I’m Spartacus

That's me done then. Thanks for everything.

@mdavidford I think you're misunderstanding societal norms and courtesies. Firstly, you are de facto claiming that the road was completely pan flat because, if it wasn't, stopping causes *zero* inconvenience to the cyclist in terms of energy expenditure (as they can just do a rolling start) and costs a few seconds of time. It seems strikingly unreasonable to assume that a few seconds of the cyclist's time is worth (cumulatively) hours of everyone else's. Secondly, George has already kindly pointed out that there was, in fact, a cycle lane that could have been used, but instead the cyclist chose to ride in such a position that no one could safely get past. If the cyclist had merely moved to the left for even a few seconds, the bottleneck he'd created would have been relieved. Finally, and perhaps slightly more controversially, it's revealed that the cyclist was riding a Colnago Master. This is a vintage bike dating back decades, and certainly not the kind of machine that would be suitable for commuting or utilitarian cycling. I think it's tentatively safe to say, therefore, that the cyclist wasn't engaged in a meaningful journey and was economically inactive, holding up purposeful travellers and negatively disrupting the local economy. Just my tuppence worth.

You have to be 17 to drive a car (with exceptions where it's a mobility aid) but you can ride a moped or a scooter from 16.

We do, but... ...simply making progress along the road at your own pace is not being an arsehole. The argument that he could simply "move into ... one of the many driveways, laybys etc" hides a couple of false assumptions - that this would be essentially cost free for him (whereas in fact stopping and starting requires much more effort on a bike than in a car), and that it would be a one-off (whereas if the road is busy enough for a queue of 30 cars to build up he'd likely be stopping every couple of minutes to let people past. Or, alternatively, that all that cost to him is worth less than the 15 minutes extra it took to drive (7.5 minutes on average per car), which sounds pretty selfish on the part of the driver.

I'm not quite clear on this phrase and how it relates to the statistics. Does this mean "we have more sympathy for other members of a group we're part of?" Don't those rates just show that we don't care so much about those outside of our group? (As the "bad apples" are in the same group - motorists - in both examples?) Or is it that this is motornormativity: vulnerable road users are seen to be annoyances, contributing to their own misfortune? Or at least we sympathise with the killers as people not in cars are hard to spot and they don't behave like drivers?

@The_Ewan Exactly, I'm thinking Motobecane and Serotta, just to name two brands that should have been allowed to die with dignity.

Spot on! Ah, that's where you lose everyone, particularly when the group is an out-group / they're "other".

@Ryan Mallon Please can my comment awaiting moderation be approved.

@jackcycles I doubt it TBH. Ed Hill comes across as a kneejerking, culture warring plank. In his whinge about the side roads he identified mutliple problems with the junction as to why he could not see, which as a Councillor he is in a perfect position to have fixed. But having done all of that, he then proceeded to demand that the problem was cyclists and priority. The guy is fustylugs.

George, I could literally have written that article myself. Chapeau Sir!