# GMP think filtering is illegal and threats of violence are ignored.



## roadrash (21 Jun 2019)

I would love to know what greater Manchester police were thinking when they told this cyclist to cease filtering or they will consider criminal offences, what makes it worse is this video was sent to them in order to report a threat from a motorist to knock the cyclist off his bike, unbelieveable..

link to the article
..https://road.cc/content/news/262618-filtering-cyclist-who-was-threatened-driver-blamed-police


----------



## tom73 (21 Jun 2019)

I did think the same when I read it earlier. Can’t see an issue going on the footage given.


----------



## NorthernDave (21 Jun 2019)

I wonder what Chris Boardman makes of this - he is still Manchester's cycling tsar isn't he?


----------



## Slick (21 Jun 2019)

It really is beyond belief. If the cops don't know we can filter in traffic what chance for the rest?


----------



## fossyant (21 Jun 2019)

GMP have been anti cyclist for years. They are trying to change (nearly ended up in an argument with an ex. School friend and cyclist as they work for GMP, but I know enough cyclists, including myself, that GMP were not interested. Drivers got away with it.

I won't bother calling them next time, and may dish out my own 'recompense'


----------



## flake99please (22 Jun 2019)

So the footage showing the cyclist riding the wrong way up the other carriageway is acceptable?


----------



## IanSmithCSE (22 Jun 2019)

Good morning,

I didn't read the article that way, 

_This video clip shows you squeezing between vehicles and the lights changing then you being alongside entering into an argument with the driver of a moving vehicle._

_To be clear your behaviour in this regard is to cease._

I read it as the arguing was the issue not the filtering.

I looked at the video a few times and noted flake99please's point that the rider was riding against the direction of the traffic for the lane he was in once the argument started.

Bye

Ian


----------



## alicat (22 Jun 2019)

IanSmithCSE said:


> I read it as the arguing was the issue not the filtering.



I probably wouldn't have sent that video to the police. The cyclist is arguing with a driver in a moving vehicle then passing an advance stop line on the right. The arguing might not be an offence but it doesn't show common sense or regard for safety.

The police have taken the stance they have done because they don't like being told how to do their job.


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

That's the problem with videos and situations like this, it will always divide opinion.

The truth is the cyclist did nothing wrong, he was filtering safely when the driver took the nip at being passed by a cyclist whilst she had to sit there and she took her opportunity to refuse to let him back in to his own lane, then she threatened to strike him with the car or certainly knock him off next time. At that particular time, the opposite carriageway was the safest place for that guy to be. Also, he wasn't telling the cops how to do their job, just reporting another person who thinks it's okay to knock a cyclist off their bike if they dare to overtake them.


----------



## alicat (22 Jun 2019)

^^^ and is there anything wrong with putting another point of view to the OP? Do we all have to fall in and repeat ad nauseam 'It's not fair, the whole world is against us'?


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

alicat said:


> ^^^ and is there anything wrong with putting another point of view to the OP? Do we all have to fall in and repeat ad nauseam 'It's not fair, the whole world is against us'?


Obviously there is nothing wrong with differing opinions as that's why most of us are here. My post was my attempt at putting forward mine which was more designed as an opposing view the the last few posts that seem to suggest the drivers behaviour was acceptable, or at least more acceptable than the cyclist.


----------



## Zanelad (22 Jun 2019)

I think the cyclist is a bit of a bell end. Filter by all means but he seems to expect to force his way into a line of moving traffic just because he wants too. I'd have told him to fark off too.


----------



## winjim (22 Jun 2019)

Personally I would have slotted in behind her car at the lights, when I saw them change but before the traffic started to move off. A quick glance at the driver behind, eye contact and a smile and all's good. Get into the flow of traffic and _into primary position before you get to the junction_. You can't expect people to move over while navigating a junction just because you got yourself into a silly position. She's not yielding but she doesn't have to, just drop back until you find somebody who will. And don't start arguments you can't win.


----------



## DaveReading (22 Jun 2019)

flake99please said:


> So the footage showing the cyclist riding the wrong way up the other carriageway is acceptable?



You could argue that, since the motorist was intentionally blocking him from integrating into the traffic flow, his only choices were to stop or to overtake her.

In the absence of a solid white centreline, crossing it to overtake, with no oncoming traffic, was perfectly safe and legal.


----------



## winjim (22 Jun 2019)

It looked to me like he was overtaking at a junction and therefore having to go straight on from a 'turn right' lane. And I'm not convinced she was 'intentionally blocking' him. She just carried on across the junction as normal, which should have been perfectly predictable.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jun 2019)

He comes across to me as an entitled cyclist, okay the driver made the situation worse by blocking him either deliberately or unintentionally, but he put himself in the wrong place to start off with. He then carries on riding in the wrong lane, sorry no sympathy if you go out looking for trouble you'll find it.


----------



## lazybloke (22 Jun 2019)

flake99please said:


> So the footage showing the cyclist riding the wrong way up the other carriageway is acceptable?


You mean the other lane, not the other carriageway. The difference is important.


----------



## alicat (22 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> You mean the other lane, not the other carriageway. The difference is important.



I see the cyclist overtaking by riding in the opposite carriageway and not having a clear space to slot back into.


----------



## midlife (22 Jun 2019)

Had to Google what a carriageway actually was..... Interesting, every day is a school day as they say


----------



## fossyant (22 Jun 2019)

Both plonkers tbh. Not a great place to ride on the wrong side of the road for a starters. Plenty of other routes to use that are better than this too.


----------



## lazybloke (22 Jun 2019)

alicat said:


> I see the cyclist overtaking by riding in the opposite carriageway and not having a clear space to slot back into.


I tried. @midlife got it


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> You mean the other lane, not the other carriageway. The difference is important.





lazybloke said:


> I tried. @midlife got it


Sorry I'm not sure I agree, a carriageway does not have to have a separation as I believe you are alluding to. If you believe somebody is incorrect in their description of carriageway/lane how about advising so & not trying to be cryptic.


----------



## snorri (22 Jun 2019)

roadrash said:


> I would love to know what greater Manchester police were thinking when they told this cyclist to cease filtering or they will consider criminal offences,


It does make sense if you read the quote in full.........................., " then you being alongside entering into an argument with the driver of a moving vehicle."


----------



## lazybloke (22 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry I'm not sure I agree, a carriageway does not have to have a separation as I believe you are alluding to. If you believe somebody is incorrect in their description of carriageway/lane how about advising so & not trying to be cryptic cryptic.



To avoid any doubt: If there's no physical separation between lanes, I'd say there were all part of the same carriageway.
The usual example is a dual carriageway - it requires a wall, fence, or even just a strip of grass between the opposing traffic flows. The number of lanes in any particular direction is completely irrelevant.

Having made this assertion, I'm now going to check the Highway code.

Edited to add: https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/what-makes-dual-carriageway


----------



## alicat (22 Jun 2019)

^^^ You've lost me @lazybloke. Why does that matter in this instance, other than proving that flake99please and I used the wrong word?


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jun 2019)

alicat said:


> ^^^ You've lost me @lazybloke. Why does that matter in this instance, other than proving that flake99please and I used the wrong word?


No you've got it, that's all it proves, technically all the lanes no matter in which direction they are going are still on the same carriageway, therefore the cyclist could not have gone into the wrong carriageway, he could have only done that if he crossed the central reservation of a dual carriageway.


----------



## ozboz (22 Jun 2019)

I think I’d of given her the ‘up yours’ and carried on , but as she threatened to knock him off and it’s captured on video , that I think is an offence


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2019)

IanSmithCSE said:


> Good morning,
> 
> I didn't read the article that way,
> 
> ...



that was my reading of it too.

Also:

The cyclist was overtaking moving traffic at the junction, better practice would have been to hold back and slot in as soon as the lights started to change.

Highway code guidance is relevant:-


*Rule 167*
*DO NOT* overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example


approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
at a level crossing
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic.


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

ozboz said:


> I think I’d of given her the ‘up yours’ and carried on , but as she threatened to knock him off and it’s captured on video , that I think is an offence


I think your right.


----------



## winjim (22 Jun 2019)

How is 'threat' defined? Does it have to be plausible, or do you need to have genuine fear that it may be carried out, or is just saying the words enough? Because I don't for one second believe that that driver would actually deliberately knock someone off their bike.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2019)

It could all have been avoided if he'd moved left a bit and sat between the white and the black cars. The threatening driver wouldn't have had her chance to have a go at him.


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

ABikeCam said:


> It could all have been avoided if he'd moved left a bit and sat between the white and the black cars. The threatening driver wouldn't have had her chance to have a go at him.


Exactly what I think I would have done. I felt that was his only mistake, but hardly worth threatening to knock him off next time though.


----------



## winjim (22 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> Exactly what I think I would have done. I felt that was his only mistake, but hardly worth threatening to knock him off next time though.


What she said was uncalled for but it looks like it was him that instigated the confrontation, after putting himself in a daft position. I think had I been the driver I wouldn't have said that, but I might have used somewhat forceful language to express my opinion of his riding and his attitude.

Which would also be wrong of me, of course...


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> What she said was uncalled for but it looks like it was him that instigated the confrontation, after putting himself in a daft position. I think had I been the driver I wouldn't have said that, but I might have used somewhat forceful language to express my opinion of his riding and his attitude.
> 
> Which would also be wrong of me, of course...


Of course.

I still don't think a minor error in timing warrants her actions in refusing to let him in or the threats. Also, I think the point of the OP was that he was threatened with legal action, and we've still to figure out exactly what the charges would be?


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

Looks to like she instigated the confrontation and he ended it by leaving her sitting in traffic, she must have been raging.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> Of course.
> 
> I still don't think a minor error in timing warrants her actions in refusing to let him in or the threats. Also, I think the point of the OP was that he was threatened with legal action, and we've still to figure out exactly what the charges would be?



Careless/dangerous cycling - he was riding into oncoming traffic in an opposing lane while clearly distracted by arguing with a driver in his own lane.

I think that falls below the definition of a careful and competent cyclist.


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> Careless/dangerous cycling - he was riding into oncoming traffic in an opposing lane while clearly distracted by arguing with a driver in his own lane.
> 
> I think that falls below the definition of a careful and competent cyclist.


There was no oncoming traffic though.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> There was no oncoming traffic though.



You could argue that in front of the magistrates, but I doubt they would buy it given this took place in a busy city centre.

The overall conduct of the cyclist is careless.

It would be better if there was two lanes in his direction, she in lane one, him in lane two.

But it would still be hard to argue the cyclist was paying proper attention to his cycling given that he was clearly distracted by the argument.


----------



## Slick (22 Jun 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> You could argue that in front of the magistrates, but I doubt they would buy it given this took place in a busy city centre.
> 
> The overall conduct of the cyclist is careless.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to be pedantic but it's not really up to the magistrate to buy it, as it's simply a fact , there is no oncoming traffic so there is no danger and he cut her stupid venting as soon as he could.


----------



## ozboz (22 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> How is 'threat' defined? Does it have to be plausible, or do you need to have genuine fear that it may be carried out, or is just saying the words enough? Because I don't for one second believe that that driver would actually deliberately knock someone off their bike.



To my knowledge threatening to act in a way that could cause bodily harm is classed as an offence ,public order stuff , I’m sure there will be something in the legal books about it , but I’m not about to trawl the web to find out


----------



## boydj (22 Jun 2019)

Regardless of the cyclist's positioning, the driver made threats which is an offence.

As regards the filtering, I've been through that situation many, many times and generally I've been allowed to slot in again once the traffic was moving freely, usually to get back to the inside of the lane, and always after eye-contact and a signal. Most drivers recognise that a single cyclist filtering is not going to delay their journey in any meaningful way. The rare driver would play funny buggers and I'd have to stay out there, but I can't remember any arguments about it. When filtering, you go inside or outside, depending on car positions and where the room is available. It usually takes only a couple of sets of lights to lose any drivers who show signs of being unhappy.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> I'm not trying to be pedantic but it's not really up to the magistrate to buy it, as it's simply a fact , there is no oncoming traffic so there is no danger and he cut her stupid venting as soon as he could.



It's not an absolute offence, so it is entirely up to a magistrate to buy it not.

There's no discretion in, for example, drink driving - blow over 35 and you are guilty.

Whether cycling is careless is subjective.

Put another way, if you tried the same case in front of several different panels of magistrates, you might get a mixture of results.

As regards the driver committing an offence, for making a threat to be an offence, the threat would need to be real and imminent, such that the victim fears for his personal safety.

Making the remark she did is open to interpretation.
https://www.cyclechat.net/forums/commuting.6/
I wouldn't make it, but I think it's far from nailed on she would be convicted for saying what she did.


----------



## Hicky (23 Jun 2019)

The driver was being an arse it would have made no impact on her journey by letting the cyclist in however knowing that road area very very well the junction suffers with heavy traffic and blocking the junction which happens often causing huge amounts of frustration.
The cyclist could of used the large amounts of room to the left of the traffic as further down the rd it becomes narrow and dangerous. The comment of leave x amount of meters immediately made my spidey sense tingle(dickhead). He could of handled it much differently. I ride that area most days and the best practice is ride as though everyone’s out to get you. His riding didn’t display that and is an accident waiting to happen.
All gmp’s road officers I’ve met(I ride motorcycles too) have no issue with filtering. As long as it’s no more than 20mph quicker that other traffic and up to 40mph max, that’s straight out of two bike cops mouths.


----------



## Racing roadkill (23 Jun 2019)

It says it all about the police really. Woman on her phone, whilst driving, threatens cyclist with violence, cyclist sends footage to police, police have a pop at the cyclist, for arguing with the ( far more severely law breaking) woman. Utter tossers, it’s no wonder they aren’t respected.


----------



## I like Skol (24 Jun 2019)

I was holding back from commenting on this one as it is a bit too close to home for impartiality and I have previous issues with GMP.

I was doubtful of the claims she was using a phone but in reality it can be clearly seen in the video when paused at the right moment so GMP should have no problem at the very least referring the offender for a driver awareness course, if they were even remotely bothered!






Stupid riding from the cyclist IMO. Nothing wrong with filtering but he is to blame for the incident because he failed to move into the correct lane when the time was right and continued to travel in the right-turn lane even when he was going straight across the junction. If you are going to filter that aggressively then you have to take charge, be confident, and be prepared to accept when you have got it wrong and take appropriate mitigation actions. Arguing with other road users when you are clearly in the wrong is not a good look....

On the other hand, the driver made a hash of dealing with the situation. She should be prosecuted or penalised for the phone use. I suspect the threat to 'knock him off' was intended differently but just came out wrong due to the pressure of the situation. Probably was meant more as a 'you will get run over if you keep riding like that' type comment?

Anyway, both deserve to have their heads banged together, might knock some sense into them? This kind of thing is entirely predictable considering the extreme congestion we experience on out inner city streets. The driver should certainly put the phone away and concentrate on what she is doing before she seriously hurts somebody. The cyclist needs to re-assess his need to urgently complete his journey as quickly as possible. It is no use being fast and dead!


----------



## roadrash (24 Jun 2019)

oooh @I like Skol sounds just like my dad used to, i'll bang your bloody heads together....and often did , actually that kind of explains some things.....


----------



## Slick (24 Jun 2019)

I like Skol said:


> I was holding back from commenting on this one as it is a bit too close to home for impartiality and I have previous issues with GMP.
> 
> I was doubtful of the claims she was using a phone but in reality it can be clearly seen in the video when paused at the right moment so GMP should have no problem at the very least referring the offender for a driver awareness course, if they were even remotely bothered!
> View attachment 472373
> ...



I did agree with most of that but also reckon it's a big assumption to what she actually meant when she threatened to knock him off next time. He definitely should have moved back into his own lane in front of her but as I said earlier, a bit strong to be threatened with legal action for mistiming your run.


----------



## roadrash (26 Jun 2019)

GMP have responded to being asked what the charges could be ..
..
View: https://twitter.com/roadcc/status/1143922090153840646


----------



## Slick (26 Jun 2019)

roadrash said:


> GMP have responded to being asked what the charges could be ..
> ..
> View: https://twitter.com/roadcc/status/1143922090153840646



First 3 replies cover it for me. An extremely weak response and someone should tell them to stop digging.


----------



## alicat (26 Jun 2019)

I can't see what the police said - could someone who uses Twitter please explain?


----------



## Slick (26 Jun 2019)

alicat said:


> I can't see what the police said - could someone who uses Twitter please explain?


https://road.cc/content/news/262879...aviour-after-he?amp&__twitter_impression=true


----------



## alicat (26 Jun 2019)

Thank you, @Slick. Much appreciated.


----------



## confusedcyclist (13 Jan 2021)

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realise how old this was before I responded!

Filtering is tricky, but only because some motorist are impatient and/or totally ignorant of their surroundings. In an ideal world, everyone would be aware of the highway code and permit vulnerable road users to merge back in to flowing traffic. In reality, great care needs to be taken, especially if you are approaching red lights, as you approach motorists are liable to close any gaps at a moments notice, some will not be aware of your approach and close the gap as they anticipate the lights ahead will change, most people are not using their mirrors and will be oblivious to your approach, others may have noticed you closing in and close the gap out of spite. So long as I can get back into primary position in an assertive manner and without too much conflict (subject to road layout) I will filter. It takes experience getting this right, and sometimes unexpected circumstances on the road can mean you're riding between lanes of motorists when you really don't want to be, so you really need to have your wits about you.

With regard to the video, he was cutting it close with that light change, but still IMO it was perfectly acceptable filtering as there was no risk of collision. The motorist clearly didn't appreciate a cyclist, in her mind, 'queue jumping' and potentially slowing her down as she moved off at the lights. Notice the length of time the cyclist is stationary as the white car pulls off. No self respecting careful motorist could claim they hadn't seen the cyclist. Her response is a clear indication of her sense of entitlement to do as she pleased, since he was [_sic_] in the wrong not riding on the left.

Plenty of times I've had similar experiences with entitled drivers who have honked horns and shouted abuse at me for legitimate filtering. In their warped perspective I am doing them wrong if I prevent them from any rapid acceleration from green lights, these tend to be the drivers that hold the MGIF attitude, and will usually follow with a dangerous punishment pass. These people are idiots and care little about vulnerable road users, only their own sense of entitlement to get about quickly. They treat the road like their personal race track and anyone on a bike slowing them down needs to get out of their way. GMP's judgement on this matter is disappointing. The cyclist merely exclaimed "woah" "There is no law that mandates cyclists to be on the left... are you threatening to assault me?... Bye" That is not a public order offence, ridiculous.


----------

