Video: Teens push bike into path of Dunwich Dynamo riders, causing crash

This is a very fair summary of DD. I too saw those girls selling lemonade at 4am, as well as tonnes of locals that come out of their houses to cheer and applaud riders.

Al__S wrote:

Totally agree- the moans on Facebook (whilst having some grounding) are only ever from a tiny minority and there will always be idiot riders on any event with 100+ riders frankly. It is after all not a formally organised event, the best that can be done is self policing and to try to keep an eye out for one another- we did have one fractious moment where my group realised it had missed a turn and (well away from houses) called to stop- a rider on a fixie wove through us complaining about us "cutting him up" and was still upset after he finally stopped as we shouted to tell him he was going the wrong way. He thought we were being angry at him- we were just trying to save him going any further off course!

 

It's impossible to be perfect, but overall I think it works well, and there's clearly loads of locals who do ejoy it- there were still a fair few partying outside the front of their houses to watch the ride go by, and obviously the enterprising that make money/raise money for charity off of it. Shout out really does have to go to the two young girls selling lemonade in Framlingham in their dressing gowns, still there at 4am. We didn't stop (we were hankering for hot drinks and bacon rolls without a massive queue, and had been since Sudbury- a desire sated very soon after) but we were impressed.

the woman on FB whose complaints seemed to include bike lights is right off base though- don't think it was just the awesome disco lights some were sporting, she seemed to be upset by head and tail lighting. Proving that you cannot win

jollygoodvelo wrote:

I live in the area and there is a known problem with local "yoof" being antisocial on bikes - riding around in big groups randomly and the wrong way on roads, big wheelies along pavements and scaring pensioners, inside local supermarkets etc.  If you've got any footage *do* report it to Essex Police - there have been punishments doled out although I'd say more should be done to 'give them something less annoying to do'.

According to the reporting tool, Woodford Green actually falls under the Met's duristiction - have reported it to them

nicknumbernine wrote:

jollygoodvelo wrote:

I live in the area and there is a known problem with local "yoof" being antisocial on bikes - riding around in big groups randomly and the wrong way on roads, big wheelies along pavements and scaring pensioners, inside local supermarkets etc.  If you've got any footage *do* report it to Essex Police - there have been punishments doled out although I'd say more should be done to 'give them something less annoying to do'.

According to the reporting tool, Woodford Green actually falls under the Met's duristiction - have reported it to them

You're right of course.  On that road Essex starts about half a mile further up the road, just past the traffic lights

carytb wrote:

We've just had the annual "Let's see how many motorists we can alienate today" bike ride aka The Manchester to Blackpool Charity ride. IT's all done in a worthy cause but the number of drivers who will get p*ssed off being delayed for ages with a continuous stream of cyclists riding across the whole of road must be enormous. I don't pretend to know what the answer is though.

I did this ride today and yes, while there were queues at times I thought the vast majority of drivers were good natured and gave both time and space to riders.  Indeed, I saw more twattish riding than I did driving, mostly due to inexperience: why get your bike out of the garage and think you can do 100km ride when you haven't cycled for years? 

I doubt if any driver was held up for more than a minute or two maximum. In a life which lasts 80 plus years on average now, what's a minute?  Frankly, if  a driver wants to rush when faced with 4 000 plus riders, then they should consider handing their licence in as they aren't fit to be on the road. 

carytb wrote:

We've just had the annual "Let's see how many motorists we can alienate today" bike ride aka The Manchester to Blackpool Charity ride. IT's all done in a worthy cause but the number of drivers who will get p*ssed off being delayed for ages with a continuous stream of cyclists riding across the whole of road must be enormous. I don't pretend to know what the answer is though.

These are the same drivers that will happily sit in queues caused by other drivers for hours. My heart bleeds.

kraut wrote:

carytb wrote:

We've just had the annual "Let's see how many motorists we can alienate today" bike ride aka The Manchester to Blackpool Charity ride. IT's all done in a worthy cause but the number of drivers who will get p*ssed off being delayed for ages with a continuous stream of cyclists riding across the whole of road must be enormous. I don't pretend to know what the answer is though.

These are the same drivers that will happily sit in queues caused by other drivers for hours. My heart bleeds.

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

don simon]</p>

<p>[quote=kraut

wrote:

 

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

andymac]</p>

<p>[quote=don simon

wrote:

kraut wrote:

 

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

[/quote]

What makes you say that?

[/quote]

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

[/quote]

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

[/quote]

You're being sarcastic, right?

don simon wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

You're being sarcastic, right?

I really think that Don is just being sarcastic, but just in case I'll put here my usual response to the Road Tax, Insurance and Testing argurement:

There is no such thing a road tax anymore, that was ended nearly 80 years ago, what you are probably thinking about is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). The amount you pay for VED is defined by the emissions, so some cars do not have to pay this as they have low emissions. Cyclists do not have any emissions so making cyclists subject to VED would bring in no income and cost a few million in administration. Also according to a 2013 survey, 87% of cyclists are also drivers so are subject to VED for another vehicle.
Regardless of this though, VED is not how the road network is funded, it is funded through Council Tax and the central government fund (VAT, Income Tax etc.) so every cyclist contributes.

Now that we have established that cyclists definitely do contribute financially to the road network, lets also add a new angle. As 87% of cyclists are also drivers, but they are choosing to cycle instead, they are reducing their impact on the state of the roads so there for reducing the spend needed from their contribution. So arguably cyclists pay more on a money in vs. impact perspective.
Further to this, as some of the money comes from the central government pot that also feeds the NHS, and cyclists by cycling are getting and keeping fit (so arguably healthier) they are potentially putting less strain on the NHS and freeing up more from that central pot.

As far as liability insurance is concerned, you would be correct that it is not a legal requirement, but you will probably find that most are covered anyway through their cycle clubs and/or home insurance.

Let me now try and cover the test and licence issue. The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults. Add to this the fact that 87% of cyclists are also drivers so they would have already passed a test.

And finally just in case you want to add the issue of cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road. Well there are people at fault on this issue from all forms of transport and pedestrians so let’s not pretend that it is a cyclist issue alone. In fact I read a study somewhere (I'll have to see if I can track it down) where they monitored traffic lights and just as many cars jumped the lights as cars (and ten times as many pedestrians ignored the red man).

ClubSmed wrote:

don simon wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

You're being sarcastic, right?

I really think that Don is just being sarcastic, but just in case I'll put here my usual response to the Road Tax, Insurance and Testing argurement:

There is no such thing a road tax anymore, that was ended nearly 80 years ago, what you are probably thinking about is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). The amount you pay for VED is defined by the emissions, so some cars do not have to pay this as they have low emissions. Cyclists do not have any emissions so making cyclists subject to VED would bring in no income and cost a few million in administration. Also according to a 2013 survey, 87% of cyclists are also drivers so are subject to VED for another vehicle.
Regardless of this though, VED is not how the road network is funded, it is funded through Council Tax and the central government fund (VAT, Income Tax etc.) so every cyclist contributes.

Now that we have established that cyclists definitely do contribute financially to the road network, lets also add a new angle. As 87% of cyclists are also drivers, but they are choosing to cycle instead, they are reducing their impact on the state of the roads so there for reducing the spend needed from their contribution. So arguably cyclists pay more on a money in vs. impact perspective.
Further to this, as some of the money comes from the central government pot that also feeds the NHS, and cyclists by cycling are getting and keeping fit (so arguably healthier) they are potentially putting less strain on the NHS and freeing up more from that central pot.

As far as liability insurance is concerned, you would be correct that it is not a legal requirement, but you will probably find that most are covered anyway through their cycle clubs and/or home insurance.

Let me now try and cover the test and licence issue. The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults. Add to this the fact that 87% of cyclists are also drivers so they would have already passed a test.

And finally just in case you want to add the issue of cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road. Well there are people at fault on this issue from all forms of transport and pedestrians so let’s not pretend that it is a cyclist issue alone. In fact I read a study somewhere (I'll have to see if I can track it down) where they monitored traffic lights and just as many cars jumped the lights as cars (and ten times as many pedestrians ignored the red man).

Was any help in coming to that conclusion?

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

[/quote]

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

[/quote]

WHOOOOOOOOSH.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

don simon wrote:

They pay road tax and have the right to be there though...

You're being sarcastic right. There ain't no such thing as road tax. Maybe a bike licence that is too costly to administer like a dog licence is the way forward. Err.. No! Sorry I meant bicycle excise duty.

What makes you say that?

Maybe because road tax was abolished in the 1930s?  It was abolished by Winston Churchill for precisely the reason you have identified: drivers who pay it think they own the road, and can treat people who don't pay it, like cyclists, as having no right to be there.  The opposite is of course the case and cyclists are there by right, but drivers have to pay for the privilege of using it.

What is paid now is Vehicle Excise Duty and is dependent on the pollution caused by the vehicle in use.

[/quote]

WHOOOOOOOOSH.

[/quote]

1961BikiE wrote:

Sadly with the now massive popularity of the Dunwich Dynamo the volume of riders was always likely to attract the attention of the knuckle draggers. Very sad. I always fancied giving it a go but the number of participants these days,plus these sorts of incidents has put me right off.

Same here - I've done DD about 15 times now right back from when it was a low key / small scale audax style event organised by Mosquito Bikes (mid 90's). Last year was the busiest I've ever seen it, must have been 2500 people and it was simply too many - you get massively increased chances of being taken out by bunches of riders stopping, trying to see where their mates are, turning randomly across the road cos they've decide to go to the pub, coming out of the pub and pulling out without looking...

And then you get the drivers who are massively pissed off by the whole thing driving dangerously and then you get the chav scum around Essex who deliberately taget the riders. We had bottles thrown at us from a passing car a couple of years ago.

And there seem to be a lot of complaints on the DD Facebook page from villagers who were pissed off at the general levels of twattishness on display from some of the riders - playing music through loudspeakrs, flashing lights, shouting, chucking litter, urinating - which is only ever going to result in them putting tacks down or stringing a wire up. Several years ago some signage to a feed station got taken down by the villagers and the tea lights got moved, sending people off the wrong way cos the villagers didn't want the noise and hassle.

Victim of it's own success - I won't be doing it again.

crazy-legs wrote:

Same here - I've done DD about 15 times now right back from when it was a low key / small scale audax style event organised by Mosquito Bikes (mid 90's). Last year was the busiest I've ever seen it, must have been 2500 people and it was simply too many - you get massively increased chances of being taken out by bunches of riders stopping, trying to see where their mates are, turning randomly across the road cos they've decide to go to the pub, coming out of the pub and pulling out without looking...

And then you get the drivers who are massively pissed off by the whole thing driving dangerously and then you get the chav scum around Essex who deliberately taget the riders. We had bottles thrown at us from a passing car a couple of years ago.

And there seem to be a lot of complaints on the DD Facebook page from villagers who were pissed off at the general levels of twattishness on display from some of the riders - playing music through loudspeakrs, flashing lights, shouting, chucking litter, urinating - which is only ever going to result in them putting tacks down or stringing a wire up. Several years ago some signage to a feed station got taken down by the villagers and the tea lights got moved, sending people off the wrong way cos the villagers didn't want the noise and hassle.

Victim of it's own success - I won't be doing it again.

What a load of anti-tosh. With any kind of public event you always get a cirtain level of backlash. Likewise there will always be a small number of twats cycling giving a bad name that will be exaggerated by the anti's.

The point of the matter is that for the vast majority it was a hugely fun and popular ride last night, and from my experience pretty trouble free with generally considerate riding and good responses from the locals all round.

There's no need to put people off what is a very special event. 

STiG911 wrote:

I don't care how old they were, I'd've still beaten the shit out of them with their own bike.

Yes, of course would have...