Please give the live blog a good few seconds to load. Try refreshing the page when your patience expires.
- News

Live blog: Netherlands to ban cyclists from using phones while riding; 12 hours, 100 miles, 12 years old! LEJOG in a recumbent bathtub + more

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.
12 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
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.
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.
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.
"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?
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
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).
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.
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
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.
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.
12 thoughts on “Live blog: Netherlands to ban cyclists from using phones while riding; 12 hours, 100 miles, 12 years old! LEJOG in a recumbent bathtub + more”
The Dutch already ban
The Dutch already ban cyclists from using headphones, why not ban motorists from having music and using phones, oh wait, they already do yet deaths increased again last year with 60+ deaths at junctions/crossways between cycling infra and roads. The Dutch are going backwards in their thinking if they believe this will do anything, a few anecdotal incidents and one death equals a ban. Why stop there, let’s ban pedestrians from walking and using a mobile phone, surely cycling is simply an extension of walking, well that’s what it’s supposed to be promoted as, a basic every day activity.
I bet more people on foot have died due to using mobile phones, oh and policing it, that will be hot compared to motorists no doubt, just like in Australia where helmetless or bell free cyclists are hauled over the coals for a fine the same as a speeding motorist.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Not a bad shout if we have got to the point where consideration is being given to pavements being installed with warnings!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/03/glue-road-signs-floor-zombie-pedestrians-phones-government-adviser/
Well Hector Rees-Davies , no
Well Hector Rees-Davies , no point having a helmet on if you don’t wear it properly.
hirsute wrote:
At least it’s buckled on. People riding round with them undone never cease to bewilder me.
Enjoy your freedom, cute
Enjoy your freedom, cute Morning Commute infant, in a year or two when you’re cycling to school the fun police will on your case and demanding you wear a helmet and have a number plate.
BTBS, just because cars cause
BTBS, just because cars cause more carnage than bicycles doesn’t give cyclists licence to do any old daft shit they want. Cyclists on mobiles are dicks. If you use the road, pay attention.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
But it does justify calls for proportionality; for the enforcement and punishment to correspond to the risk.
davel wrote:
BTBS, just because cars cause more carnage than bicycles doesn’t give cyclists licence to do any old daft shit they want. Cyclists on mobiles are dicks. If you use the road, pay attention.
— davel But it does justify calls for proportionality; for the enforcement and punishment to correspond to the risk.— Yorkshire wallet
I’ve not seen anything yet in this change to suggest a lack of proportionality in either – but i’ve also not seen the associated guidance for the legislation.
davel wrote:
The risk is you ride one hand on bars, not paying attention and die? Remember that drunk woman who died, not in full control?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
More people die because of head phone wearing phone using pedestrians than same on bikes, if we are to have a ban for one group then surely if the reasoning is to make that safer (for whom??) then we must apply that to all persons especially those that do the most harm to others and to themselves. people on bikes are the bottom of the list when it comes to harming oneself and others whilst doing their activity and indeed also whilst listening to music and/or using a phone or in some cases in the wilds of Kingston upon Hull, rolling a woodbine, whilst on the phone riding no handed and still avoding weverything.one.
More than any of the other groups cyclists are aware of their vulnerability (well the helmetless ones at least), thus even with these other ‘distractions’ they are still safer to themselves and others are without.
A ban is discriminatory, bias, illogical and without factual merit.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Where do you get that from?
I’d suggest motorcyclists are also pretty aware of their vulnerability based on comments I have seen them make.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Figures and statistics please.