyclists generally. Nothing I have done before has got me into such a range of newspapers, radio chat shows and even a local television news programme where the message is, I hope, getting across that there is some unacceptable driving out there which needs to be tackled more effectively than is the case at present. On balance the postive feedback outweighs the negative stuff.
2.   After BBC London Radio had done with me, they interviewed DCI Nick Chalmers of the Met's Roadsafe. I was impressed by him and, after a sceptical start reflecting some misunderstandings, I am now persuaded that it is well worth reporting bad driving using this online resource. Mr Chalmers has made it very clear that the police find video footage very helpful.  A report to Roadsafe will not result in prosecution but will, where justified, lead to a warning letter which is a good deal better than nothing. I accept that there cannot possibly be a prosecution for all the inadvertant bad driving that is out there. Surrey Police have a very similar online reporting site. So there is something constructive to do with the video footage other than just post it on youtube.
3.    A very major factor that explains the persitently low modal share of cycling as a means of transport is the fear of traffic. This fear often overestimates the risk of cycling compared to other activities. However it could never be described as irrational while poor (and even aggressive) driving around cyclists persists. A new cyclist could very readily be put off by such driving and revert to their own car. I think on balance it is better to do what I can to address the bad driving at source rather than leave it to shock and surprise the new cyclist who takes to the streets. I know of, and respect, the alternative school of thought which is to let motorists get on with their own thing and seek segregated infrastructure for cyclists. However I jealously guard my right to use the roads (save motorways) which are ideally suited to fast efficient cycling, if only all motorists were willing to share.
4.    When something does get onto my film, I have sufficient legal knowlege, persistence and stubborness to push it further than others may. If I can make a contribution to road safety above and beyond driving/cycling carefully myself, then I am very happy to devote time to doing so. It is in my view a good cause.
5.    The cost of a replacement camera is such that I save it in just two days by taking the bike instead of the train to work.
Conclusion: I have clicked the button ordering my new camera. For those who have asked it is a veho muvi camera ordered on the web (many outlets) for about £45. You will need a better SD card and mounts as well but I already have those from the old camera.

Where is all your footage of bad cycling?

One thing that is totally predictable where there is any discussion (particularly online) of what I have filmed, is that somebody will come on and complain about standards of cycling. It is a reaction as reliable as any reflex; that cyclists have a total disregard for the law, ought to be taxed, insured, helmeted, day-glowed and so on. Even DCI Chalmers, whom I have praised above, took time to encourage cyclists to broadcast video footage of poor cycling.
From a law enforcement perspective I can sympathise with this. A policeman's obligation is to enforce the law, all laws. That though is not my role; I am not an unpaid law enforcement officer and I can take the luxury of pursuing single-mindedly my interest in safety. Were I to film a cyclist endangering anybody other than himself then I will post it, but I seldom witness and have never yet got film footage of this happening.
Cyclists break the law, of course they do - just as every other class of roaduser does, I see it every day and I do not condone it. Nonetheless I am no more inclined to post up every occasion that a cyclist contravenes a red light than I am everytime a motorist contravenes a red light by passing an advance stop line. Worse in my view is a cyclist in black unlit at night but that really doesn't film well.
I do not even bother with my pet irritation which is the cyclist who undertakes me when I am moving, typically when I am slowing for a red light. Clearly not all cyclists are angels, I confronted one in Central London recently who had travelled for miles, undertaking me and then going through a red light and after I had overtaken him repeating the whole process again and again. I eventually advised him for his own sake not to undertake moving vehicles (including me) and was rewarded with a string of obscenities. But, and this finally is the point, however irritating this was, I knew he was there, could avoid him and he was not a danger to me or to anybody else save possibly himself. This is a function of his weight, his speed and his size. Besides it was a cold day and I was wearing a woolly hat with no camera mount.
I firmly believe that to get sidetracked from dealing with the faults of motorists by an idea that it is equally important or 'even-handed' to tackle the faults of cyclists is to severely trivialise the evils associated with poor motoring. I find the relentless pursuit of the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Jon Snow by tabloid reporters anxious to photograph the slightest appearance of a breach of the law deeply unappetising and I do not think I will be contributing to it.
Those most offended, or at least those with most reason to be offended, by law breaking cyclists are the many law abiding cyclists who feel they are being given a bad name. I understand that too but, as I say, I am free to focus my efforts where I wish and I choose road safety.

Legal Update Winter 2010

2010-12-18T14:17:00.003Z

Yes, I am snowbound, the Winter Series is again cancelled and I still do not posses a turbotrainer so I will crack on with a legal update instead:

On 1st November the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by cyclist, Carl Betts, against his sentence of 30 months imprisonment for inflicting grevious bodily harm on a youth who had taunted him. The facts, taken from the Judgment of Mr Justice Hedley, were as follows:

"The events develop really in the early hours of the morning of 26th November 2009. The complainant was aged 17 and was part of a group of young people in a park and there was much laughing and general noise and so on going on. The appellant, who was some 5 years older, at 22, passed this group on his bicycle. There was directed at him quite unnecessary abuse and foul language. Wiser heads would simply have ridden on. But the appellant decided to stop and confront this group about their behaviour and he got off, returned to the group and there was an altercation. The appellant then delivered two punches to the head of the complainant, the effect of which was to put him on the ground.
As he struck the ground it appears that the complainant suffered a further and, as it turns out, extremely serious brain injury."

The Court commented that there was simply no reason at all for the violence to be offered. It is all particularly distressing as it is all so unnecessary. Against that, Betts pleaded guilty and, through the prosecutions's acceptance that this was not the more serious offence of causing GBH with intent, it was accepted that he had not intended the consequences of his actions.

Nonetheless the Judge was held to have been entitled to pass a severe sentence to reflect the gravity of the injury which had occurred and, as a matter of general public policy, if you punch somebody to the head, you should take the consequences however unintended or even unexpected.

It appears that the only reason for the original abuse and foul language was that Betts was on a bicycle and perhaps the main lesson for cyclists is that in the face of such abuse they should ride off if they can. There may also be parallels to be drawn where the cyclist is the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of violence.

On 18th November, Dennis Putz, the killer of the cyclist, Catriona Patel, was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment following his conviction of causing her death by dangerous driving. He ran down Ms Patel driving a Thames Materials skip lorry in South London in June 2009. Mr Putz was using a handheld mobile 'phone at the time of the collision and was also still above the legal drink drive limit after a binge the night before. Putz had a long long history of convictions demonstrating a contemptuous disregard for the laws intended to make the roads safer. His Honour Judge Chapple gave him a lifetime driving ban (a very rare example of this power being exercised).

Questions must arise as to whether Putz's employers, Thames Materials, knew or ought to have known that they were sending lorries driven by such a dangerous menace onto the public roads. These questions only intensified when on 7th December a Japanese businessman in a taxi on the A4 heading into London was killed when a Thames Materials HGV travelling in the opposite direction apparently lost control. Thames Materials has been reported to state that, "We are very sorry about both cases. We are working very closely with police to try to understand what happened. It has been very hard for us as a company." The last sentence has not succeeded in eliciting any great sympathy from this quarter.

Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 is intended to protect persons not at work from the activities of those at work where risks to health and safety may arise from the manner of the carrying out of the employer's activities (I paraphrase). Enforcement is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. In the past the Executive have made it clear that road traffic is not one of its priorities. HGVs kill a disproportionate number of cyclists, especially in London, so arguably this should move up the list.
Thames Materials may be an obvious place to start, but this gives me an opportunity to name and shame Fowler Welch, Oil Salvage Limited and Sunlight Textile Services, none of which have taken the slightest interest when I have drawn to their attention poor driving by their HGV drivers around cyclists. Lorry drivers have an enormous responsibility, and to be fair most of them drive very well. It seems reasonable to expect, in the interests of road safety, companies running fleets of lorries to ensure they employ only the most responsible careful and well trained drivers.

Update on incident on 4th November

2010-12-13T10:20:00.002Z

I am very grateful to the Metropolitan Police for reopening their investigations into an incident that involved me on 4th November near Hounslow. To the extent that my technological abilites permit I will now remove posts relating to this and hopefully restore them once the investigation and any criminal proceedings are complete.

Imperial Winter Series Race 2

2010-12-11T16:26:00.000Z

A good day for the first of the terrific Doug and Lucy Collins’ Imperial Racing Winter Series for this season. Dry with a temperature of +9°C and a light westerly wind (though it always seems a bit stronger at Hillingdon). The series was planned to kick off last Saturday but the ice and snow on the circuit made cancellation inevitable. We will be lucky if that is the only race to be lost to this icy winter.

I signed on a little apprehensively for I had somehow stepped up from 4th category to 3rd category since last winter. I need not have worried though; the speed was very similar, though there was some more tactical riding with bursts of energy interspersed with collective breathers while we waited to see what move would happen next.

Early on I discovered I was not in good enough form to keep up with the rider who keenly sprinted straight off the start or to get into any break. There were some early attempts, but I did not have the strength to go with them and no-one had the strength to stay away (maybe the ice hasn’t affected just my training, though I somehow suspect most others have a turbo in the garage). My club coach was watching, and he had once advised me to settle for an objective of staying near the front for as long as possible. It was therefore largely for his benefit that at 3 laps to go I was at the front; indeed with the sprint on everybody’s minds I had trouble getting off the front and then struggled with the inevitable acceleration in the last couple of laps.

I was at the back discussing with my old racing companion, James, how it might not be wise to compete the sprint, when the wisdom of that joint thought was borne out by a crash on the home straight. Bikes came down to the left of me and then immediately afterwards one to the right of me. I do hope they are all ok. I carried on to roll over the line just off the back of the bunch, which pretty much met my objective of the day.

25 miles in 1h02m. Average speed 24.2 mph. Top speed 30mph just before slowing for the crash.

Roadpeace

2010-12-10T19:30:00.004Z

I am very grateful to Roadpeace, the charity that does so much invaluable work supporting those bereaved by road crashes, and works so hard to reduce the carnage on our roads, for this message of support.

"RoadPeace is in complete support of your efforts to get the police and CPS to take the case of a driver threatening to kill you seriously. Their reluctance to give it proper consideration is indicative of the wider problem we have on our roads where drivers believe that they can drive aggressively, dangerously and in a life-threatening manner, particularly around cyclists, with impunity. A message needs to be sent out to these road users that their dangerous behavior will not be tolerated by the law. The use of the car as a dangerous weapon is strangely tolerated, even more puzzling when it is responsible for over 6 deaths a day in the UK, and one every 27 seconds worldwide. The use of any other weapon/drug/military intervention causing such level of devastation would never be tolerated.

We have called in the past for the definition of dangerous and careless driving to be consistent with that used by DVLA examiners. We can only assume that the driver involved would have failed his test if he had driven like this. Let’s expect drivers to drive as they would on their test, and let’s have a policing and judicial approach that backs that up."

Letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions

2010-12-10T17:05:00.004Z

9th December 2010

Keir Starmer QC
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS

Dear Mr Starmer,

Threat to kill, Hounslow 04.11.10

On 4th November I reported a crime committed earlier that day on the A315 just west of Hounslow, when a motorist drew close alongside me on my bicycle and threatened to kill me. The context was that 10 minutes earlier he had been annoyed when I took sufficient road space, alongside a traffic island, that he had to wait until past the island before he could overtake me. The clear implication of the threat was clear; that if I ‘held him up’ again he would not wait behind but would run me down and kill me. It was a threat neither issued, nor taken, in jest.

My evidence about this incident would, I suggest, warrant some investigation on its own. However my account of the events (which has been clear and consistent from the initial report on the same day) is fully corroborated by video evidence from a camera mounted on my helmet. This records a long sequence of verbal abuse leading up to the incident and a clear admission immediately thereafter that the motorist concerned had indeed threatened to kill me. This admission (‘Did you just threaten to kill me?’ ‘Yeah, I did.’ ‘Are you sure?’ ‘Yeah’) is clearly recorded on the video as are the additional, and plainly abusive, words (‘you are a cocky cunt, mate’).

The film footage both with and without subtitles (which represent my evidence as to what was said) are attached on the enclosed DVD. These have of course been overtly edited by me so I also attach a longer stretch of around 10 minutes of unedited film which covers the incident.

The police officer assigned to investigate this case told me that he was considering issuing a fixed penalty notice to the suspect for a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act (a lenient but inexpensive option). He then took advice from the CPS at Hounslow. The police officer has told me that he was advised, on 11th November, by Mr. Manjit Mahal that there was insufficient evidence ‘to pass the threshold test’ and that no action should be taken. The police officer concerned made it clear to me in an email of the same date that “the decision was not mine and was made by the CPS I shall not be investigating this matter”

I e mailed Mr Mahal on that same day, 11th November, asking him to review his decision or refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.

Unfortunately two weeks later I had not had the courtesy even of an acknowledgment of this e-mail and I therefore wrote on 25th November to Mr Arwell Jones, the District Crown Prosecutor for West London. I regret to say that two weeks on I have not had any response of any kind to that letter either.

I know that you are keen that the CPS complies with Core Quality Standards which include standard 2, that the Service will make timely, effective and fair charging decisions in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and Standard 11 that the Service will deal promptly with complaints about its decisions. The Code for Crown Prosecutors provides at 3.2 that every case prosecutors receive from the police will be reviewed and prosecutors must ensure that they have all the information they need to make an informed decision as to how best to deal with the case.

A CPS spokesman is reported to have told a reporter on the Ascot News that:

“The police asked the CPS in Hounslow for early advice on whether an offence had been committed.
“Having a brief overview of the case the prosecutor advised the police that there appeared to be insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
“If the police ask us to undertake a full review of this material then we will do so, but this has not been requested since we provided our initial advice.”

I do not understand how this can be thought to comply with the code. Since the police did bring this case to the CPS, the prosecutor should not have issued the advice he did without, at least, the benefit of a statement from me and the result of questioning of the motorist. Because he issued this advice after ‘a brief overview’, the police are taking no further action. Mr Mahal’s advice is in any event erroneous. My evidence of a threat to kill is clear. The video both corroborates that, and also clearly records threatening and abusive words and behaviour, proving the lesser offence that the police officer was considering whether to pursue. I invite you to look at the videos and see that on any view:

1. In the initial sequence, the suspect is frustrated at not being able to pass me alongside a traffic island, sounds his horn and says something which is indistinct save for the clear words ‘fuck off’.

2. Nearly 10 minutes later he draws close alongside me but does not, for a period of some seconds, complete the overtake. It is reasonably clear that something is said by him to me.

3. As soon as I am out of immediate danger and the car is ahead of me, I repeat the words I have just heard to the camera ‘If I see that again I’ll fucking kill you.’ This is no less reliable than a contemporaneous written note of the words used.

4. Seconds thereafter I draw alongside him (he is stationery so again can not run me down) and he immediately abuses me verbally and confirms twice that he has just threatened to kill me.

An objective independent observer would find that to be firm corroboration that what I say occurred actually occurred. In respect of threatening and abusive words and behaviour the video alone, even without my recollection, clearly indicates a case to answer and a probability of conviction exceeding 50%.

Further there is, quite rightly, no provision in the Code for the police to ‘half bring’ a case to the attention of the CPS and then deciding not to undertake any investigation on the basis of ‘preliminary advice’. This suggests a joint inclination not to take the issuing of threats by a motorist against a cyclist seriously.

I ask you as the person ultimately responsible for the actions of the CPS to ensure that this (reported) offence is taken seriously and investigated. I appreciate you do not directly control the police, but in circumstances where they have ceased an investigation because of advice from your Service, I am sure they would reopen it at your suggestion. If not (and if it is really for the witnesses and victims of crime to see that justice is pursued) I would take it up with the Metropolitan Police.

At the moment I appear to be falling between two services each of which regards the other as having decided not to act upon my crime report.

May I finally urge you not to dismiss this letter as coming from an obsessed or deranged crank? I trust you will see it as reasonable to take this up with you, after I have failed to get any response from two more junior CPS employees. I have received the full support of countless individual cyclists and also from CTC (the national cycling body) and Roadpeace (a national charity for road crash victims) in the stand I am taking. I ask you to credit that there is a widespread view, which the handling of my case has done nothing to dispel, that aggression and poor driving endangering cyclists is not taken as seriously as it should be by your service.

I would be grateful for an early response even if it is to indicate that time is required to respond substantively.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Porter

Reporter from Ascot News gets some interesting quotes

2010-12-05T19:54:00.005Z

I note that in my local newspaper, the reporter Hannah Masters-Waage has got some interesting quotes from the Hounslow Police and CPS.

A spokeswoman from the Metropolitan Police said: “The matter was investigated by officers from Hounslow and discussed with the CPS and no further action will be taken as we have been advised by the CPS that there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution.”

A CPS London spokesperson said: “The police asked the CPS in Hounslow for early advice on whether an offence had been committed.

“Having a brief overview of the case the prosecutor advised the police that there appeared to be insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“If the police ask us to undertake a full review of this material then we will do so, but this has not been requested since we provided our initial advice.”

So the CPS say that after 'a brief overview' they advised that there 'appeared to be insufficient evidence' but they will not undertake a full review until the police request it. At the same time the police say that they will take no further action as the CPS have said there is insufficient evidence. Meanwhile my correspondence with the CPS has gone unanswered and nobody is prepared to undertake a review because I have requested it.

I have tonight e mailed the police officer who originally investigated this case as follows:

"Dear PC ,

The following has been reported in my local newspaper the Ascot News. http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/ascot/articles/2010/12/03/49606-film-of-abuse-from-driver-is-not-evidence/

You will see that a CPS spokesman has told the reporter that:

“The police asked the CPS in Hounslow for early advice on whether an offence had been committed.

“Having a brief overview of the case the prosecutor advised the police that there appeared to be insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“If the police ask us to undertake a full review of this material then we will do so, but this has not been requested since we provided our initial advice.”

If the spokesman is correct, then it is clear that the CPS will review their advice in the event that you ask them to do so. Naturally I have asked them to review their advice but have not, to date, received any response. Could I request you please therefore to ask the CPS to undertake a full review.

Also, since you do not have a statement from me, it may be helpful if you know what I say was said; a video with subtitles to indicate that can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFOMLngZ08
I note from today's Sunday Times that a police spokesman has described the use of cameras like mine as "tremendously beneficial", which is reassuring.

Thank you for your continued attention to this.
Martin Porter"

Crown Prosecution Service decisions – compare and contrast.

2010-12-04T09:52:00.004Z

Just over a year ago, Dan Black was cycling home from work along a section of the Celtic Trail on the A48 in Chepstow when an elderly driver turned right into oncoming traffic and drove directly into him. 23-year-old Dan suffered appalling injuries and has been left paralysed from the chest down, as reported on CTC's stop SMIDSY site. The CPS chose not to prosecute the driver due to it "not being in the public interest". The CPS have suggested that Dan was "poorly lit" despite his bike meeting legal standards for lighting and his wearing reflective clothing

In June 2008, Marie Vesco, a 19 year old from France who had recently settled in this country, was cycling on a dual carriageway in a group of around a dozen from London to Brighton. They reached a junction where the nearside lane of three became an exit slip road. To travel straight on the group had therefore to cross the nearside lane. This is what Ms Vesco was doing when she was fatally struck first by a car taking the exit and then by another car following close behind. The CPS decided not to prosecute.

In July 2008, Anthony Maynard, a 25 year old experienced cyclist was riding on the A4130 dual carriageway near Henley with a club-mate. Both were struck by a van that had overtaken another vehicle and then pulled in to the nearside lane killing Mr Maynard and injuring his companion. No prosecution was brought apparently on the basis that the van driver had been dazzled by the sun and could not therefore see what was, or was not, in the road space that he was driving into at speed.

In 2006, the CPS decided to charge Daniel Cadden with inconsiderate cycling. His alleged offence related to his use of the road on his commute home through Telford where he was cycling at around 20mph. Initially the police stopped him for riding in the road position which is recommended by the cyclists’ bible ‘Cyclecraft’ and taught on bikeability cycle training courses; that is, he was cycling in a position well out from the nearside edge of the road. A District Judge wrongly convicted Mr Cadden on the basis that it was inconsiderate to ride on the road rather than on a separate cycle path. The CPS chose, wrongly, to oppose Mr Cadden’s successful appeal against that absurd ruling.

Earlier this year the CPS chose to prosecute Jared Kelly on a charge of assaulting a taxi driver in London’s Oxford Street, following a ‘road rage’ type of incident, on the strength of evidence from the taxi driver that the Court decided was not reliable. The real risk of a miscarriage of justice was averted when the cyclist launched his own appeal in the Evening Standard for independent witnesses supporting his evidence that the taxi driver had tried to strangle him with his own scarf.

The CPS is of course capable of better and I have publicly acknowledged and praised them for that here. (I got a much speedier response to that, than to my recent, correspondence with the CPS!) However attitudes are patchy and, in my view, need to be challenged.

I appreciate that the decision in the case of the threat to kill directed against me is not as significant as those cited above. However the quality of CPS charging decisions, where cyclists are involved, is at best patchy. That is why I am not planning to quietly resign myself to the CPS decision made in my case. I have still received no word from either the Hounslow CPS or the District Prosecutor for West London. My hope is that they are taking their time to investigate this carefully.

As well as the many expressions of individual support that I have received I am grateful to the following relevant organisations for their support:
CTC (national organisation for cyclists)
Roadpeace (charity for road crash victims).
The Chairman of the Road Danger Reduction Forum has commented that:
The motorist was unaware that you were in the correct and safe position in the first instance of conflict, and motorists should be made aware of this by their organisations and in the training they get for taking a driving test. Saying "I'll kill you" in a public place when you have a potentially dangerous piece of machinery which you are (mis)using in close proximity to a vulnerable human being is worse than when you don't have responsibility for such machinery. Incidents where people have been endangered should be prioritised both by the police and the CPS.

I will continue to keep you posted.

Thanks for support and a response to my critics

2010-11-27T20:46:00.026Z

I have been critical of law enforcement agencies that have failed to take any action against a driver who threatened to kill me when I was on my bicycle. Many many people (the vast majority) have been kind enough to let me know that they believe I am doing the right thing and this does certainly motivate me to keep at it.

It is though predictable that anybody who pops their head above the parapet to seek to change the established order invites criticism, some of it expressed in immoderate terms and some of it from surprising quarters. The criticism broadly falls under the following heads:

1. You are making a lot of fuss about nothing and you have lost all objectivity likening this to a threat with a gun. The threat was hollow, empty and unexecuted. Happens all the time. You escaped unharmed; get a life.

The threat was delivered pre-meditated for a period of around 10 minutes (since the incident that upset him). He drew alongside me no more than a couple of feet away on a narrow road and threatened to kill me. He had the means at his disposal to carry out his threat (to my mind the analogy with a gun or knife is apposite). He became more sheepish afterwards when, because his car was stationary and I was alongside him, he could no longer use it to harm me. This is not journalistic hyperbole, like that from Matthew Parris, which need not be taken seriously. Of course he did not actually kill me or in the event try to; if he had he would, or should, be on a murder or attempted murder charge. It is quite obviously not a defence to a charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that the offender stopped short of a more serious offence.

My view is that it is time to call a halt to this type of behaviour and one important first step is to call a halt to its acceptance by police, prosecutors and apparently some cyclists. If I can play some small part in this I would be very happy to do so, as must be obvious to anyone who has read my Cycling against the Car Culture. I, too, used to live in a world of indifference to aggression of this sort. My Pauline conversion came when representing the Vesco family at the inquest into the death of their young daughter Marie, an experience I will not ever forget. There was too much indifference there on display from authorities whose job it is to protect us. I hope that the experience has turned me into an activist.

How can we expect ordinary people to take to their bicycles in the numbers which would make the world a better place if we tolerate abuse, threats and far too often real harm and even death inflicted on vulnerable road users?

If the police have the resources and inclination to hand out penalties to cyclists who cycle though Abingdon's pedestrianised high street, they surely have the resources to hand a fixed penalty for disorder to a motorist who abuses a cyclist.

2. You asked for it.

Astonishingly enough there are people on a bike chat forum who express this in various different ways. An 'expert' on riding the A315 has popped up to say there is no need to antagonise motorists by moving out from the edge of the road and that he has been passed by this same car with no drama. A triatheletes' forum is suggesting 'six of one half a dozen of the other' or 'gobby motorist v gobby cyclist'. Some have appeared to say that as they cycle around and motorists do not often threaten to kill them, it must all be my fault and point to my having a camera as further proof.

I do find it hard not to take offence at this. No bikeability instructor or knowledgeable cyclist would have any criticism of the way I was riding. (If I am wrong and you are a bikeability instructor let me know!)Furthermore motorists are not beasts on a safari park whose instincts to attack may be aroused if you do not act cautiously around them. The motorist is responsible for his actions and I am not going to ride in a position that is unsafe so as not to arouse him. As for 'gobby', am I expected to remain mute while this is going on? If not, bear in mind that the microphone is much closer to me than the motorist and when moving there is no point in saying anything at all unless I shout it. Is it really thought that the content of what I am saying is in any sense comparable to the content of what he says to me? I do not get it, and I do dislike the rush that some people make to blame the victim.
The video also demonstrates that, whatever motorists may think, they do not get to their destimation a moment later because of my presence on the road.

3. The CPS are right - there is no evidence

The same discussion on a chat forum is almost comical on this subject. Apparently those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system, who cycle, post their opinions (along with I readily concede more sensible voices) and advise each other knowingly on what evidence is, and is not, admissible (the clear admission immediately after the event that the suspect threatened to kill me is no evidence of anything in one learned opinion) and how my story has shifted over time, casting doubt on whether I was called a "f***g c**t" or a "cocky c**t", which means the case would surely be thrown out (neglecting to notice that those words are actually quite clear on the video). My evidence as to what was said when the car drew alongside is also pronounced to be worthless (the fact I repeated the words into the camera giving it the same status as if I had written it down contemporaneously is alas overlooked). What innocent explanation is there, I wonder, which could turn out to be consistent with what is on the tape and would explain why I have fabricated all this against an innocent motorist? - we will never of course know until the motorist is asked, but it would have to be good for even the lawyers on bikeradar to secure an acquittal.

4. The video is very dodgy - you've doctored it.
I have very overtly taken out a long segment between the time that the motorist took offence and the time that he threatened to kill me. This has apparently aroused some suspicions that I have edited out frightful behaviour which would justify the threat. If you have time on your hands you may view a 10 minute unedited version here. I have, from day one, offered the original memory card to the police.
Equally I can appreciate that the video is very hard to hear; so there is a transparently doctored version equipped with subtitles here. As I say on youtube, if anybody has the capability to report reliably on the content of the soundtrack, I would be very happy to send them a DVD for that purpose.

5. You can't complain you are a lawyer...or you should do it yourself

The idea that a lawyer cannot complain about deficiencies in the legal system seems to me very odd. The idea that a lawyer who is the witness of a crime should bring a private prosecution with no assistance from the state even more odd. Just as I am not above the law, so too I am not beyond its protection. If I am in an advantaged position through having legal knowledge, I very much hope I am putting that to use for the benefit of others rather more than for myself. I have to pursue this because many others would be put off from doing so. A stand has to be taken somewhere somehow.

Enough for now; even in this cold weather I cannot devote all my leisure time to this!

Press Coverage

2010-11-26T17:32:00.010Z

London Evening Standard (West End Final A)
26 Nov 2010

Click here for the on-line version with a range of comments (I encourage you to add yours). The comments there range from supportive to hostility to cyclists, and in a number of cases a view that a threat from a motorist in erratic control of a tonne of metal is something that cyclists should be expected to shrug off and not waste police time with. I suspect this latter view most closely accords with the view the police/CPS take.

Daily Telegraph Saturday 27th November
Ascot News Friday 3rd December
Maidenhead Advertiser Tuesday 7th December
BBC News Berkshire Wednesday 8th December

Threat to kill: letter to CPS District Crown Prosecutor

2010-11-25T12:18:00.007Z

25th November 2010

Mr Arwell Jones
The District Crown Prosecutor
WEST LONDON PROSECUTION SERVICE
3rd Floor, King’s House, Kymberley Road, Harrow HA1 1YH
DX 4204 Harrow 1

Dear Mr Jones,

Threat to kill, Hounslow 04.11.10

On 4th November I reported a crime committed earlier that day on the A315 just West of Houslow, when a motorist drew alongside me and threatened to kill me. His admission soon afterwards that he had threatened to kill me is clearly recorded on a video camera as are the words ‘you are a cocky cunt’. The film footage can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv8w5-cOmCs

My understanding is that the police officer assigned to investigate this case considered issuing a fixed penalty notice to the suspect for a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act and took advice from the CPS at Hounslow. The officer was apparently then advised by Manjit Mahal that there was insufficient evidence ‘to pass the threshold test’ and that no action should be taken.

I e mailed Mr Mahal on the same day this decision was communicated to me, 11th November. For your convenience I set out a copy of my email.

“Dear Mr Mahal,

I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.

The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.

I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.

You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.

If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.

I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Porter”

Unfortunately two weeks later I have not had the courtesy even of an acknowledgment of this e-mail.

The only sensible inference that can be drawn from this failure to prosecute where the evidence is so overwhelming, and no sensible justification is put forward for failing to do so, is that crime committed against cyclists by motorists is not treated seriously. I do urge you please to investigate this and to review the decision not to charge this individual. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, please treat this letter as a formal complaint and accord me the courtesy of a reasoned explanation for the decision.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Porter

The Metropolitan Police Response; Roadsafe London

2010-11-25T10:58:00.002Z

I have received a letter responding to my complaint back in September that I was not getting any joy from using Roadsafe London. I was sent a copy of a letter addressed to me and dated 5th October which never arrived. It is a little unfortunate that my e mail chasers which postdated that letter got no response as it might have become apparent that this letter was 'lost in the post' before I had to write to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner again in early November.
Leaving that miscommunication aside, the response is quite encouraging. Apparently the reports I made on Roadsafe London were not ignored. The clips I posted on youtube were viewed and a letter was sent to the registered keepers of the vehicles concerned with a link to youtube and a request to "drive carefully, keep yourselves and others safe and avoid the risk of being prosecuted". None of this is apparent though to the reporter of the incident who gets only an (apparently) automatically generated e mail response and hears nothing more. This may not compensate for the marked reluctance to prosecute on the part of the police and CPS but to give credit where it is due this is better than nothing. If I had known such letters were being sent out to registered keepers I would have reported some of the more dangerous close passes from lorries. Now that I do know I will resume using the site in appropriate circumstances.
None of this relates to the difficulty I have had in getting the threat to kill pursued and my next task is to pen a letter to the CPS.
I will keep you posted.

The Metropolitan Police/CPS response; brace yourselves

2010-11-11T13:37:00.006Z

Sir
Thank you for sending me the disc. I have viewed it with a colleague and unfortunately there is not enough there to secure a conviction or give the male a PND for this offence of Sec 5 POA. I have spoken to a CPS lawyer who is based at Hounslow Police Station and on their advice their is not enough to secure a conviction and that the threshold test has not been met. I appreciate you will find this disappointing to hear and I can only apologise for that. For this reason the investigation will now be closed.
Kind Regards
[Police Constable]

My response:

Dear [Crown Prosecutor],

I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.
The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.
I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.
You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.
If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.
I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Porter

The evidential test is described in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (scroll down to section 4).

Taxi Drivers

2010-11-06T16:38:00.002Z

A bad week for me commuting (what with the threat to kill me on Thursday morning and being forced to the side of the road at a pinchpoint Friday morning) was rounded off with this 'advice' from a black cab driver to keep to the side of the road because 'my cab is harder than you are.' The advice was delivered after he had come shockingly close to knocking me off my bike.

I have to beware of course of generalisations - I once sat next to a charming cab driver at a wedding and they always used to be friendly enough to me as a fare in the days when I used to use them. Having said that I have been on the roads of London long enough to know that a substantial proportion drive with an arrogant assumption of entitlement to the road. A lot have no respect whatever for red traffic lights and give woefully inadequate space to cyclists (whom many, like the one above, just appear to loathe).

Here is one cutting me up on Constitution Hill, a road which is barred to all other commercial vehicles (including as a University friend of mine once found to his cost, motorcycle despatch riders).

During my walk down the Strand on Thursday to visit Charing Cross Police Station I noticed that almost every vehicle in the substantial traffic jam was a Black Cab.

I suppose it is no surprise they feel an unusual sense of entitlement. They are entitled to enter central London without paying a Congestion Charge; they are entitled to use bus lanes (including that famous one on the M4) whether carrying a fare or merely looking for one, they get free parking at numerous Central London locations that would cost anyone else several pounds an hour to get their breakfast, tea or whatever. Black cabbies run profitable businesses. So why on earth do they get all this direct and indirect subsidy from us? Would be nothing to do with the frequency with which taxi fares appear on politicians' expenses claims would it? Personally I do not buy the 'public transport' argument and am surprised that anybody does. It is personalised transport on an even less efficient basis than private car use.

I know; this blog is starting to turn into a rant, but after a hard week I am feeling despondent. I am sure it is nothing that a bit of bike riding won't put right.

The Metropolitan Police. Do they take cyclists seriously?

2010-11-04T15:39:00.014Z

Why would I doubt it? Well, I have tried using the Roadsafe reporting website on a few occasions and have not yet elicited any kind of response beyond an automated acknowledgement. I complained to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner back in September and have had only a holding response despite chasing.

I decided I would report this morning's incident (see my immediately preceding blog post). Since it has required, and no doubt will require, a substantial investment of my time I thought I would spend the further time to report here how I get on.

I reported this morning to a central number, gave very outline details and was told the matter could be taken further only if I reported to a Metropolitan Police Station and filled in the form applicable to road rage. I was also asked to take in the video evidence.

I have just returned from visiting Charing Cross Station. It took just over an hour. The appropriate form is not available to be picked up, you have to get to the counter. After a 20 minute wait I got to see an 'SRO' (Station Reception Officer, I think). He told me first that I could not have a form as there had not been a collision. I told him I was there at the request of somebody else in the Metropolitan Police and had compelling evidence of a crime in the form of a video. I had as requested taken the video along on a CD. 'Are you a licensed to take copies of videos...No, well then I am afraid we cannot use that video. If we were to use that in Court it would be thrown out'. (Not true).

I persevered and eventually he went away to consult a sergeant. 20 minutes later he came back saying he would record the details as a public order offence. He took my details and recorded my answers in his computer. The questions included
'What were you wearing, was it fluorescent?'
'Were you in lycra?'
'You were riding along the yellow line, yeah?' Indicating, on Google Earth streetview, the single yellow parking restriction line you can just see at the outset in my video.
'Did you inform him you were filming him?'
'Why did you have a camera?'

Before I left I again offered my CD. No, he would not accept that and no it could not be passed on to Hounslow who were to investigate. If they took it any further they would require my camera for about 3 weeks.

I was given a reference and told that if I had any further queries I was to revisit a police station with my 9 number reference. No, I could not telephone/e mail.

I am just telling it as it is, with no comment. I will update this post as appropriate.

Postscript: I should perhaps have made it clearer that as a consequence of my persistence the details I supplied (without the video) will be passed to Hounslow Police Station for investigation of a public order offence.

UPDATE (8th November): Progress. I have been contacted by a Police Constable in Chiswick who is investigating and I have sent him a copy of the video (and the youtube link).

UPDATE (9th November): I was pretty fed up as a consequence of Thursday's events so when the following morning I filmed some more aggressive driving, I put it on a CD and sent it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with a reminder that I had still received no substantive response to my earlier comments about the RoadSafe reporting initiative. His office will no doubt have received that yesterday. This morning between 0915 and 0930 I was sent e mail acknowledgements of the three reports I have made in the last week. The first response of any kind I have ever got using RoadSafe so things are picking up.
I also got home last night to find a letter confirming that Chiswick were investigating the reported threat to kill enclosed with a leaflet from 'Victim Support'.
I will continue to keep you posted.

UPDATE (11th November): The police advised by the CPS have decided upon no further action. I have asked them to refer it to a more senior level within the CPS and indicated that I wish to complain.

Coping with poor infrastructure. Threats to kill.

2010-11-04T11:55:00.006Z

Of course islands in the centre of the road are useful for pedestrians, though perhaps not quite as useful as an old fashioned pedestrian crossing. They do seem to proliferate on my route to work and they do potentially cause problems for cyclists. The way to negotiate them safely is to take the lane and this is particularly so if you cannot trust the impatient motorist behind you. Thankfully this island near Houslow is not paired with a narrow cycle lane like the subject of my last post. However some motorists do still express a preference for us to keep to the side of the road, in this case accompanied rather charmlessly with a threat to kill.

One of the more polite adjectives he uses is 'cocky' a word I used to hear in my first year at primary school from second years. You see, we cyclists ought to recognise our inferiority to people like him in their 'motors' and we should not be upsetting the natural order of hierachy by getting about as fast as them.

A threat to kill is unlawful and I believe needs to be taken seriously when communicated from someone in a motor car to a cyclist. I contacted the Metropolitan Police about this and the answer is that they will only look into it if I go into a Met station and fill in that form. No, there is noone to whom I can e mail the video. Shall I bother?

Postscript: yes, I did bother, prompted by the many views here that I should. For the results see my next post.

Sharing the road with sub-standard (ok crap) lorries and crap infrastructure

2010-11-02T13:53:00.002Z

I have been writing recently about the Mayor's latest cycling safety campaign and the quality of cycling infrastructure. What I saw this morning illustrates the problems cyclists face. I rode part of my journey with the best racing cyclist I know who, like me, has gained experience from a long commute. The cycle lane is rubbish, and I believe positively dangerous when combined with central pedestrain refuges. Painting it green does not make up for the fact that it is far too narrow. The lorry driver just squeezes to his left to get past the central refuge either blind to, or not caring, what is in the cycle lane. My cycling companion was unfazed. I would have been enraged. Worse many potential cyclists get so intimidated by this sort of encounter that they do not cycle. Such people need properly designed, thought out (and inevitably expensive) cycling infrastructure. Other cyclists need only the roads but with other road users required and encouraged to meet at least basic standards of coutesy and care. The half-way house of cheap inadequate provision is far worse than useless.

Reporting this standard of lorry driving to the Metropolitan Police has in my past experience been futile, but given Tim Lennon's recent and commendable success in getting information from them which suggests that their reporting website leads (sometimes) to action, perhaps I will give it another go and see whether they have any interest in HGVs that get far too close to cyclists.

The title of this entry borrows shamelessly from freewheeler, who provides a compelling critique of the quality of our infrastructure.

Sharing London's Streets with Lorries

2010-10-26T15:06:00.006+01:00

Transport for London have recognised that there is a problem with lorries and bicycles sharing road space on London's streets and have launched a Cycle Safety Awareness Campaign. the Mayor's transport adviser says that:

"We are working with freight operating companies to improve HGV safety and we are the first city in the UK to trial on-street cycle safety 'Trixi' mirrors.

'However, perhaps most vital is getting safety advice to cyclists, whether new or experienced, particularly about road positioning and crucially that being in the blind spot of a large vehicle could potentially have fatal consequences.'

I am far from convinced that 'most vital' is getting advice to cyclists (see poster above). Yes, of course, it is important for cyclists to exercise extreme caution in the vicinity of any large vehicle; but this should not for a moment distract from the importance of getting safety information to, and demanding higher standards from, lorry drivers and their employers.
I find the most shocking thing about the poster is the state of affairs which permits a lorry driver to run down all those cyclists on his nearside without obvious blame being attributed to the driver and his employers. 'Blind spots' are not an inevitable fact of life they are a design flaw which in any context, other than motor vehicles, would be regarded as obviously unacceptable.

As Roadpeace point out nearly three quarters of cyclists killed in London are killed by HGVs (9 of 13). Plainly this is grossly disproportionate to the numbers of lorries on the road. Who could sensibly argue against the low cost and effective measures that Roadpeace would like to see put in place immediately drastically to reduce the risk to vulnerable road users from lorries?

It is true the Mayor has a Freight Operator Recognition Scheme. Freight operators who care will no doubt sign up. The problem I experience commuting is that the vast majority of lorry drivers are very good (usually the best motorists) around cyclists. However when they are bad, they are very very bad. These bad drivers are often employed by undertakings that do not sufficiently care.

I do not know whether Sunlight or Oil Salvage Company, for example, are members of the Mayor's FORS - I rather doubt it; certainly they have not bothered to respond to the video footage I have sent them showing their lorries speeding by me far too close.

Sadly, in my experience, it is no use whatever reporting bad driving to the Metropolitan Police. The Met may be interested in setting up initiatives, such as Roadsafe London that make it look as though they are taking action. However the claims made that 'At Roadsafe London we make attempts to contact every driver in all cases reported to us. Please be assured we will research every submission in order to task police activity, but be aware we will not initiate a prosecution other than in exceptional cases. To make an allegation of a driving offence with a view to prosecution, you will have to attend a police station and complete a reporting form.' require some resourcing or they are mere verbiage. Further the Met continue to put off complaints that should lead to prosecution by inconveniencing the complainant with the need for a personal attendance at a police station and a notoriously lengthy form. I used the Roadsafe site in July, wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on 21st September, and more than one month on have had no substantive response at all despite reminders.

In short it look like a good initiative but the Met will only make a serious effort to investigate in cases where a death (or at least, resources permitting, a serious life changing injury) has occurred.

I try to remain as dispassionate as possible, but I have done the bikeability course, I make myself visible and I take no risks around lorries; nonetheless all too often I am in close proximity to a lorry because he (and in my experience the few women lorry drivers are much better than the men) has forced that on me. What is true for me is also true for thousands of London cyclists, and I have no reason to suppose was not also true of all of the 8 cyclists killed in London last year by lorries.

Going back to the TfL poster at the outset of this post, my guess would be that the bicycles were at the junction first (and the lorry is about to turn left without indicating; for added realism the front of the lorry should be stopped at the front of a never enforced advanced stop line). To prevent the lorry pulling alongside, the cyclists would have had to have taken the centre of the lane, something which is specifically discouraged by the woeful cycle lanes across the capital. These lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy routes or a minimum of 1.5 metres wide where the speed limit is 30 mph or less in accordance with the Department for Transport's own design standards (paragraph 7.4). Where they are less than that and/or optional (dotted lines) they should be removed. Having been forced into the position in the poster, the cyclist needs to ensure he leaves it before the lorry moves. Most junctions in London are controlled by traffic lights; the cyclist in those circumstances needs cautiously to get ahead of the lorry before the light turns green. Likely as not he will then encounter the Met's enforcement action in the form of a fixed penalty for jumping a red light. A misdirection of resources? I leave you to be the judge of that.

I agree with the family of Eilidh Cairns, one of the 9, that restrictions on the right of HGVs to use the road should be considered at least until they are able to demonstrate they can do so in safety. With this unfair mismatch, it is not the cyclists who should be leaving the roads, it is unsafe lorries and unsafe drivers. A recognition scheme with trained drivers and suitably equipped lorries should be mandatory and police resources should be redirected to following up all serious complaints against lorries before disaster strikes.

Finally anywhere in London, save those elevated motorway monuments to motorcentricity, twenty is plenty and far exceeds the speed a motor vehicle could hope to get around anytime between 6 am and 9 pm. Lorries are equipped with tachographs, enforcement would be easy and there is a precedent for differential speed limits elsewhere. Why not restrict lorries and buses to 20 mph on all non-motorway routes within the M25? If that slows Porsches and 4 x 4s down too, is that a bad thing?

POSTSCRIPT: Eilidh Cairns was from the North East and her family are constituents of Fiona Hall MEP who is calling for support in the European Parliament to mandate the fitting of sensors and cameras on lorries to remove blind spots.

Legal Update Autumn 2010

2010-10-14T16:11:00.000+01:00

The Court of Appeal in Smith v Hammond [2010] EWCA Civ 725 has reversed a trial Judge’s finding that the driver of a DAF lorry, Mr Hammond, had been partly to blame for the severe injuries sustained by a 13 year old cyclist, Joshua Smith, on a newspaper round. The evidence of Mr Hammond, accepted by the trial Judge, was that he had been travelling at the 30 mph speed limit when the cyclist attempted to cross the road from one driveway to the opposite side straight in front of him.

The road was a residential street in Tean depicted here (outside number 77 which I believe to be in this general area):

Mr Hammond had seen Joshua at the side of the road looking in the opposite direction. The trial Judge had found that Mr Hammond ought to have sounded his horn to alert Joshua to his presence.

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision on the basis that the HGV drier could not reasonably have been expected to sound his horn until Joshua was on the move out into the road and by then it would have been too late anyway.

On the law, as it is, one can see how that decision is arrived at. Sounding a horn every time somebody might do something unwise, could lead to a cacophony of noise in residential areas.

I have though two observations. First, speed. It is in my view high time that the speed limit in residential areas where children on bicycles and on foot can be readily anticipated, is reduced to 20 mph. There has been talk of this for years but political foot-dragging because it may be perceived as a ‘war on the motorist’. In this case the HGV was travelling at around 30 mph. Although Mr Hammond says say he ‘eased off the accelerator’ there is no suggestion that this reduced the speed before the cyclist came into his path other than marginally. At 20 mph there would have been more time to sound the horn, to brake and to swerve and if a collision had taken place the consequences would have been far less devastating. I once tried to persuade the Court of Appeal that in certain circumstances travelling at 30mph in a 30mph zone was itself negligent. I got nowhere. This is not for the Judges; this is for Parliament to fix.

Second observation is that in most of Europe the cyclist would have succeeded in his claim against the HGV driver despite the driver being held not to be at fault. This is, in my view, justifiable here on the premise that HGVs are large dangerous vehicles which should only be permitted onto the roads o terms that they pay for the damage occasioned by their presence. However I hold a minority view on this and although widespread in the European Union and apparently recommended by the soon to be abolished quango, Cycling England; the motoring public here would not stand for it and it is manifestly not something the Judges can alter.

Mr Hammond had his own claim against the cyclist for causing him a post traumatic stress disorder. The trial Judge had rejected this claim saying that Joshua could not reasonably have foreseen that his actions would have led to injury to Mr Hammond. The Court of Appeal reversed this also, saying it was sufficient if he should have foreseen injury to another road user, such as another cyclist. This aspect was dealt with briefly and could have merited greater analysis. Mr Hammond was surely outside the zone of the risk of physical injury; had a driver coming the other way seen what occurred and suffered PTSD he would not be able to recover. The only valid distinction is that Mr Hammond would foreseeably consider himself an instrument of the accident. The Court of Appeal was pleased to note that Joshua’s employer the Co-Op had agreed to pay the damages to Mr Hammond (rather than the bill falling on Joshua personally).

Other news this quarter relates to the adequacy of investigation into fatal cases. A seminar on this topic was organised by RoadPeace last month Improving the Post Crash Response. Unfortunately prior commitments kept me away from this. I would have liked to have been there because I take the view that improvements are required. This is highlighted by the case of London cyclist, Eilidh Cairns. I have written about her inquest already in an earlier legal update. This week the driver of the HGV that crushed Eilidh was fined £200 for driving an HGV with defective vision. His vision was only ever tested some time after the accident at the insistence of Eilidh’s family, who could not understand how he had not seen her prior to the fatal collision in Notting Hill in February 2009.

As a lawyer I find it easier to understand, than others may, that the Court had to sentence on the basis of the charge made and could not assume that the collision was caused by the defective vision (for had it been, the charge should have been a far more serious one). Nonetheless driving an HGV around crowded streets in London with defective vision may be thought to be a serious matter. The driver seems on any objective view to have got off lightly, following a very late plea of guilty, with a £200 fine, £150 costs and a £15 surcharge. He got the three penalty points but no disqualification. It is a striking feature of our society that outside the world of motoring, the Health and Safety requirements which relate to, for instance, visual checks for all those required to work at display screen equipment seem to matter more than eye tests for those who drive in the vicinity of vulnerable road users. Far too often (daily in my case!), HGVs pass far too close to cyclists (examples are here, here and here). Our society accepts far too readily this hazardous proximity focussing on the actual collision without challenging drivers as to what they were doing so close to a cyclist as to permit a collision to occur.

It is not wise to cycle when drunk (and illegal, if so drunk as to not have proper control of the bike). However even if a cyclist is drunk, it should not be sufficient to conclude an investigation into his death by saying it was probably he who deviated from his course. This is what apparently happened following the death of Piotr Kobiela. As in any safety context there is good reason for a comfortable margin of safety. We cyclists need a car width not in order pointlessly to inconvenience others but because anything less is dangerous, intimidating and does not make any allowance for potholes, mechanicals and wobbles.

Two Cheers for Surrey Police

2010-10-09T12:46:00.001+01:00

The prize for providing the first substantive response from my letters of a couple of weeks ago goes to Surrey Police. I used their DriveSmart website initiative back in July to report this overtake on the A30 Egham by-pass.

A letter from the Chief Constable's office confirmed that my report had been received and apologised for the fact that I was not sent a form and asked to come into a police station to report the offence formally. I have encountered this before, when trying to report bad driving to the Metroploitan Police, and it does seem to me that a requirement to attend a police station and fill in a complex form is designed to deter too many reports. The letter went on to say that the time limit for bringing a prosecution had now passed but an attempt would nonetheless be made to contact the driver.
In fact the time limit for bringing a prosecution for careless driving is six months BUT, and here is the rub, if there is no accident and the motorist is not informed at the time of the possibility of prosecution, a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' must be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the offence. Accordingly where there is no accident and the offender is not stopped by the police at the time, they must act pretty swiftly to contemplate prosecution based on the report of a member of the public. This requirement also makes private prosecutions difficult for anybody who does not have access to the dtabase of vehicle registration numbers.
I have at the same time had a constructive e mail dialogue with an officer in Woking who has asked for, and now seen my video footage and will, if he can, give some advice to the driver.
Surrey Police are as a result of all this reviewing their system for the reporting of bad driving and in particular are looking into online reports that dispense with the need for a visit in person to a police station to fill in a form. They aim to learn from the experience of Sussex Police who apparently have such a system (and who hopefully have learned something in the past from the Marie Vesco case).
There does appear to be some good intention at a policy setting level. It would be good to see some more efficient implementation of policy. Obviously suitable charges following an accident are very important (which is why the lack of action following some of the fatal cases I have written about are such a disgrace). However intercepting poor driving before there is an accident also has the potential to save a lot of grief.
I would like to see drivers routinely pulled up on careless (or 'inconsiderate', the threshold for the offence is not high) driving before they cause an accident.
No substantive response yet from the Met Police, AXA Insurance, Tellings Golden Miller or Europlant Group. I aim to keep you posted.

A response to 'Phatboy'

2010-10-07T09:16:00.003+01:00

It is inevitable that as I keep posting my thoughts about cycling on this blog, somebody will disagree vehemently with what I am saying. Disagreement has certainly been expressed by 'Phatboy' to this post which I penned after a motorist yet again told me to get off the road and onto a cycle track.
Phatboy starts:

"Seriously"
Alright. I will take it that you are serious and this is not a windup from a friend. It is rather reassuring that my blog is reaching out beyond the cycling die-hards to some of the people that need to be persuaded. Perhaps Philip Hammond reads my blog too - I do hope so.

"the Highway Authority have provided a cycle lane well away from the traffic and you're still complaining?"
I am not complaining, I am explaining why I do not use the cycle track (not lane).

"What is wrong with this lane? It looks perfectly good to me, except that it leaves nowhere for pedestrians to walk."

I have mentioned in my blog the fact that the track does not comply with relevant design standards. Check out the Department for Transport's Cycle Infrastructure Design Guidance here. This is, in my view, good guidance but it is scarcely ever implemented. 3 metres is the minimum acceptable width. This track is just over one metre wide. The track surface is nothing like as good as the surface of the adjoining road. The ends of the track deposit the cyclist the wrong side of multiple lanes of traffic to get onto the A315 and the position is worse coming from the other direction (the track is two-way, there is no similar provision on the other side of the road.) Furthermore the track gives way at every junction. The photograph in my post was taken to demonstrate, for a talk I gave a firm of solicitors, the low priority given to cyclists who are expected to give way to a hedge. A cyclist has to slow even for this 'junction' because, if a motorist pulled over here to answer a mobile 'phone (say), and ran over the cyclist, he would be able to assert that the cyclist was obliged to give way.
And incidently look what happens just a few hundred metres West when you hit the Surrey border:

That blue sign says end of cycle route..I leave you to guess what the cyclist is to do next. Any notion that this is Dutch style cyling infrastructure will not survive a quick inspection on google earth.

"Once you start paying road tax for your bicyle"
Not this one again! Please refer to http://ipayroadtax.com/. Both the road and the cycle track are funded from taxation. I dare say I might pay more tax than you but that is not relevant. Noone asks for your tax receipts when you visit the hospital or sign on for benefits. I pay for the roads. The sums you (and I because I have not managed to dispense with the use of a car) pay in Vehicle Excise Duty and fuel taxes are not hypothecated. They are in any event trivial sums in comparison to the overall detrimental effect that a car culture has on our society in terms of death, injury, ill-health, noise, pollution, land use, climate change and ugliness.

"then I'll accept that you can get on your high (and very pompous) horse about who uses the road."

It is not unusual for people expressing views like those of Phatboy to mix in some personal abuse. I am used to it. It does nothing to advance the argument. It is Phatboy, not I, who wishes to dictate who cannot use the general road network.

"By the way, if you're in a rush one morning, how about using a car or a motorbike rather than riding a push bike"
First, because it would make me a hypocrite.  I tell my colleagues who drive into Central London to work that their action is antisocial. The last thing London needs is even more motorists.
Second a car is unquestionably slower. Unless they turn off, I invariably catch and pass those vehicles who are in such a great rush to pass me. A motorcycle may be faster but the inattention of motorists that currently frustrates me, would very likely kill me if I was travelling fast on a motorcycle.
Third, I enjoy riding a bike.  I do not enjoy driving. It would be total bliss if I were not faced with aggressive and thoughtless driving on a daily basis. If you have not tried cycling, then do.
If I am in a rush one morning, I take a train using a Brompton to get to and from the station.
What I find dispiriting is your assumption that those on bicycles have no business wanting to make good time whereas people in motor vehicles can 'rush'. It is this double standard that lies behind the continuing prevalance of 'Cyclists Dismount' signs and systems which require cyclists to make unnecessary detours or wait for long periods at lights. My return commute leaves me standing at red lights for 40 minutes. this is because lights are phased for motor traffic, which can in any event avoid many lights by taking the Westway or Chiswick flyover or Hammersmith flyover etc not available to cyclists.
Some years ago I had a greviously injured client who had stepped into the road from a crowded pavement into the path of a car travelling at the 30mph speed limit. The driver gave evidence that she ws travelling at 'the recommended speed' and that she saw no need to slow down because the pavements were crowded with pedestrians attending a festival. A Court of Appeal Judge denied my application for permission to appeal stating that 'we all have to get around'. Is it so unreasonable for cyclists to seek to make good progress too? A cyclist at 20mph represents no significant hazard to anybody. Aside from Portsmouth, motorists are still almost universally permitted to travel at 30 mph in built up areas, when it is well established that a 20 mph limit would save many lives. Scandalously the Thames Valley Police will not enforce the few 20 mph limits in their area.
Attempts to enforce even the speed limits that we do have are characterised ludicrously as a 'war on motorists' (Mr Hammond are you still there?). I already leave half an hour extra because I am butter fingered at fixing punctures.  I see no reason at all why I should allow a further half hour each way to negotiate cycle tracks instead of making good progress on the road.
Finally are you not able to appreciate that when I am on my bicycle leaving my (taxed!?) car in the garage, I am easing the traffic flow for the rest of you. Richard Ballantine in his masterful 'Bicycle Book' suggests cyclists should be paid for cycling. That will never happen but if you are going to measure your morality by narrow fiscal considerations, the motorist owes the cyclist not vice versa.

"in what looks like quite a fast road?"
The road has a 40 mph limit though this is regularly and routinely ignored. It is perfectly suited to shared use.

Finally I have mentioned that I drive.  When driving, I have no difficulty whatever giving a car width space to cyclists when I overtake them. Should they swerve for a pothole, wobble drunkenly or even fall off I would not run them down. I do not bother to overtake a cyclist travelling around 20mph in a built up area or when I am about to turn; there is no point. I always indicate and check my mirrors before I turn in case there is somebody there. None of these things are difficult and none take more than a few seconds. I remain at a total loss to understand what the likes of Phatboy have against sharing the road with cyclists.

Cycle Lanes

2010-10-05T21:10:00.000+01:00

Further to my last post, one piece of cycling infrastructure that is a complete waste of white paint is the discretionary (dotted line) cycle lane. Without at least a requirement that motor vehicles

not enter the lane until they have a clear exit, they are of no use to cyclists. All they do is keep us to the edge of the road, out of the way of 'proper traffic'. I would do away with them all.

What's he yelling? Something about a cycle track

2010-10-05T12:17:00.001+01:00

A finger stabbing gesture accompanies this man's expression of view that I should not be on the road; I should be on the cycle track. His mate the driver obviously agrees, assuming he is in control of the horn. To be fair, he did take the trouble to move over (a tiny bit) which differentiates this driver from the ones that try to squeeze me off the road. As for the shouting, I am a lawyer who believes in free speech, however strongly I dissent from the view being expressed.

Here is the cycletrack alongside the A30 which they would like me to use. It is, like most, cycling infrastructure completely unsuitable if you wish to get anywhere in anything approaching a hurry. It is also built in either ignorance or defiance of all relevant design standards.

I used to use this track when I first started tentatively commuting by bike. It took me at least 30 minutes longer than it does using the road, and with the numerous junctions and the requirement to give way to vehicles approaching from all directions, I was less safe.
There is though a pervasive attitude that cyclists should use cycle lanes, highlighted by the daft conviction of Daniel Cadden and the wishy-washy compromise wording in rule 61 of the Highway Code. We were saved from even worse wording. However it should read:
"Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use of these facilities is not compulsory. The choice as to whether to use them or not is yours and your decision will depend upon your level of experience and skills, as well as the prevailing traffic conditions."
I am all for optional segregated cycling facilities, but not for surrendering the general road network to the exclusive use of the motorist. Motorists have motorways; when not on a Motorway they should share the road.

Time to complain

2010-09-21T21:31:00.000+01:00

I do not consider myself to be a complaining type, but I have eventually got around to writing to the Chief Executives of AXA Insurance and Tellings Golden Miller, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Chief Constable of Surrey. The Chief Executives are of companies to whom I sent video clips of poor employee driving. The policemen are the heads of police forces who have set up websites for reporting bad driving and ignored my reports, all made in a fit of enthusiasm when I started filming in July.
For good measure I have added an email today to Europlant Group (though I have not got to the Chief Executive stage with them yet) as I did not like this.

All the various clips are posted on youtube
It is dispiriting, though I suppose not desperately surprising, that only Royal Mail responded first time around; credit to them for that.

My racing season

2010-09-15T18:24:00.000+01:00

Dunsfold Park where I got one precious point

With the nights drawing in, all evening racing now a distant memory and the season winding down, it is time to review my third season racing. I mentioned in an earlier post that I had finally found some modest form in June, though I wondered then if it would be a flash in the pan. To be honest I believe it was and after the distraction of the etape and then a long period away with only occasional leisurely riding of a mountain bike, I returned to a race circuit significantly weaker in September than I had left one in early August. Nevertheless the points I got in high summer were not wasted as I collected a rather lucky eighth place at Thorney Island last Sunday.

The result is that I got the ten points this season to leave the fourth cats for the thirds. I am not at all sure how I will handle the stiffer competition of 3rd cat races; I intend to post what happens in the next Winter Series. I hardly have an impressive palmares. It can be seen that I have raced and raced and done rather poorly in all but a handful of them. I hope this may encourage somebody out there to give racing a go. To misquote Mark Twain you will not regret it if you remain upright and it does provide a whole new dimension to riding a bike. It helps, of course, to be young and strong but I am living proof that you can get something out of it if you are neither.

My aim for the winter is to train myself to sprint, not an easy thing to work on during a London commute so I am just going to have to introduce myself to the concept of a training ride or even (I thought I would never say it) a turbotrainer.

I am back....to this

2010-09-11T14:06:00.000+01:00

No more bears, black flies and stupefying heat for me for a while. My first commute for a long while was last Thursday. Unhappily skip lorries kill cyclists in hugely disproportionate numbers. If you are killed in London it is very likely to be by a skip lorry. This overtake was unacceptably close and also completely pointless.

Cycling in Canada

2010-08-18T20:59:00.003+01:00

I have borrowed a mountain bike and been cycling around Albert County, New Brunswick. There is a mandatory helmet law here for adults as well as children. I am unable to report on how well respected, or enforced, this law is, as I have not come across another cyclist on my travels (save a few young children riding helmetless on the pavement). [Postscript: I have now seen a few, but the only adult I have seen wearing a helmet was in the City of Moncton and he was on the pavement]. If the Provincial legislature were serious about promoting cycling they could usefully start by cracking down on the pet dogs that are permitted to roam the rural roads. Many roads here have virtually no traffic. The wildlife is generally shy. Locals tell me they seldom see bears, but I spotted one this afternoon on my ride. Travelling more slowly and more quietly on a bicycle makes it possible to see a lot that is hidden to the motorist. At first I thought I saw a very large dog but as I got closer it was clearly a black bear, I slowed right down, unsure what to do, and was somewhat relieved when a pick up truck coming the other way caused it to spring back into the woods.
Domestic creatures (dogs) are intrigued by the unusual sight of a cyclist and are inclined to give chase; so far I have been able to outsprint them but if I encounter one going uphill a confrontation seems possible.
I am starting to stick to 'busier' roads where the occasional passing car means that owners have trained their pets to stay off the roads and the more dangerous wildlife is likely to be some way back in the woods.
Motorists here are generally highly considerate of cyclists; this may be the opposite of 'safety in numbers'. I am sufficiently unusual to be noticed and it is easier to give a cyclist plenty of space if nothing else is around and I am probably the only cyclist they pass in a week.
It is good to have challenges that differ so much from those I face on the usual commute into work.

Albert County, New Brunswick...more bears than people

The Mail Must Get Through

2010-08-12T15:28:00.000+01:00

My post arrives at home delivered by a postman on a bicycle. He has always seemed very happy with his job and shows a healthy interest if I happen to be tinkering in the garage with one or other of my bikes on a Saturday morning when he arrives. Certainly if I were a postman I would very much rather deliver on a bicycle then by van or by cart. It is a very great shame that the outgoing chief executive of the Post Office, Mr Crozier, called time on the delivering of mail by posties on bicycles. His replacement, Ms Greene, is under some pressure to reverse this decision.

Ms Greene is moving across the Atlantic having previously headed the Canadian postal service. I happen to be writing this post in Canada and am having an opportunity to observe first hand a culture more motor-centric even than our own. Infrastructure is quite unambiguously devoted to the private motor car. Only the very hardy few cycle here. Postal delivery through the letterbox has, save perhaps in some city-centres, been abandoned for van drops into multiple mailboxes on street corners, in the suburbs, or has to be collected by the customer (almost invariably by car) from the village post office, in rural areas. The elderly and disabled are reliant upon friends, neighbours or relatives to go and pick up their post for them.

The internet has of course transformed the postal service everywhere. It is rare now that I write a letter to a friend or relative or send a cheque through the mail. E-mail and internet banking have done away with the need for all that. Instead I order a lot of goods over the internet and rely upon my postie to deliver parcels of books, bike parts and electronics to my door. This can, though, still be done by bicycle using cargo bikes or even tricycles where necessary.

Mr Crozier has justified his decision by refering to Health and Safety considerations but this is perplexing. Posties will be healthier delivering on a bicycle and cyclists will be safer with fewer vans on the streets; witness my close shave with a Post Office van last month.

CTC have launched a campaign to seek to persuade Ms Greene to reverse Mr Crozier's decision. This campaign has my support.

The Canadian postal service is not, I think, one to emulate.

Car Sick Highway Engineers

2010-07-26T22:52:00.002+01:00

Even in a car sick motor centric society like ours this takes some beating. There are roadworks on Staines Bridge which means it has been narrowed. The Highways Engineer has scrubbed out the cycle lane markings and instructed cyclists to dismount.
The above is a still from one of my Headcam videos here
I make some further intemperate comments on youtube; but really how can Highways Agencies employ people who think like this ?

My cycle training session

2010-07-26T18:39:00.001+01:00

I have mentioned before on these pages that I was planning to have a session of cycle training and the particular concern, that I voiced when I booked, was over the aggression I was attracting from some motorists.
I met my instructor, Colin, at the Imperial War Museum and it was immediately apparent (and I do not blame cycle training organisations for this) that there were hoops to be gone through before we could take to the roads to deal with bikeability level 2 and 3. First the bike check which resulted in a rotating downwards of my brake levers to make it easier to cover the brakes the whole time (I commute on a flat bar bike). Then on an unused tennis court I demonstrated the ability to look behind without falling off and to do an emergency stop.

Finally on the roads Colin followed behind and had the following suggestions:

- Cover the brakes the whole time. I think this makes sense in heavy traffic and I do it instinctively if I am unsure about surrounding traffic. Novel idea for me to do it all the time.

- Road positioning. Was essentially good though I unconsciously come out before turning left (an HGV turn). I suppose I am trying to widen the turn and will think in future about slowing more and maintaining my position in the road until I can see into the left road before making the turn. Also left and right turns into a major road from a side road are made from the same position in the centre of the lane. This was news to me I have been taking the centre of the road before turning right and letting left turning traffic past to my left but this is apparently frowned upon.

-Signalling. I should not have signaled when in a left hand only lane. Apparently signalling with thumb at the top of the hand rather than at the bottom appears more assertive and is therefore recommended.

-Speed. My speed was appropriate, but when slowing when I had priority over a vehicle just in case he pulled out, it is better to carry on soft pedaling otherwise some motorists might think I was stopping.

-Right turn into minor road. My instructor would have liked me to take position in the centre of the road even earlier than I did (which I felt was quite a long way in advance of the junction).

It was not possible in Southwark to replicate my dual carriageway riding but we discussed it at length at the end of the two hour lesson. Colin at least affirmed that my road positioning was appropriate and his suggestion was 1.2 metres out from the kerb. I am generally in that region (the lanes are 3 metres wide). There was some discussion about slowing and letting traffic past but I think we agreed this was not a practical solution. The advice I got was that I am attracting hostility from bad motorists, not good ones, and I was firmly encouraged to report abusive behavior to the police. I have, of course, tried that and got nowhere (I will keep you posted on the correspondence I intend to have soon with the unsuspecting Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Chief Constable of Surrey on that topic.)

Overall, a useful session with some interesting observations and some reaffirmation that the hostility I am encountering is not due to inappropriate riding on my part. I left with a piece of paper confirming that I have achieved bikeability level 3.

Etape Diary Monday 19th July

2010-07-21T22:38:00.000+01:00

A leisurely start to the day but became more stressful as the taxi to the train arrived late and took 10 minutes to get the bike boxes into the back. The 1144 train turned out however to be running late. Hardly surprisingly dozens of cyclists needed to get bike bags and boxes onboard and there was hassle fitting them all on board exacerbated by the fact that the doors to my carriage had malfunctioned. Safely aboard we travelled northwest to Bordeaux before whizzing off to Paris. The train was a little late which only increased the stress of getting across Paris on the crowded Metro. With a bit of mutual assistance Angus and I managed alright and probably much faster than any taxi. I was, though, beaten to the Eurostar check in by two guys who had travelled light and not dissembled their bikes – so they rode from Montparnasse to Garde du Nord. This struck me as a good idea which I will look into if I ever do this again. It would save the shoulder wrenching experience of the Metro. There is one thing our transport services do much better here than in Paris and that is step free access.

Etape Diary Sunday 18th June

2010-07-21T22:31:00.012+01:00

Already awake by the time of the 5 am alarm call. Breakfast at 0530, not a time at which I have much of an appetite. Then some time preparing bidons and finding room in jersey pockets for route card, food, telephone, wallet and (last but not least) some aspirin.
At 0620 I decided it was sufficiently light to venture out and I found my way to the correct start pen by about 0640. The Avenue de Pyrenees and the area surrounding Park Beaumont was packed with 10,000 cyclists. At 0700 a siren sounded and around 8 minutes later I rolled over the start. There was an immediate slightly hairy dip down to the station and a sharp left over the Gave River followed by a fairly speedy undulating ride until we hit the Parc National du Pyrenees at Escot and the start of the day’s first climb the Marie Blanque, a vertical climb of about 1,000 m over about 6 miles. The terrain was wooded providing shade from the early sun and was comfortable enough. The road did narrow though and there was congestion particularly as we picked our way past ambulances and other slow moving vehicles. Fortunately I was over the top before the congestion deteriorated to the point where people had to dismount and walk.
Over the top there was a fast descent and a flat stretch through woods with a bubbling brook on our right hand side. Then came the Soulor which took us up to about 1,500m over around 9 miles. With the heat increasing I found this harder but still manageable.
Over the summit and as I was picking up speed on the descent I heard a Frenchman yelling at a sheep. He was scaring the animal across the road into my path. I missed by a couple of feet and that was my scariest moment of this year’s etape. There was then a long long descent which took us almost to the foot of the Tourmalet. The field was a t last beginning to thin and groups were forming with gaps in between.
As we started to climb again I clocked up 100 miles in a steep sided gorge with a river to the right and cliff to the left. At this point I had been going for 6 ½ hours and I thought a silver at 8h15m could be achievable. It would require just 12 miles in an hour and three quarters.
However I had not reckoned on the energy sapping properties of the Tourmalet on a hot day. I had climbed this mountain before in the 2008 etape, though from the other side and on a positively cold and wet day. Early in the climb I was offered a coke from a Cyclefit feed station but I felt I could manage without and didn’t feel like stopping – that may have been a mistake. Before long, like most of my fellow etappers to whom I have subsequently spoken, I cracked. My feet were killing me and I was draining liquid from my bidons faster than I could get them refilled.
The locals were marvellous with their pouring of cold water over our heads. Some of the water offered was said to be ‘potable’ so I gulped it down. At the water stop at the treeline I gulped, filled bidons and sprayed my feet with water (unlike Mt Ventoux last year this water was on tap). I took a couple of precious aspirins. Thus fortified I set out for the top. This could now be seen through the clear mountain air in the far distance. I ground on slowly as the kilometre signs counted down the distance to the summit. The last 2 km are the longest I have ridden on my bike. People were asking for and getting pushes up the mountain from the many spectators who had congregated near the top. Eventually after a final switchback to the left the summit was in sight and I passed over with a time of 08h40m for a solid bronze. Details of my ride can be found on my Garmin record..

I just had to rest my feet at the top before descending to La Mongie and begged a first aider for a half bottle of water shared with a similarly dehydrated rider. Eventually with loose shoes I headed down to the finish village and had my meal before heading down the mountain to Lourdes to catch a train back to Pau. On the way this sign caught my eye (1.5m = 5 1/2 feet).

I smuggled my bike aboard the train with a young Englishman who had done a stonking time to the last climb and then, like me, had cracked and taken forever to cover the last few miles.
Once back in Pau I just made it for the planned dinner at 7.30 with Alex but, alas, he struggled on the mountain too and did not make it back. (Postscript: actually he was busy recording a video for the BBC). So after a few bananas, snacks and whatever I could lay my hands on it was to bed for a deep sleep.