I kept my recent letter about the Tour of Britain cycle race brief, to make the point without using up undue space.
Admittedly, the remark about staging the event “in a velodrome” was rather tongue-in-cheek.
However, I am sure the owner of the car which was crashed into by a race participant in Retford would support my assertion.
In Guardian comment, writer Andy Done-Johnson says: “It would obviously have been better if the Nottinghamshire leg hadn’t coincided with the first day back at school for the majority of our children as well.”
He’s not wrong.
And, if a parent had taken their child out of school – rather than a teacher – to watch it, they too would have been in receipt of a summons for an unauthorised absence.
According to my copy of the Highway Code, page 23, rule 66, point three, you should, “never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding around bends”. Was this adhered to?
The answer would seem to be a resounding “no”.
As it says in the introduction to the Highway Code, “Although failure to comply will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, it may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability”.
Is the above suspended in the case of these races?
If so, who authorised this suspension?
If no-one, who pays for the aforementioned car repairs in Retford?
Is anyone to be prosecuted? I wish I could ignore the law with impunity and get away with it.
What do you think? To email us your comments CLICK HERE