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 £2.49. 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
jackcycles 1 hour ago
"attributed by experts", yeah sure, ok! Citing 8 year out of date per capita figures shows the weakness of your argument. Here's a couple of reasons I believe that the Netherlands fatality rate might be higher than the UK (independent of the crappy Dutch infrastructure), none of which you and Chrisonatrike suggested or mentioned: 1) not enough people wearing helmets in Netherlands. All sane people know that wearing a cycling helmet can potentially save lives, yet the Dutch seem to think themselves too special to wear one. Despite the fact the Netherlands has a superior privatised health system compared to our rotten, inefficient NHS, post-crash options are limited for people with severe head trauma which will inevitable lead to increased fatalities in the Netherlands. 2) Risk compensation by drivers and cyclists. Cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security thinking that segregated cycle lanes are their special infrastructure which insulate them from accidents. They don't. Then, car drivers take more risks due to increased congestion caused by the same cycling infrastructure, leading to a double-whammy of risky behaviour. 3) Cultural issues. People in the UK are renowned for their stiff upper lip, stoic, courteous behaviour. They naturally protect more vulnerable road users. I, myself, had a magnificent cycling experience earlier today on the local country lanes, waving and saying hello to the locals and cyclists alike. There really isn't a place like the UK (well, outside London anyway) that matches our hospitality and camaraderie. P.s. I'm not sure who Nigel is, I assumed you meant Nigel Farage but I can assure you I'm not him and that he has more pressing things to do than write responses on a cycling website. I hope that's helped your understanding a little, and enabled you to think a little independently rather than just suck in information that self-described "experts" want you to believe. Oh and Norway et Al are terrible comparators as hardly anyone lives there (and who'd want to to be honest? Lol!)
chrisonabike 1 hour ago
Yup. The UK has latterly tried add the safety back in after it was lost for vulnerable road users. (And after giving all the direct routes / valuable space over to motoring). But it's offering a modicum more safety in return for them losing a lot more convenience - so that has been reducing the "problem" also! Plus we lean heavily on "but people can be trusted to be reasonable" and "for any misbehaviour police it better". Unfortunately those are not good assumptions or choices for safety in a motornormative environment. (And road policing isn't a priority anyway). NL isn't the only place in Europe they've realised that mass motoring the old way is unsustainable (for lots of reasons). They're just the furthest on. In NL they still have some challenges because the (larger - thanks US!) car strikes back, and there are some questions about the impact of e-things. But they're *still* investing in improvements, and proportionally significantly more than the UK, even though they're already far ahead...
This Wreckage 2 hours ago
The Stockton Hub which I used occasionally (I don't live in Stockton) was open only during standard office hours, Mondays to Fridays, rendering it useless for families and leisure cyclists. It's a standard problem for a lot of government-funded or charity-run public services which close when many people most need them, presumably because staffing costs would rise substantially. The article also mentions cycle hubs in Redcar and Darlington which, so far as I can tell, have never existed.
chrisonabike 2 hours ago
Ho ho ho! No, we need to stop these idiotic cyclists completely (or limit them to velodromes, parks and maybe "rail trails") - that way there won't be any cyclist road fatalities! Simples! Meanwhile in many parts ofEurope they're finding the benefits of making it such that lots of people don't use cars for every journey - by fixing it so it's convenient and increasingly safe - despite much larger numbers of people getting around outside of cars than in the UK...
Rendel Harris 2 hours ago
The fatality rate in the UK has fallen five years in a row during a period, starting with the Covid years, in which building of "idiotic Dutch roundabouts and segregated cycling infrastructure" has massively increased, so in fact using your own benchmark the statistics clearly show the benefits of increased cycling infrastructure. Not quite the gotcha you seem to think when viewed through non-troll lenses, Nige. The stupidity of your "argument" is further clearly illustrated by the fact that the list-topping Norway, Sweden and Denmark all have massive segregated cycling networks. The Dutch model used to demonstrate clearly the safer nature of the Dutch system, e.g. in 2018 the Netherlands had 8 fatalities per billion kms ridden compared to 21 in the UK; the primary reason for the increased fatality rates in the Netherlands has been attributed by experts to the massive uptake in ebikes (47% of new bikes sold in NL are now ebikes compared to 10% in the UK), particularly amongst the older population, nothing to do with the infrastructure.
leedorney 2 hours ago
It used to be great price this, but they played the ace marketing card and got the popularity and now...
jackcycles 4 hours ago
Many thanks for posting these statistics and showing the downward trend in fatalities. One thing that stood out for me when clicking through to the government statistics page is the UK's exemplary record on this Vs other European countries, especially the much-vaunted record of The Netherlands, which actually shows twice as many fatalities as the UK per million of the population. The question that arises is therefore: why are the greens and other left-wing parties so keen to adopt an inferior and more dangerous road system when ours is obviously working well? It smacks of a need to regulate people's lives and curtail freedom. We need to stop these idiotic Dutch roundabouts and segregated cycling infrastructure, and get people sharing the road in a fair and equal manner, when the statistics show it's safer to do so. (Chart shows road fatalities per million population)
ChasP 4 hours ago
That's where the convertible aspect comes in. I've got a gravel bike but the canal I sometimes commute on has roots under the tarmac and barriers. The mtb with 'drops' is more comfortable for this and fits through the barriers. If I want to do something more technical I can put the flat bars on.
wtjs 19 hours ago
@FionaJJ These officers deployed next-level stupidity, and it must be difficult for the police to find people this dim. It doesn't even need rolling-roads or whatever, just a reputable bike computer on a quickly changed mount for the difficult cases where a proper EAPC has been modded, although you would need to look hard in Lancashire to find a police officer who knows how to make a pedal cycle go. Most illegal electric motorbikes are immediately obvious, not least because the crim is wearing a face mask. I saw an obvious one tonight coming out of Garstang Sainsbury's, not pedalling but without a face mask because everybody knows that the police only come into the town to hide away in the police station 200 yards away.
bikeman01 21 hours ago
Gustav Gullholm.. that's not a good look mate
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.