road.cc live blog: Terpstra takes E3 Harelbeke, buy Lance’s house, limited edition Cannondale Supersix, bicycle-to-vehicle beacons proposed + more
All the news from this site and beyond
Fri, Mar 23, 2018 09:00
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
19 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
thrawed 2 minutes ago
We have enough regulation. They're running a motorbike without insurance/registration and possibly without a licence, and the punishment for being caught with all that is pretty severe already. The problem is lack of enforcement.
chrisonabike 25 minutes ago
In my experience with anything less than one of those serious mid-bike two-foot kickstands, a wall / tree / hedge is the better option, or the bike will sometimes show you the alternative and lie down by itself. Maybe I've got panniers that are just too large and the wrong balance of (too much) cargo though? And of course Edinburgh streets are great at funneling gusts of wind...
chrisonabike 46 minutes ago
I agree there's a clear legal line * but I do see something here. Like much tech it's entirely opaque from the outside (without even invoking things like the VW emissions cheating).** I know in NL they have trialled semi-portable "test stations" to check max motor speeds. However with the latest "but there's no money" crisis I can't see that over here. Indeed it's hard to see the police being motivated to do any more roads policing, with this even further down the priority list. Hope I'm wrong... While I guess many of us *would* be fine with EAPCs as a means to attract "non-cyclists" ... perhaps there's an "attractive nuisance" element to this? We're ushering people into an apparently effortless, easy and minimal consequence mobility mode without the "learning experience" of managing a lighter, unpowered machine on roads. And it's still (busy) *roads* where the new power-assisted riders will often find themselves. Not like in more advanced countries where people usually cycle in much safer and more controlled environments. OTOH we should always balance such concerns against "but cars and full-power ICE motorbikes now" though! Number plates, licences and insurance aren't necessarily mitigating that well... * As soon as there are laws games will be played. How long can you be above the "continuous rate power" for? Can we have *multiple* legal motors on one machine? ** Is the power / speed actually regulated by software, and how long will that keep a child armed with the internet from unlocking it?
Zazz53 1 hour ago
And maybe a planning obligation to have traffic Marshalls controlling access out of the site not obstructing the path and restricting it if cyclists are likely to be obstructed …one can hope
Bob Sprocket 1 hour ago
I'll stick to my low rider with Karrimor Kalahari dry bag panniers and Karrimor Kalahari barbag thanks.
Davidb67 1 hour ago
How is the Hover Air X1 Smart more jersey pocket friendly? It doesn’t fold, like the original Hover Air X1 (which is excellent BTW). Are your jersey pockets larger than standard? You did read the part about this also being available only for Japanese market?
Rendel Harris 2 hours ago
Presumably your bike has the legal restriction to 25 km/h, in which case you're not dangerously close to the line at all, it's the high speed achievable by illegal electric motorcycles (there is a plague of them at the moment in my area of London that, I would estimate, are capable of at least 45 mph) that's causing the collisions, the actual power is fairly irrelevant.
Bungle_52 2 hours ago
I use this cycle path regularly. It is used by commuters during the week but it is used more and more by families with young children evenings and weekends when the weather is fine. The car boot takes place on a Sunday which conflicts with this leisure use. One problem is with cars stopping on the cycle path to wait for a gap in traffic (as in the picture). Even if the car is stopped and there is space behind it, as in the picture, you can't be sure that the driver won't reverse or the driver behind won't close the gap so you have to slow down to almost a stop to get through safely. You would have to dismount as well as you would be using the footway part of the path. This isn't a huge problem going up the hill into Cheltenham, (coming towards you in the picture) as it is relatively steep and usually against the prevailing wind if there is any, so you are going slowly anyway. Going down the hill however it is easy to reach 30mph and this is where cyclists are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to slow down and dismount. I don't think it's a huge safety issue but it will be annoying. Obviously the driver should not be blocking the cycle path at all and should wait in the entrance, which has good visibility, until there is a gap in both the road and the cycle path traffic. This is obviously beyond the skill set of the majority of motorists who would not dream of blocking the road but can't see any problem with blocking the cycle path. The main problem, however, is with drivers from Cheltenham crossing the oncoming traffic to enter the car boot sale. There may be nothing blocking the cycle path and the drivers will be looking for gaps in the (usually continuous) oncoming traffic. When a gap appears they will go but will they have checked that there are no cyclists on the track who will expect the driver to give them priority as instructed in the highway code. A cyclist coming from Cheltenham down the hill will be travelling at speed from behind the driver and the driver will cut across them from their left if they are not seen. Experienced cyclists will be watching out for this but that is not who the cycle path is intended for, it is intended to encourage new cyclists to get on their bikes. Another concern is when a driver is turning into the site and does notice a cyclist and does give way. The driver behind may not be expecting the car in front to stop and there is potential for a rear ending incident. The speed limit is 40mph but it is only adhered to in heavy traffic. I rarely drive but I did drive the road recently and I was doing exactly 40mph when I was overtaken. None of these would be a problem if drivers could be relied upon to obey the highway code but it seems to me that it is asking too much in today's "drivers come first" and "must drive as fast as possible" mentality. Finally one time I cycled when the car boot was on there was a person in a hi vis jacket directing the traffic. If the individual has received training then it should be safer but it will still inconvenience cyclists unless we are given priority.
Rendel Harris 2 hours ago
@KiwiMike Respectfully, I don't think "oh well people can afford it" is a valid excuse for blatantly overcharging for a product. Yes of course it's people's choice whether they want to pay for it or not, just as it's my choice to point out that in my opinion, as with so many cycling products, it's a rip-off.
KiwiMike 3 hours ago
I guess you’ve never been for a ride in the countryside, and wanted to stop somewhere there isn’t a perfectly-positioned tree, fence or wall? Or have always had the good fortune to have a bike rack or wall positioned perfectly where you need it, and been happy to balance your bike and trust no-one will nudge it. I accept that’s a valid use case.
19 thoughts on “road.cc live blog: Terpstra takes E3 Harelbeke, buy Lance’s house, limited edition Cannondale Supersix, bicycle-to-vehicle beacons proposed + more”
Okay, I’ll bite…
Okay, I’ll bite…
Who will have to pay to retro-fit beacons to existing bikes?
Who will pay to retro-fit the detection and collision avoidance technology to all the existing cars trucks, vans, lorries, buses and taxis out there?
Who will be judged at fault in a collision between a beaconless bike and a sensor equipped vehicle?
I’d like to have device on my
I’d like to have a device on my bike that sent an electric shock to the bollocks of the driver of a car detected within a metre of my bike. Said shock to increase the closer the vehicle gets. I’d happily pay for that, in fact.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Not a bad idea, but being run over by a woman is going to be just as annoying and painful.
And yet, a car supposedly
And yet, a car supposedly dripping with the latest detection technology and fail safe automated braking systems ploughs into and kills a pedestrian crossing the road in Arizona. ?
ermmm… bicycles already
ermmm… bicycles already have retro-reflectors mounted on them… perhaps these vehicle systems ‘experts’ should consider devising some device which scans the field of view and detects reflected ‘light’… sort of like a radar does but with an infra red low power eyesafe laser?
I’m calling bullshit on the
I’m calling bullshit on the bike detection technology. Half the time, drivers can see the bike perfectly well, but will still insist on overtaking at inappropriate times/places and without any due consideration. How will a detection system improve that?
Why do we keep trying to
Why do we keep trying to invent things that dull the attention of road users? It’s bad enough that most cars resemble starship command inside now. The last thing we need is going from SMIDSY to sorry my detection system didn’t see you mate and besides I was looking at facebook anyway.
My brother recently moved to Australia and said the driving standard is dire over there and reckons part of it is everyone driving automatics. It’s just a another level of disconnect from driving.
Sensors to also measure
Sensors to also measure passing distance and batch report anything too close?
Seems to me that that whole
Seems to me that that whole thing would be monumentally hackable. The beacon will need to be small and low-powered so they’ll be really easy to hide. IBM announced tech this week smaller than a grain of rice that could be used for this.
What’s to stop you, for example, hiding one in a manhole cover or on a bollard and bringing traffic to a halt?
Or taking primary and riding at 5mph preventing the vehicle from overtaking?
Its all completely unworkable and the logical extrapolation will be to ban pedestrians and cycles (and motorcycles and horses) from areas where driverless vehicles operate.
And then we get to my neck of the woods where there are unfenced roads and livestock roaming about – I guess that means they’ll all need to be tagged too.
kil0ran wrote:
And this is exactly what we’ll get if this technology becomes mainstream. There’ll be places you can buy them in bulk from Chinese wholesalers, and they will be laid in weird patterns across the road to ‘assist’ motorists into a ditch. I could even lay them on the pavement in front of my house to stop people parking there!
Re ‘Ouch’.
Re ‘Ouch’.
A Darwin Award must be in the post – especially if next time he smashes his bollocks into that wall!
This appears to be a new
This appears to be a new version of victim blaming; it’ll be the cyclists fault for not fitting the latest gadget.
It is the responsibility of the people causing the danger to prevent/reduce that danger, not for cyclists and pedestrians to have to take actions to avoid being run over. Make the vehicle technology safe or keep it off the road.
Car detects bike with chip,
Car detects bike with chip, driver ignores the warning, status quo.
It will not work in
It will not work in Colchester.
On the subject of bicycle /
On the subject of bicycle / car sensors.
Lets go a step further so the software in the car can detect dangerous overtaking distances between the two sensors, then feed this back directly to the driver’s insurance provider, who can then increase their insurance premiums accordingly.
The government can offer a free standard version of the bike beacon, paid for by also offering a super-lightweight carbon fibre version for ‘proper’ cyclists who wouldn’t be able to resist the marginal gains.
Kojima wrote:
Better still, switch the car to limp home mode with a max speed of 15 mph so that affected cyclist can taunt them for miles and miles and ….
Most people probably already
Most people probably already have a highly detectable beacon – their phone. It’s likely squawking out all sort of radio signals (WiFi, Bluetooth, ANT+, 3g/4g etc.) right now.
It’s not “victim blaming” to envisage a future where road users are sharing speed, direction and position information in an effort to avoid hitting each other. It’s already used extensively in the air and at sea (AIS). At sea it’s mandatory for big heavy stuff to have AIS (>300t I think). E.g. http://shipfinder.co/ – and an awful lot of smaller craft use it as well along with sonar, radar and, yes, eyeballs.
Maybe Garmin will bake their LiveTrack system into all their devices in future and build automotive versions…maybe they have already.
“It is not easy for human
“It is not easy for human drivers to see cyclists on the roads” Manuel Marsilio – general manager of the Confederation for the European Bicycle Industry
Yes, actually it is QUITE easy to see cyclists on the roads IF you are paying attention & looking where you are pointing your two tonne lump of steel. With ‘friends’ like this in the industry, who needs enemies…
That Cannondale looks great.
That Cannondale looks great. You don’t often see British Racing Green on a bike.