Please note that our live blog can sometimes be slow to load; you may need to refresh your browser.
Live blog: Michael Woods dedicates Vuelta stage win to stillborn son, law firm says cycle safety review means more cash for infrastructure + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Wed, Sep 12, 2018 11:25
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
5 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Jakrayan 23 minutes ago
I'm criticising them for not riding in secondary position, not primary. At least 60cms (2 feet) from the edge of the road as the HC explicitly recommends. Leaving aside the small minority of riders who find mounting and dismounting a bike difficult - which sounds suspiciously similar to the motorists "but, but what about disabled drivers?" when talking about LTNs - what's wrong with able bodied riders walking the few metres over that narrow, Victorian bridge? Sure, if there's clearly no-one on it I wouldn't condemn anyone for riding it slowly, but if it's not clear forcing pedestrians to stop and squeeze to the side is, frankly, a rather entitled opinion. Plus it's easy to hold a road bike a little ahead of you and hold the saddle - normally no need to hold the bars if it's straight - so you're really not taking up much more room at all. There's a railway underpass near me that links to a shared then segregated path. It's narrow, and the path approaches at an angle so you can't see if it's clear, but many riders still choose to pedal through despite the clear 'no cycling' signage. Why?? Personally I don't go that way, except on foot, preferring the surrounding roads.
bensynnock 45 minutes ago
I think you're giving drivers too much credit. Many would not think twice about blocking the road if it makes their life easier, such as when turning right onto a busy road.
bensynnock 49 minutes ago
They might have to, but they won't. What they will do is pull out over the cycle path while they wait for a gap in motor traffic.
Safety 1 hour ago
"We have enough regulation." I agree with the exception being legally allowed to sell something which is virtually illegal to use. How many purchasers own a suitably large piece of private land?
Tradescant 5 hours ago
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
DS2025 5 hours ago
Chrisonabike There are a number of police forces in England and Wales that are using portable testing equipment already... How effective it is another matter, I haven't looked into the results of failing (I would hope they just seize and crush the motorbike without any faff but I am sure there are appeal processes, promises not to use them on public roads etc).
KiwiMike 6 hours ago
Woah there - a precision-engineered European-made product, with unparalleled adaptability, is somehow a ‘rip off’? Compared to what - Temu? As per the article, most quality through-axles go for £50-60+, but aren’t adaptable and don’t provide any stand or trailer capability. If you want to balance your £3-4-5k suspension or carbon bike, or bikepacking setup on a budget product subject to highly focused stresses, fair play. Cycling’s a broad church.
Dnnnnnn 6 hours ago
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
neilmck 7 hours ago
I agree, the study was made after cycle paths that had been introduced in Berlin during the 70’s and 80’s caused a big increase in cycling deaths. It is an interesting study for cyclists to read in order to know what dangers exist at badly designed junctions. Here in Paris we have very few bi-directional paths. The ones I have cycled on have no building entrances or courtyards (so no cars crossing the path) and every junction is traffic lights to prevent accidents.
thrawed 7 hours 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.
5 thoughts on “Live blog: Michael Woods dedicates Vuelta stage win to stillborn son, law firm says cycle safety review means more cash for infrastructure + more”
What a great idea from
What a great idea from Edinburgh Council. Built a new velodrome in Craigmillar. You’ll cycle there, have your bike nicked by the local neds and then have to get a new one, which will then be nicked by the local neds. And so on.
Edinburghhas planety of parks. Why build the centre in a place a lot of people won’t want to go? Err, just because it’s cheapest?
OldRidgeback wrote:
Because it could also be a catalyst for the area’s regeneration. This in itself is good, but from the councils perspective, it may also open up grant funding opportunities (although thanks to Brexit, the EU related regeneration/depreived area grant schemes are no longer going to be available).
If new stuff only ever gets build in ‘OK/good/low problem’ areas, inequality widens which in time results in more crime and other social issues.
Hmm: Crack down on those
Hmm: Crack down on those dangerous cyclists vs Throw money at those car tax dodging bl00dy cyclists… I suspect that the Govt would prefer to be seen to be cracking down rather than building infrastructure.
Quote:
How charmingly naive! Or cynical: yes, the Government may “promise further funding” but the chances of this being delivered, and particularly this actually resulting in additional high-quality infrastructure rather than just more of the existing crap, is very low.
While I’m fully in favour of
While I’m fully in favour of optimism, I’m afraid “Leading law firm DAC Beachcrofts” suggestion that we’ll be getting better infrastructure is unlikely, and experience says otherwise, but I suppose they only say that the government will promise more infra, not actually deliver it. Still, the proof of the pudding etc, and we could end up with cycling strategy worth the title rather than the almost useless CWIS.
I really hope I’m wrong and they are right, but remembering what started this review of cycling safety, the Alliston case, and all the previous failures, my optimism is tempered with huge slices of reality.