# A welcome approach by WMP to cycle safety



## glasgowcyclist (9 Sep 2016)

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/junction-malfunction-and-a-new-dawn/

There is a section within the West Midlands Police that is specifically targetting cyclists' safety, and not in the usual way of lecturing riders on hats and yellow jackets or issuing tickets for riding on a pavement. No, these guys are bringing in a "New Dawn" of policing motorists who endanger the lives of cyclists.

The blog is fairly long and shows a much enlightened approach to our safety. If you've been the victim of a close pass and go to your local police with evidence of it, don't be fobbed off with anything that doesn't meet the WMP approach. It ought to be adopted nationally.

A couple of snippets:

_"A New Dawn

Cycling is a fantastic thing, it’s benefits are well documented, traffic congestion is reduced, as is pollution, health and wellbeing are boosted for the participants and not forgetting the resultant benefits of less dependence on a stressed NHS. When it comes to playing our part in supporting cycling and cyclists it’s not a case of “why should we?” it’s a case of “why wouldn’t we?” Supporting cyclists and cycling is really a case of policing for the benefit of all, a prime case of policing for the greater good of the community."_​

_"Our time and effort, we have quickly realised, is better spent enforcing the law and prosecuting, thus creating a scenario whereby should someone not give a cyclist the time and space necessary or fail to see them completely they should expect to be prosecuted. In other words the carrot goes out the window and in comes the stick. Why some might ask? Well if drivers expect to be prosecuted for committing offences they suddenly stop committing them, unsurprising correlation I know but it’s the truth. "_​
GC


----------



## Apollonius (9 Sep 2016)

This blog was clearly written by someone who knew what he/she was talking about. As such, it can only be ignored.

Seriously, this is such good stuff. Spread the word.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Sep 2016)

I'd argue against the statement ''Don't look at the eyes.'' Though I'm a long time wheel watcher because I figured out a good while ago that the front wheels of a vehicle are often the best or, indeed, the only indication of where a driver is going, the eye contact bit is still important, IMO. Making eye contact doesn't make it safe but it does make things more human and can also give clues. I'd prefer the advice ''do both.''


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2016)

(I forgot to hit "post" after drafting this on another thread. Posting it here instead, even though the post lives on the other thread)



EnPassant said:


> Was news to me, not so much the wheels which I do as well and will now do much more assiduously, but the eye contact, I've always done that and it appears I've always been wrong.


I always to full eye contact with some acknowledgement. Eg. If I am in the cycle box in front of a HGV, I will turn, look up and wave. If he waves back, then that's good. On saturday I actually said to a driver parked on the footpath beside us and indicating to move out "you've seen us, right?" If someone is coming out of a sidestreet they might take a wave or an nod as me letting them in, so I keep the body language neutral at that time. But that being said, if you are watching someone eye's, you can often see their intentions, and unless you are 3 metres from them, the whole car will be very much in your field of view, so surely you would notice the wheels moving?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (9 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> If I am in the cycle box in front of a HGV, I will turn, look up and wave. If he waves back, then that's good.


I do that too, wave or smile.
It is scary how many time I have turned, the driver is looking at something below the windscreen (mobile phone?), this both car and lorry drivers.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2016)

Excellent stuff. A shame the forum software only allows me to like it once.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2016)

Unfortunately, the final sentence is incorrect. Punishment and sentence is of little deterrent.


----------



## Lpoolck (10 Sep 2016)

West Midlands Police seem to be trying to doing something proactive about cyclist and motorists. At worst it will hopefully raise awareness on how motorists should be overtaken cyclists, as many motorists I encounter don't realise how much space you need to give to a cyclist. 

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cl...t-prosecution-not-enforcement-say-cops/020060


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (10 Sep 2016)

Nice to see that they are stating the intention of taking the issue seriously. I hope it works out in practice.


----------



## Roxy641 (10 Sep 2016)

Makes a change from "We can't do anything without filmed evidence". But good on them if they are doing something proactive. :-)


----------



## hopless500 (10 Sep 2016)

Hope they roll this out across the country.


----------



## .stu (10 Sep 2016)

I live in this force's area and suffer dozens of close passes (1-2 feet at 45-50mph) every day. They have a lot of work to do. We need a national advertising campaign backed with high profile prosecutions to change drivers' attitudes.


----------



## Roxy641 (10 Sep 2016)

I've often thought couldn't any car driver that is taking her/his test have to use a bicycle while they take the test. Or it could just be something
as simple as asking them "How much space would you give a cyclist"?

Not sure how workable it is, but in theory could it help?


----------



## stoatsngroats (10 Sep 2016)

I have just written to Sussex Police, to see if they have any plans to do similar locally. I have reently reported a close pass via our Operation Crackdown website, and note that an advisory letter has been sent to the registered owner, so this might indicate some support.


----------



## benborp (10 Sep 2016)

Eye contact is a complicated thing. For various reasons it quite often helps as a cyclist to momentarily establish eye contact and then deliberately break it.

Take when motorists are waiting in a minor road at a junction as an example. In some cases it is used by drivers as a means of establishing a contract over priority - some will mistakenly perceive maintained eye contact as an approaching cyclist conceding that priority. Others use eye contact as an attempt to exert dominance. In both cases it pays to break eye contact before that driver gets the cue from the transaction that they should drive forward. Eye contact, shoulder check, wheels is a good routine. It's a bad sign if when checking for movement from the wheels you are not aware of the driver still looking at you in an attempt to re-establish eye contact.
If this all sounds a bit too psychologically involved remember there are people that expend energy complicating the simple dynamic of passing in a corridor in order to prove something.


----------



## benborp (10 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> ...the whole car will be very much in your field of view, so surely you would notice the wheels moving?


The issue is that your eyes will be tracking any object that they are focused on and pretty much everything else in your field of view will be moving, whether it's passing by or even growing in perceived size as you approach. Peripheral vision is very good at perceiving small movements but that advantage of peripheral vision is lost if the whole scene is in motion rather than one small element of it. In such circumstances it's necessary to use the eye's central area with stronger acuity to pick out specific movement. The other advantage to using a vehicle's wheel to discern movement is that the wheel's movement is rotational and therefore different from and more easily perceived than all the other relative motion in your field of view, although again, in most circumstances you will need to use the eye's central vision to identify this rotation quickly.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Sep 2016)

Are we still talking about cycling? http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html
_"This is very good news for anyone wishing to initiate a flirtation with an attractive stranger. Even from across a crowded room at a party, you can signal your interest in someone merely by making eye contact and attempting to hold your target's gaze for more than one second (not too much more, though, or you will seem threatening). If your target maintains eye contact with you for more than one second, the chances are that he/she might return your interest. If after this initial contact, your target looks away briefly and then looks back to meet your gaze a second time, you can safely assume that he/she is interested. If these eye contacts trigger a smile, you can approach your target with some confidence."

_


----------



## hatless (10 Sep 2016)

The biggest problem I have with making eye contact is that usually all I can see in a car windscreen is a reflection of the clouds. Not always, obviously, it depends on lighting, angle, etc. but it is often very hard to see into a car from any distance, and your chance of seeing where the driver is looking is slim.


----------



## EnPassant (10 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Are we still talking about cycling? http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html
> _"This is very good news for anyone wishing to initiate a flirtation with an attractive stranger. Even from across a crowded room at a party, you can signal your interest in someone merely by making eye contact and attempting to hold your target's gaze for more than one second (not too much more, though, or you will seem threatening). If your target maintains eye contact with you for more than one second, the chances are that he/she might return your interest. If after this initial contact, your target looks away briefly and then looks back to meet your gaze a second time, you can safely assume that he/she is interested. If these eye contacts trigger a smile, you can approach your target with some confidence."
> 
> _


Haha, I only want to know they're not going to run into me, not....actually I'll stop there I think.


----------



## palinurus (10 Sep 2016)

"Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems"


----------



## palinurus (10 Sep 2016)

"Bad cycling is an “irritant” to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alieve (alleviate?) many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an “irritant""


----------



## User16625 (10 Sep 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> *I've often thought couldn't any car driver that is taking her/his test have to use a bicycle while they take the test. * Or it could just be something
> as simple as asking them "How much space would you give a cyclist"?
> 
> Not sure how workable it is, but in theory could it help?



LMAO! Riding a pushbike to get a driving license. 

I do believe some drivers bought their licenses off Ebay judging by the standard of their driving. Or their examiner was stoned.


----------



## Roxy641 (10 Sep 2016)

Well, if they HAD to do that, surely they would at least learn how dangerous it is to pass a cyclist (especially at great speed).

I haven't driven since the late 1980's and I do remember not seeing a cyclist until they were right up against the left hand side of the
car. Having been both a car driver and a cyclist does help you understand the other transport users.

Yes, I do wonder that myself. If ALL car/lorry drivers retook their driving tests, wonder how many would fail? Most are good drivers,
but it's the bad drivers that we encounter that we are more likely to remember. That can't be good for the reputation of other car
drivers to have others represent you badly.



RideLikeTheStig said:


> LMAO! Riding a pushbike to get a driving license.
> 
> I do believe some drivers bought their licenses off Ebay judging by the standard of their driving. Or their examiner was stoned.


----------



## wheresthetorch (10 Sep 2016)

stoatsngroats said:


> I have just written to Sussex Police, to see if they have any plans to do similar locally. I have reently reported a close pass via our Operation Crackdown website, and note that an advisory letter has been sent to the registered owner, so this might indicate some support.



Operation Crackdown pretty much always only send a letter - I've made dozens of reports, and that's what seems to happen.

However, I was recently incensed when a 4x4 driver tried to intimidate me and my 13 year old son when he was out on his Boardman for the second time, getting used to it. I put a really firm report in, saying how far below driving standards it fell, putting child's life at risk, etc, and the report follow up says it's been referred to the Neighbourhood Policing Team, so it looks like they're actually going to visit the driver.


----------



## .stu (10 Sep 2016)

I always try to make eye contact before passing in front of car waiting at a side junction. 

I also find that if I look over my shoulder at cars before they overtake me they tend to do more safely and give me more space. 

I have also noticed that I get more space when I am on my road bike and thus going faster.


----------



## Simontm (10 Sep 2016)

benborp said:


> Eye contact is a complicated thing. For various reasons it quite often helps as a cyclist to momentarily establish eye contact and then deliberately break it.
> 
> Take when motorists are waiting in a minor road at a junction as an example. In some cases it is used by drivers as a means of establishing a contract over priority - some will mistakenly perceive maintained eye contact as an approaching cyclist conceding that priority. Others use eye contact as an attempt to exert dominance. In both cases it pays to break eye contact before that driver gets the cue from the transaction that they should drive forward. Eye contact, shoulder check, wheels is a good routine. It's a bad sign if when checking for movement from the wheels you are not aware of the driver still looking at you in an attempt to re-establish eye contact.
> If this all sounds a bit too psychologically involved remember there are people that expend energy complicating the simple dynamic of passing in a corridor in order to prove something.


Really interesting. On my part I find just shaking my head works but that may just be down to sheer volumes here in London and SE


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (11 Sep 2016)

The point about eye contact has educated me. I've realised that a driver will look then decide if you warrant any consideration in their grand plan. Approaching parked cars on your right is the best example.
You make eye contact and the driver on the other side looks at you as he pulls straight out head on to you expecting you to levitate out of the way.

The blog is right to say that looking to the driver for intent means nothing. Preparing for the stupidity and looking for the first sign of movement is a better use of time.

Or as an advanced and blue light driver of my acquaintance put it - expect everyone to be about to do something stupid.


----------



## mjr (12 Sep 2016)

.stu said:


> I also find that if I look over my shoulder at cars before they overtake me they tend to do more safely and give me more space.


I find that, too. I've suggested it's because they briefly see a face and that humanises me subconsciously to them. Others have suggested it's because motorists think I'm shoulder-checking before moving/turning right. I'm not sure I mind which it is.



.stu said:


> I have also noticed that I get more space when I am on my road bike and thus going faster.


I've noticed the opposite - I look considerably smaller on my road bike, plus there's more scope for them to underestimate my speed and pull back in too soon.



Nigel-YZ1 said:


> You make eye contact and the driver on the other side looks at you as he pulls straight out head on to you expecting you to levitate out of the way.


Yep, that's happened more than once, including White Van Man looking straight at me as he pulled out onto a roundabout and I, uh, tenderly stroked the side of his van. Some motorists look, but fail to see anything except stuff that can kill them (other motorists in vehicles).


----------



## Origamist (12 Jul 2017)

More good work by WMP:

*Lorry driver fined for passing too close to cyclist*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40571699


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2017)

Operation Close Pass launched this week in Norfolk http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/t...wn-which-also-results-in-one-arrest-1-5220247  and Suffolk http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/police-o...sts-driving-too-closely-to-cyclists-1-5219277  but rejected by Cambridgeshire Constabulary because it "would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake"


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> Operation Close Pass launched this week in Norfolk http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/t...wn-which-also-results-in-one-arrest-1-5220247  and Suffolk http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/police-o...sts-driving-too-closely-to-cyclists-1-5219277  but rejected by Cambridgeshire Constabulary because it "would be potentially forcing motorists to drive at the speed of cyclists when there isn’t the recommended space to overtake"



When I read your post I thought you must be over-egging it. Then I clicked the link and read The Police Officers statement Which basically reads as ‘get cyclist’s off the road because they slow motorists down in heavily congested areas’. The farkwittery of people in public office is astounding.


----------



## slowfen (23 Oct 2017)

Somewhere else taking a more enlightened attitude (Not Cambridgeshire)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...e-catch-drivers-passing-too-close-to-cyclists


----------



## mjr (22 Feb 2018)

Cambridgeshire reconsiders and launches "Operation Velo" which seems to be basically Operation Close Pass! Sounds like it will also mean Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire see it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43146515


----------



## toffee (22 Feb 2018)

Seems a big about turn on their part.


----------



## mjr (29 Mar 2018)

From "your commute today"...


Randombiker9 said:


> https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/general/cycle-safety-scheme-returns-spring-oxford/
> Also what do you think about this?


Seems like Oxford's Thames Valley are using operation close pass as a Trojan Horse in order to bother cyclists about yellow star jackets. 402 cyclists stopped but no number given for motorists


----------



## Randombiker9 (30 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> From "your commute today"...
> 
> oSeems like Oxford's Thames Valley are using operation close pass as a Trojan Horse in order to bother cyclists about yellow star jackets. 402 cyclists stopped but no number given for motorists


What are yellow star jackets? Also i have not seen any police cars recently in my area of the Thames Valley. All i've seen police related are the cycling PCSO's telling cyclists off for using the pavement. 
Was in town today and there was a police car in the middle of a road that's closed (probs stopping cyclists from going down there. But i've not seen any close passes and police doing anything recently.


----------



## dave r (30 Mar 2018)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> LMAO! Riding a pushbike to get a driving license.
> 
> I do believe some drivers bought their licenses off Ebay judging by the standard of their driving. Or their examiner was stoned.



I remember several people being prosecuted a few years ago for taking the test for someone else


----------



## mjr (30 Mar 2018)

Randombiker9 said:


> What are yellow star jackets?


A derogatory name for hi viz cycling wear. There's pretty much no sound evidence it helps improve safety significantly (research suggests it's contrast that matters, so yellow would be a very silly choice out here among daffodils, tulips, rapeseed, sunflowers, corn and wheat) but it means cyclists can be identified easily even after parking up. Making outgroups wear specific markers is a key part of "othering" or making them a clear subculture that it's OK to criticise. It seems very dodgy to me, sociologically, and because there's no safety benefit, it has no place in evidence-led policing like operation close pass is meant to be.


----------



## jefmcg (30 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> yellow star jackets


Is that a holocaust reference? If so, it's in the most appalling taste.

Edit: I obviously hadn't refreshed the page, so missed this


mjr said:


> Making outgroups wear specific markers is a key part of "othering"



It is a holocaust reference. 

I cannot find words (that won't get me banned from this site) to express my reaction to this.


----------



## Jenkins (30 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> From "your commute today"...
> 
> Seems like Oxford's Thames Valley are using operation close pass as a Trojan Horse in order to bother cyclists about yellow star jackets. 402 cyclists stopped but no number given for motorists


I don't see anything in that article about hi-viz cycling wear - only the legally required lights. And in answer to your later post - I will agree about contrast being important making darker clothing on bright days a better choice.


----------



## winjim (30 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> A derogatory name for hi viz cycling wear. There's pretty much no sound evidence it helps improve safety significantly (research suggests it's contrast that matters, so yellow would be a very silly choice out here among daffodils, tulips, rapeseed, sunflowers, corn and wheat) but it means cyclists can be identified easily even after parking up. Making outgroups wear specific markers is a key part of "othering" or making them a clear subculture that it's OK to criticise. It seems very dodgy to me, sociologically, and because there's no safety benefit, it has no place in evidence-led policing like operation close pass is meant to be.


I would be very _very_ wary of using a term like that. There is no equivalence.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (30 Mar 2018)

*Mod note:*

@mjr; it seems fairly clear that you do mean the term in the way that @jefmcg suggests. This is in very poor taste and goes against the spirit of the forum rules and guidelines 

A search shows me that you are the only person who has used this term on the site. Please do not use it again.


----------



## Randombiker9 (30 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> A derogatory name for hi viz cycling wear. There's pretty much no sound evidence it helps improve safety significantly (research suggests it's contrast that matters, so yellow would be a very silly choice out here among daffodils, tulips, rapeseed, sunflowers, corn and wheat) but it means cyclists can be identified easily even after parking up. Making outgroups wear specific markers is a key part of "othering" or making them a clear subculture that it's OK to criticise. It seems very dodgy to me, sociologically, and because there's no safety benefit, it has no place in evidence-led policing like operation close pass is meant to be.


Ok. . I always have a hi viz/relfective gloves and helmet cover on but i only wear my hi-viz/reflective vest if it's dawn dusk or dark. But lights are personally more important i think.


----------



## jefmcg (30 Mar 2018)

Randombiker9 said:


> Ok. Yeah exactly. I always have a hi viz/relfective gloves and helmet cover on but i only wear my hi-viz/reflective vest if it's dawn dusk or dark. But lights are personally more important i think.


No. Not "exactly". MJR is saying that cops suggesting Hi-viz is the same as Nazis/Occupying forces making Jews wear the star of david. Do not agree with him, unless you think that is true - unless you believe being carted off to a death camp is in your immediate future.

Also Godwin's Law.


----------



## Randombiker9 (30 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> No. Not "exactly". MJR is saying that cops suggesting Hi-viz is the same as Nazis/Occupying forces making Jews wear the star of david. Do not agree with him, unless you think that is true - unless you believe being carted off to a death camp is in your immediate future.
> 
> Also Godwin's Law.


I wasn't agreeing or dissagreeing.


----------



## mjr (30 Mar 2018)

Jenkins said:


> I don't see anything in that article about hi-viz cycling wear - only the legally required lights.


I think it's what "remind cyclists to be more visible" in that article meant.


----------



## mjr (30 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> No. Not "exactly". MJR is saying that cops suggesting Hi-viz is the same as Nazis/Occupying forces making Jews wear the star of david.


Similar, not the same. It's part of othering. I'm not saying we're in imminent danger of being carted off to death, but if we tolerate being dressed up ugly, then after a bit more cyclist blaming and motorist excusing, we may well get banned from the roads because we simply can't be trusted not to suck motor vehicles into us or something.

But I'll try to remember not to use the term again here, although I didn't think it up - it's in common usage elsewhere. Spirit of the rules


----------



## classic33 (31 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> I think it's what "remind cyclists to be more visible" in that article meant.


Except they say at the bottom of the piece. My bold.
_"Many cyclists will still choose to commute to and from work; from a safety perspective motorists need to take added care to look out for cyclists. *Equally cyclists need lights on their bikes not only to avoid prosecution but to keep them safer and visible when riding after sunset."
*_
And a piece from the Highway Code was the reference
_"The campaign targeted both drivers who fail to follow the *Highway Code rules* on safe passing distances when overtaking cyclists, but also served to remind cyclists to be more visible and ensure they have lights on and lit after sunset with a Be Bright Be Seen awareness message."_


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (31 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Similar, not the same. It's part of othering. I'm not saying we're in imminent danger of being carted off to death, but if we tolerate being dressed up ugly, then after a bit more cyclist blaming and motorist excusing, we may well get banned from the roads because we simply can't be trusted not to suck motor vehicles into us or something.
> 
> But I'll try to remember not to use the term again here, although I didn't think it up - it's in common usage elsewhere. Spirit of the rules


I get what you are saying but the attempt to justify yourself is not doing you any favours. I'll be more clear:

1) Comparing wearing high viz on a bike to the persecution of the Jewish people under the Nazis is insulting and highly inappropriate.

2) Your analogy is faulty. I commonly see horse riders, dog walkers, motorcyclists, delivery drivers, maintenance workers, bin men. school groups and the police wearing yellow high vis. It does not single one out as a cyclist.

If I see the phrase "yellow star jacket" again it will be removed and further action may be taken as you are now aware that it is not considered acceptable.


----------



## Randombiker9 (31 Mar 2018)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> I get what you are saying but the attempt to justify yourself is not doing you any favours. I'll be more clear:
> 
> 1) Comparing wearing high viz on a bike to the persecution of the Jewish people under the Nazis is insulting and highly inappropriate.
> 
> ...



yeah i agree and 1st one could be racist. Also Security guards wear hi-viz. Also animals wear hi-viz sometimes like dog coats and horses have hi-viz on them etc... Runners also wear hi-viz etc... the list is endless.


----------



## jarlrmai (31 Mar 2018)

They don't just wear them because they think its looks nice they wear them out of some sort of feeling that it makes them safer even though it doesn't really. They all share a commonality with cyclists, their main source of injury when out in public to is motor vehicles.


----------



## boydj (31 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> They don't just wear them because they think its looks nice they wear them out of some sort of feeling that it makes them safer even though it doesn't really. They all share a commonality with cyclists, their main source of injury when out in public to is motor vehicles.



And lots of people wear them as part of a health & safety requirement from their employer or elsewhere - whether they are actually required or not.

I once had to walk out of a train the trainer course when required to wear hi-viz and a helmet while doing low speed manoeuvres on grass. Health & safety gone mad.


----------



## mjr (31 Mar 2018)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> I'll be more clear:
> 
> 1) Comparing wearing high viz on a bike to the persecution of the Jewish people under the Nazis is insulting and highly inappropriate.


It was only comparing it to the labelling, not all the persecution. It's easy to make it worse by exaggerating the comparison into something else. I thank @jarlrmai for addressing mistaken point 2 as I'm uncomfortable correcting a mod issuing public warnings based on such interpretations.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> It was only comparing it to the labelling, not all the persecution. It's easy to make it worse by exaggerating the comparison into something else. I thank @jarlrmai for addressing mistaken point 2 as I'm uncomfortable correcting a mod issuing public warnings based on such interpretations.


The comparison is rubbish. Jews were required to wear the star every time they left the house, so everyone would know they were Jewish. Cyclists are only "required" (not really) to wear Hi-viz if they are on the bike. And - this may not be obvious to everyone - there is another clue to telling if someone is a cyclist when they are riding a bike: the bicycle under their arse. 

When cyclists are forced to wear hi-viz, even after they have locked their bikes, for 24 hours a day, then you can compare it to the Star of David.

I am rapidly losing the respect I had for you.


----------



## jarlrmai (1 Apr 2018)

Nazi comparisons is an internet trope so common it has its own 'law,' I too find it distasteful. Such rank hyperbole from usually respectful people though speaks of a deep frustration.

High vid recomendations just feel like another cop-out from a society that can't or doesn't want to deal with the motoring death/injury epidemic, like a talisman against evil spirits, except the spirits are just people in big metal boxes. I see kids walking to school wearing them so that the parents of other children won't run them over in a rush to park as close to the school entrance as possible and it makes me sad.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Apr 2018)

*Mod note:
*
Back on topic please. Any further tangential discussions will force the closure of the thread.


----------



## classic33 (3 Apr 2018)

mjr said:


> I think it's what "remind cyclists to be more visible" in that article meant.


----------



## Randombiker9 (4 Apr 2018)

classic33 said:


> View attachment 402902


But they also need to do it themsevles. 
because i was cycling and a police van overtook closely just before a roundabout. i didn't say anything best not to argue with police authorities. You would think out of traffic. Police veichles are the least likely to do stupid things because they are in charge of the law. 
(Especially after the scheme as well)


----------



## classic33 (4 Apr 2018)

Randombiker9 said:


> But they also need to do it themsevles.
> because i was cycling and a police van overtook closely just before a roundabout. i didn't say anything best not to argue with police authorities. You would think out of traffic. Police veichles are the least likely to do stupid things because they are in charge of the law.
> (Especially after the scheme as well)


You feel it was close, report it to them.


----------



## Randombiker9 (4 Apr 2018)

classic33 said:


> You feel it was close, report it to them.


Whats the point as theres no evidence?


----------



## Randombiker9 (4 Apr 2018)

User13710 said:


> Police vehicles have cameras in them.


yeah but still i didn't catch there liscence plate so how can they do anything without tracking the police officers on duty today because otherwise how they going to find out the officers that were working that day in my area


----------

