He was just... standing there...

3 of 6. I've done the Ocean Terminal Gormley, and the 'round-the-back-of-the-modern-art-gallery' Gormley. So this is Stockbridge. I still think they look sinister, even close up...

Nice lunchtime wander which also brought about a Dipper fledgling (I really like these characterful little birds), and a striking Grey Wagtail (which I've blipped before, with a much worse shot than this one).

In other news I've been asked about the possibility of doing the wedding photos for the friend of a friend in September, just looking for unposed candid shots. Nice to be asked, and I've said yes, which is quite a scary thought. 50 odd people on a boat in Stonehaven harbour - it could be interesting! And after getting a photo onto Springwatch yesterday (see yesterday's blip) I'm feeling rather photographical just now...

Sneak preview time of a short article for the website I've been working on this week....

There's one motoring refrain that annoys me more than any other. It's nothing to do with wearing helmets or riding in cycle lanes or not having insurance or not paying road tax (though it's scarily easy to come up with such a list); no, it's that tortured lament, "But you were in the middle of the road!"

Why does this cause me so much consternation? The reasons are twofold, and the first is a very basic point of perception.

'Middle of the road' seems to count as any number of actual positions on the road. Moving out of the door zone? Middle of the road. Riding through any pinch point? Middle of the road. Hell, just being on the road? Middle of the road. The times I've had this argument put to me my simple counter has been a factual 'No I wasn't', or ,'It's safer to pass parked cars like that, what if a door was to open while I was going past?' (the second response naturally needs a more calm approach and longer period stopped for a chat).

But the second reason is where my misunderstanding of the human condition really begins. So you've been passed ridiculously closely by a car, and the reason given is that you were in the 'middle of the road'. Exactly when was the right of vigilante retributive justice granted to drivers? It's as if their belief that you were in the middle of the road is a justification for then putting your body and soul in jeopardy.

In essence, in using the 'middle of the road' argument the driver is admitting that they knew they were driving too close to you, they knew they were putting the cyclist in a dangerous position. But that's okay to do because the cyclist was in the middle of the road. It's bonkers. Do you think they drive down the road and see someone dropping litter and so mount the pavement to give them a scare?

"You almost ran me over! On the pavement!"

"Well you dropped litter..."

Next it'll be okay to drive over OAPs for whom the green light phase isn't quite long enough. 'Roadwatch' schemes will be set up where groups of drivers drive round and round looking for people committing minor offences (or even things they just don't really agree with like cyclists or caravans or people with green shoes) and run them over for the common good.

Either that or drivers need to come up with a better excuse to cover their admitted deliberate dangerous actions...