Please note that our live blog sometimes takes a while to load – if it is trying your patience more than usual, try refreshing your browser.
Live blog: Driver guilty of killing cyclist aged 81, a 100-year-old anti-cycling article, Surrey bike shop offers 10% off to Evans voucher holders, Sports Direct named 2nd-worst online retailer + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 15:11
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.
26 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
HoarseMann 29 minutes ago
This has nothing to do with the type of bike - it's the type of behaviour that's the problem. Banning the sale of such bikes will not curtail the behaviour. They'll just find another type of vehicle and continue to drive dangerously as there's such a lack of enforcement. I'd sooner see them ban the bally. But really, all that's required is an improvement to roads policing.
AidanR 39 minutes ago
The EAPC Bill is welcome, but full of holes. What's to stop an overpowered but temporarily limited e-bike being sold and subsequently delimited? This is often a trivial process.
Sredlums 1 hour ago
@KiwiMike Yeah, in my over four decades of riding all over Europe I've never 'been for a ride in the countryside'. That must be it. Or, and I know this is a wild concept, you just accept that I just voiced my personal experiences and never missed a kickstand, like I wrote. Anyway, what's the big horror of laying your bike on its side for the very few occasions where there is nothing to lean your bike against?
mdavidford 2 hours ago
They may have looked, but did they see?
jackcycles 2 hours ago
Ds2025: where they are going wrong is that they are crushing the motorbike rather than the person sat on top of it. If they did the latter this issue would be solved in less than 24 hours.
Rod Marton 2 hours ago
I came this way today with the car boot sale in operation. There was a marshal at the entrance, who stopped a car turning right across the cycleway as I was approaching. So that certainly works. I think it necessary for the marshal to be there, I couldn't say if the driver would have turned if he hadn't been there but you always have to suspect the worst. Unfortunately there is no marshal at the exit, and there was certainly a car stopped across the cycleway as I was approaching it. But he pulled onto the road before I reached it, and the following car stayed off the cycleway as I went through. Ideally there should have been a marshal there too. On the whole, though, it's a really high standard piece of infrastructure. Just a pity it doesn't extend a bit further.
eburtthebike 2 hours ago
“absolute carnage” So right! Just look at the bodies piled up, blood running in the gutters and injured people limping away. It's a bit of a problem with a road, delaying some people for minutes at a time: it isn't carnage, let alone 'absolute carnage'. Anyone who exaggerates so ridiculously really shouldn't be allowed to comment in public, unless they want to demonstrate their idiocy to all and sundry.
Jakrayan 3 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours 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.
26 thoughts on “Live blog: Driver guilty of killing cyclist aged 81, a 100-year-old anti-cycling article, Surrey bike shop offers 10% off to Evans voucher holders, Sports Direct named 2nd-worst online retailer + more”
Not blaming the drivers for
Not blaming the drivers for the roundabout near misses could be a genius move.
Road layout and modern A pillars obviously contribute to the problem, but that shouldn’t excuse drivers from slowing down and looking.
However with the Mail Online sniffing around on the Twitter thread for a click bait “who is wrong here?” story, going after the infrastructure avoids stoking a them and us angle.
And since most people would not want to hit a cyclist but are still too wrapped up in their little bubble to pay sufficient attention whilst driving, engineering safety into the road layout may be the only effective solution.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Going after drivers as a category will not win mainstream acceptance. IMO it’s best to frame incidents like these as design issues because then all road users are victims of a common enemy.
Graham Simmons wrote:
Going after drivers as a category will not win mainstream acceptance. IMO it’s best to frame incidents like these as design issues because then all road users are victims of a common enemy.— CygnusX1
Hi Graham, good luck with the council. The last thing we need ( you and your family especially) is for this to become an “I told you so” story like that poor guy in Australia.
Mini roundabouts are always
Mini roundabouts are always shit.
vonhelmet wrote:
Agreed, if there’s an option for a car to drive over the roundabout instead of around it people will always try to take the easiest (in their mind) option.
Maybe this is the only way to get things done, keep sending footage to those responsible for that particular bit of road, clearly trying to educate some drivers isn’t working.
Quote:
Unfortunately, that costs money. Don’t hold your breath…
My commuting route is
My commuting route is selected to avoid several roundabouts (I travel about 10 miles extra a week just to minimise the hassle) but there is one I can’t avoid – I pass three of its entry roads and the one I never have any issues with has two major differences to the other more problematic entry roads 1/ There is a major width restriction just prior to entry to the roundabout so the cars are slowed down significantly 2/ The point where you check that the roundabout is clear before entering it is arranged so it forces you to look through your side window. Never had a problem with cars emerging from this entry point in error. The others I normally have one or two “issues” a week.
This is my local mini – it’s
This is my local mini – it’s a masterpiece.
https://goo.gl/maps/xNqaTiMpgoL2
If you’re turning right you basically have to nudge out and hope nothing’s coming. Checking the windows of the shops opposite sometimes helps. Made worse by the fact that the road is narrow with poor quality pavements and overhanging shops. Oh and it’s a double-decker bus route with a Tesco round the corner that has regular deliveries from 7.5tonners and bigger.
Currently being enhanced by loads of heavy construction traffic. Unfortunately there’s no solution because of the proximity of the river but drivers invariably try to run the roundabout without stopping (particularly left-turners) and I end up with the same issue as Graham.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.7431724,-4.1675165,119a,35y,181.44h,37.68t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
This one is a pet hate of mine, the traffic coming from the right has a clear line of sight for on coming traffic well before the r/bout so they make thier decision and hit the r/bout at thier chosen cruising speed, coming from this direction you really have to be at a standing start as your visibility of the traffic from the right is OK if they were slowing down but as they are accelerating you really want to see further down the road.
This is a fun pair of mini
This is a fun pair of mini roundabouts, on Queens Road in Bristol, with the majority of traffic actually going ‘straight on’ at the nearest one and then ‘straight on/right-ish’ at the second.
https://goo.gl/maps/MUKj1nqMXyG2
People barely ever indicate at one roundabout – putting two together is just ridiculous.
Seriously, at what point did some road planners EVER sit down and think, “You know what – I think putting two mini roundabouts right next to each other is a brilliant idea!”
brooksby wrote:
Things must have changed since I lived around there (70’s-80’s, then late ’80s-early ’00s) – IME a lot of people used to indicate when approaching the roundabouts (even when in the right-turn only lane into Pembroke Road when coming up from the Victoria Rooms). That said, the one furthest from the SU building was the most problematic of the two and plenty of folk still can’t work out where their indicators are or only use them during the actual manoeuvre – kind of missing the point of the name…..
fukawitribe wrote:
I’m afraid so – IME its bl00dy horrible now!
The Lever Causeway on the
The Lever Causeway on the Wirral is an arrow straight stretch of road with two linked mini roundabouts at one end, albeit with very small raised roundabouty kerb bits in the middle. The Causeway used to be NSL so people would bomb it all the way up and then try to clear both roundabouts in one go, going left to about 10 o clock on the first a bit past straight over to about 2 o clock on the second. The number of times people nailed their car through the garden wall at 12 o clock on the second roundabout was just unbelievable.
The causeway is now 40mph and has massive rumble strips before the roundabouts, which seems to have stopped the problem.
I think people indicate less
I think people indicate less at miniroundabouts generally now, perhaps because by now they’re a well known feature. When they were introduced in the early 80s, part of the idea of them (supposedly at least) was that they encouraged people to take more care and pay attention due to their unfamiliarity.
In the case of the Queens Rd miniroundabouts, it can be difficult if coming from St Paul’s Rd as you often don’t know if traffic from your right is going up St Paul’s Rd or Queen’s Rd.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
FTFY
srchar wrote:
Ninjacating – the stealthy use of indicators at the very last minute, such that drivers / cyclists / pedestrians in the vicinity have no idea of your actual manouevre until it is too late. Used by most motorists, just in case anyone gets a sneaky idea to try and beat them to their destination…
I’m calling fake on the drone
I’m calling fake on the drone “theft”. Looks like he was set up by his so called mates.
Of course it would help if
Of course it would help if the roundabout had been designed properly in the first place, and trying to put something right is always very expensive, less satisfactory and a whole lot more hassle than getting it right in the first place. Unfortunately, councils and HE, certainly my local authority, design something, go out to consulation for a couple of weeks, read the consultation saying that it is diabolical for cyclists, and then go ahead with the scheme exactly as planned. Several years later, when there have been lots of complaints or someone has died, they start remedial measures which wouldn’t have been necessary if they’d listened in the first place. They list those measures as improvements for cyclists so that ticks a few more boxes, and means they don’t have the funds to do anything new or genuinely constructive for them.
This wouldn’t be so bad if they learned from their mistakes, but they never do (South Gloucestershire, are you listening?) and just repeat the above every time, literally every time.
There has to be a massive shift in the way things are planned, with the government making the highway authorities plan for cyclists, not just mealy mouthed words about them being taken into consideration and a token fake consultation.
Another useful weapon would be an independent department to investigate highway collisions, as the police don’t have the budget or expertise to do this, and when such investigations show that it was the highway authority at fault, they should be sued. That’ll concentrate their minds.
I know that roundabout in
I know that roundabout in West End. Doesn’t help that the West End Road approach is downhill, so the desire is to keep the momentum up on a bike. The problem with it is it used to be a T junction and still looks like one, there’s no “deflection” on the main road approaches. That’ s made worse by the poor standard of roadmarkings and lots of vehicle drivers being drunk/drugged/stressed/tired etc. The sad truth is someone or several people – almost certainly vulnerable road users – will need to be hurt or worse to make the case for improving the junction – that’s sadly how road improvement schemes get funded.
I know that roundabout in
I know that roundabout in West End. Doesn’t help that the West End Road approach is downhill, so the desire is to keep the momentum up on a bike. The problem with it is it used to be a T junction and still looks like one, there’s no “deflection” on the main road approaches. That’ s made worse by the poor standard of roadmarkings and lots of vehicle drivers being drunk/drugged/stressed/tired etc. The sad truth is someone or several people – almost certainly vulnerable road users – will need to be hurt or worse to make the case for improving the junction – that’s sadly how road improvement schemes get funded.
It seems to me that “hitting
It seems to me that “hitting someone with your wing mirror ” is a pretty good indicator of “you were far too f-ing close!”. I bet that would have been a driving test fail, but i wonder when that guy last had to take a driving test…?
So according to the jury it
So according to the jury it was only just a lit bit careless and only just below the standard of a competent driver when someone is killed.
How the fuck can it not be dangerous/reckless and far below the standard of a competent driver ffs!
Yet another example of how fucking crap our justice system is.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
True – but it was a jury that aquitted him of DD. This is what happens when you have a persuasive defence council laying on the ‘good-character-momentary-lapse-sorry-I’ll-never-do-it-again’ bollocks. This is trial by jury, it’s biased to the side who can make the best argument. The fact that, statistically, most of them won’t have sat on a bike saddle since they were 13 years old doesn’t help.
KendalRed wrote:
Update:
Sentenced to 12 months in jail (probably out in 6), and perhaps more infuriatingly, 18 months driving ban.
Just how many people do you have to kill to get a lifetime ban?
KendalRed wrote:
It’s fundamentally flawed.
People are consistently shown to overestimate their skills and abilities. In any survey of drivers, way over half of them rate their own driving as ‘better than average’. To exacerbate the effect, the ones who fully understand a complex activity are less likely to be the ones overrating their abilities – so those who are placing themselves at the very top will be dimwits (see Dunning-Kruger).
We have a population of people who are consistently shown to not properly understand driving standards, and from them we select individuals to judge others’ driving standards. It is set up to produce ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ type judgements, and we continue to see driving as an everyday activity like walking just because total fucknuts manage to do it, as opposed to realising that it’s the expert controlling of heavy machinery, despite total fucknuts managing to do it.
Add groupthink and the jury system is fucked where driving cases are concerned.
Well done Graham Simmonds for
Well done Graham Simmonds for having the balls to speak out about this and engage with the authorities to find a solution.
Just needs more of us to do the same, until our voices become as noticeable as that repetitive bottom bracket creak, then something will be done.