road.cc live blog: How to watch the Cyclo-cross Worlds, 12 riders test positive at one race, Should drivers with points on their licence be required to have black box car insurance? + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond
Fri, Feb 02, 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.
25 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
mark1a 8 minutes ago
@Backladder Oh I think I can guess - the nearest indoor velodrome to road.cc HQ looks to be some distance away in Wales, whereas Odd Down Cycle Track (where this test was conducted) is just 2 miles away.
Cugel 11 minutes ago
There are a number of causes of "the divide between motorists and cyclists". Only one is to do with the technology (of bicycles and cars) and that's the nature of the car, which is designed to induce the sort of dangerous and careless behaviours that providing humans with a lot of power and glamour fetches out of us. Other causes are much more insidious - A culture of hyper-individualism bordering on solipsism, with violently ultra-selfish and aggressive anti-heroes being promoted in every mass media channel as the ideal. A "news" media that overwhelmingly seeks, creates and offers pariahs and scapegoats to the rabid individualists, which pariahs and scapegoats includes all kinds of those perceived as less powerful and therefore easy victims, including cyclists. The near complete lack of any curb upon the dangerous antics of vast numbers of media-maddened motorists by the forces of law and order, many of whom are actually members themselves of the mass media maddened motorist ilk. ******** No amount of a more rational discourse about active travel or the means of making it safer will change these root causes of the vast numbers of deaths and maiming due to inept, incompetent and deliberately violent antics of vast numbers of motorists allowed their dangerous "weapons of choice". Yet many other highly damaging aspects of modern societies would be solved by a much more effective curbing of mass media mob-building and goading along with a serious attempt to prevent motorists and a whole range of other damagers from behaving as badly as so many do. It'll not happen, of course. Large and powerful elements of the modern world obtain far too much ultra-riches and power from current conditions for them to allow any significant change. And vast numbers of the population have long had their minds, attitudes and behaviours captured and directed by various oligarchical monsters and their mass media propaganda horns. About the only chance of safe active travel becoming extant is for the population at large to become mostly too poor to afford a car, ironically one other likely outcome of the machinations of those same power and money-mad monsters that have created the car-issue in the first place. Their need for zero-sum socio-economic arrangements degrades everything, including the wallet-contents of the masses.
Rendel Harris 29 minutes ago
@Astralstroll The hierarchy of road users does not mean priority of road users except in certain circumstances, e.g. stopping to let pedestrians cross junctions before turning. It doesn't mean that cyclists have priority over motor vehicles at all times any more than the pedestrians have priority over cyclists at all times. It certainly doesn't mean that you have priority in the circumstances you describe; personally, unless the driver is being a complete dick, on a narrow country lane I accept that it is easier for me to turn around and go back to the nearest passing place, which is never that far if you're on a bike, than for a tractor or other large vehicle to reverse back down the road for my benefit.
Backladder 31 minutes ago
If you were spending that much money on the device the obvious thing to do is to book a couple of hours in a velodrome for testing in a stable environment, I can't understand why Road.cc tried to do it outdoors.
kinderje 32 minutes ago
@chrisonabike 'Minimisation' please!
wtjs 52 minutes ago
@Astralstroll The Hierarchy of Road Users, announced with great fanfares in 2022, has been rendered into complete fiction by the attitude of the police: there is this hierarchy/ priority list but we don't take it seriously and if drivers ignore it we don't care! The same applies to the ludicrous notice of close-passing - No KSI'd cyclist = No Offence ttps://upride.cc/incident/lwa190_minicooper_hierarchy/
chrisonabike 1 hour ago
Hope Barcelona keep the transport improvements (they've been making for a while) coming! Better streets, more infra to help active travel where necessary. And while it's a major investment (though can be lower operating cost than busses) maybe more trams where they can. That may be more effective in making places active travel friendly and replacing taxis than mass public bike hire. They've a good start with 6 lines already.
chrisonabike 1 hour ago
I think this is a positive story. They're not getting rid of public hire bikes - they're expanding their in-house one. They're merely kicking out cowboys who've shown they've a lack of interest in the game they claim to be playing. It seems logical that companies whose business model is to extract (venture capital) money by invading public space are even less likely to make the efforts to keep things in order than a local "in house" scheme. (After all the "bikes and riding" part of these schemes always *costs* money, they don't generate it.) So not surprising their experience shows those firms are not particularly motivated to follow the rules - especially when scrapping for "market share". It's nice the European Cyclists’ Federation is thinking about tourists also (i hesitate to say "follow the money...") - as they note, where it's safe to cycle locals will largely get their own bikes. Tourists aren't going to stop coming because lack of public bike share - I think this is mostly a "nice to have" ("hey - why don't we go on one of those bikes there? ").
chrisonabike 2 hours ago
Harm minimization - at least they're not driving...
Gm_Crop 10 hours ago
I'll counter that by saying the Bryton 750se I have drives me nuts at times. Inconsistantly picks up on routes created on Komoot and the app re-syncs every few seconds when trying to set up the device and sends me back to the home screen. The most infuriating one is that I turned live track on. Once. It now won't turn off and repeatedly flags up the live track is starting, and then disconnecting every few seconds whilst riding. I haven't timed it but it wouldn't suprise me if 10-20% of the time the the screen is covered with an error message. That's been about 6 weeks now. Other than that it's great :/
25 thoughts on “road.cc live blog: How to watch the Cyclo-cross Worlds, 12 riders test positive at one race, Should drivers with points on their licence be required to have black box car insurance? + more”
I doubt there would be enough
I doubt there would be enough black boxes for all drivers with points, let alone engineers to fit them. Making them mandatory for any driving offence not covered by a fixed penalty notice would appear entirely reasonable though.
Grahamd wrote:
Nothing to fit, no engineers needed. One of the UK’s largest insurers, Aviva, do this through a phone app.
Quote:
Yes.
I think a better idea to the
I think a better idea to the insurance thing would be something that goes on your numberplate outlining the type of offence, eg as symbol to show you’ve been caught speeding, one for texting while driving, one for drink driving. the shame would probably be enough to stop a number of people, especially those with personalised plates, wouldnt want that ruined with something that shows you’ve been caught drinking and speeding, it’d help other motorists and the police identify who to look out for too.
RobD wrote:
You would get some people who’d make that a collectable thing, and want to get the whole set
RobD wrote:
There speaks the voice of someone who has a car for each member of the household.
For the rest of us who have several people using the one vehicle then that would not work
Given that the current system
Given that the current system clearly isn’t working, we need to look at alternatives, and this one seems quite promising. Some drivers might try using the big brother argument and privacy issues, and there is some traction in those, but I think my life and the lives of my loved ones is more important.
Until we have 100% driverless cars, human error by drivers will continue to kill thousands a year, and maim tens of thousands more. If it was any other field of human activity, it would be banned until the problems had been solved, but because we are a car-centric society, our politians are too weak to do this.
I’d suggest that this actually doesn’t go far enough, and all new cars should be fitted with the black box.
burtthebike wrote:
Be careful what you wish for, there’s plenty of reasonably founded speculation that the autonomous vehicle lobby will seek for segregated lanes, stealing valuable and ever-dwindling street space from human powered transport. And unlike us after some decent cycle lanes worth a damn, they’ve got existing funds and the elusive promise of £b for the economy to sway councils’ decisions and get protective legislation in place.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
“… there’s plenty of reasonably founded speculation that the autonomous vehicle lobby will seek for segregated lanes…”
No there isn’t. Driverless vehicles will need less space because they will be following the lane, not weaving around like humans do, so they’ll need less space.
But please feel free to continue your scaremongering.
Telematics is interesting in
Telematics is interesting in how they incentivise good driver behaviour. A mate’s son has just passed his test, he gets extra mileage added to his allowance on a monthly basis if he scores well on speeding. Sounds great but then there’s the clause where they’ll cancel his insurance if he drives 30mph over the speed limit. Not sure if that’s a sliding scale at lower speeds but what sort of message does that send?
kil0ran wrote:
It sends the message not to speed.
rct wrote:
It sends the message not to speed.— kil0ran
It sends the message that driving 29mph over the speed limit is OK because all it means is he’ll lose mileage bonuses that he doesn’t currently need. That’s how my mate’s kid has interpreted it. Now if there was a market where he could sell earned miles that might work…
The only thing these black
The only thing these black boxes do is to control the top speed of drivers in known speed limit areas. If the speed limt has been changed temporarily (roadworks for example) it is not registered.
Also, it does not stop the ever increasing “I’ll ignore that red light because I won’t be caught” attitude!
So I don’t see how it will improve safety other than control the top speed of those who do speed and get caught. All other aspects of bad driving (aggression, middle lane hogging, jumping red lights, driving too close, parking on pavements etc etc) will simply continue to happen and get worse.
The solution is more cameras and / or more police on the roads
Marky Legs wrote:
Don’t they also use an accelerometer to measure heavy acceleration, braking, and cornering?
Perhaps they don’t solve every problem but a partial solution to any problem is usually better than no solution.
portec wrote:
I thought black boxes in cars just measured G forces. The phone apps use GPS tracking as well.
What if one circumvents this
What if one circumvents this blackbox by using a hire car? They can easily say they forgot to take the box with them when switching vehicles.
Hire companies should also up their standards and run checks on drivers
RoubaixCube wrote:
Many do, but also every check involves a charge from the DVLA and the appointed technology providors the DVLA saw fit to work with. If every customer was checked in full, that would require to pass the cost onto the customer, increasing your car rental costs, and right now the industry is being squeezed by price, so not a straight forward thing.
Technology is also going into cars that would enable a company to montior how the car is being driven, where and at what speed. it isn’t being used for those purposes but the potential is there, but you have GDPR, data protection and human rights regulations screaming out at you. It’s a much bigger topic. We can do all of this and more…..and what? End up like China where freedom & rights are a joke.
Be carefull what you wish for
Be carefull what you wish for. Only a hop skip and a jump to boxes being extended to bikes.
I am all for punishment for bad behaviour but I am also a beleaver in right to privacy.
jimt wrote:
When they fit effective black boxes to every car as a legal requirement I’ll be delighted to fit one on the road bike. By all means have privacy, but if you insist on driving a tonne or so of polluting monstrosity maybe you should have to make that sacrifice?
jimt wrote:
What’s a ‘beleaver’? Is it the opposite of a ‘remainer’ ?
Who are you going to get to
Who are you going to get to pay for the black boxes? Currently they are offered for free by insurance companies because insurance companies believe they will reduce claims or at least provide data that allows the insurer to better price insurance (i.e., insurers are willing to pay for them because they benefit the insurer). Can’t see insurers forking out for blanket installation for good of cyclists/other vulnerable road users. Good luck trying to convince the govt to add them to all vehicles (queue outrage from motorists about added cost of motoring in times of austerity). In August last year the FT reported that “[telematics boxes]can cost as little as £50 to buy now, and less than that to install” so maybe the solution will ultimately be that they get so cheap it stops being an issue. The other problem about blanket installation (before you get to privacy concerns) is that it will make some people economically uninsurable. There’s an argument these people shouldn’t be driving anyway. But tey probably will and they probably will continue to do so, just on an uninsured basis, which may not be a great outcome as they are more likely to have collisions.
surly_by_name wrote:
Many, if not most late model cars (post 2012?) have this installed already. Car makers install it as part of the airbag and crash prevention systems, it stores data for the last 2 minutes. The data from these has been used in a number of court cases here down under to establish the behaviour of the driver immediately prior to the accident. The technology is already there.
Arguably making on board
Arguably making on board camera’s a legal requirement. If you know you are on film it will have an impact on a lot of bad driving. it won’t stop the narsacistic idiots and illegal drivers who just don’t care but it could provide a cultural change
the down side is you need resource to review, laws to support, police to action and something to protect all those genuine mistakes and edge cases……and it is very 1984……so it won’t happen…maybe.
Simmo72 wrote:
Personally, I think this is a great idea, and make a non functioning camera an mot fail. In most cases I suspect evidence would be captured on 3rd party vehicles, rather than the offending vehicle, but that’s ok. I have always thought plod had a bias towards catching speeders as opposed to other traffic offences because it is easy, and conclusive, to read a number from a display, compared for example to arguing that somebody jumped the lights. Cameras would give plod the evidence they need. But as you say, there are too many PC people in the UK who would argue infringement of civil liberties. Presumably meaning spouses could check up on where cheating partners had been while supposedly working late!
1) This reinforces the common
1) This reinforces the common misconception that it is always safe to drive at the speed limit, rather than educating drivers to judge what is safe.
2) Speeding is only one form of dangerous driving, and a black box does nothing to stop tailgating, poor discipline at junctions, blind overtaking, and so on.