Please be patient with the live blog. It can sometimes be slow to load. Try refreshing the page if it doesn’t seem likely to show.
Live blog: Mail Online cycling whataboutery; deer who attacked cyclist “known to police”; impatient lorry driver + traffic island… + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Nov 23, 2018 18:03
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.
20 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 40 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 2 hours 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.
20 thoughts on “Live blog: Mail Online cycling whataboutery; deer who attacked cyclist “known to police”; impatient lorry driver + traffic island… + more”
That’s mighty bloody close.
That’s mighty bloody close. At least the company acted on this occasion too.
Paul Murden wrote:
They claim they acted..I bet they didnt though. I’d want him fired, I wouldnt want someone that thinks they can drive like that in a lorry with my company name on the side working for me. Fire him and take his HGV license away for good. I’d put a bet on that the driver is the “Pay road tax” type just from the way he drove..
Paul Murden wrote:
Clearly, easing off the accelerator for a couple of seconds was beyond that driver’s ability
I read somewhere that tipper trucks / skip lorries are often the most dangerous because they are rushing to get from job to job through the day, and this one is certainly an example of that
brooksby wrote:
Add multi drop courier drivers to that list. I live in a surburban housing estate and the speeds they drive around our streets because they’re in a rush to get to the next job is scary
Paul Murden wrote:
Really terrifying
Paul Murden wrote:
Yeah, the slap on the back in the staff canteen and the ‘Andy, ah’ve told ye: cyclists are only fifty fackin’ points. Get a fackin’ ped next time, innit?’.
I can sense the driver’s contrition from here.
I can see how you’d catch a
I can see how you’d catch a bungee cord or something else loose in your cassette (happened to me once…) – but a phone?!
Yikes! as Shaggy (the cartoon
Yikes! as Shaggy (the cartoon character, not the reggae artist) would say. That was scary. Driver thought he could get away with it too, except for meddling kids and their cameras. Hopefully a NIP will be dropping through his letterbox soon.
I was thinking how the hell too… My guess: it was half shoved into the back pocket of jeans, falls out, maybe catches a spoke and/or chain stay, rotates around landing on the lower part of the chain, and gets pulled inexorably towards the jockey wheels just like 007 strapped to a bandsaw table or something. But unlike Bond, unable to get free in time.
Impressive fail, though.
The truck company may have
The truck company may have taken action, but the fact that it has been reported to the police gives me hope that this driver will receive some kind of punishment for quite deliberately putting another human being’s life at risk. Clearly not responsible enough to be in charge of a lethal weapon.
The twitter feed comments are almost completely supportive of the cyclist, with only one gammon in evidence, and it’s interesting that the feed contains a request from the police to report the incident.
Given that I’ve been told
Given that I’ve been told today by the police they are only going to offer a driver education course to the driver who ran in to the back of me at 50mph, I’m not surprised drivers think they can get away with murder.
The Twitter accounts identifiest the vehicle as belonging to Volume Metric Concrete Ltd. (https://www.vmcltd.com/). Would advise that people should, even though they say they’ll dealt with it, contact the company and their MPs expressing their disgust – especially as this is Road Safety Week. Ask the company how many vulnerable road users they’ve killed over the last few years.
gcommie wrote:
Don’t accept it and make an official complaint. Basically this is perverting the course of justice, if someone slammed into the back of a poice officer on duty at that speed all hell would break loose and it’d be dangerous driving/attempted murder etc.
Far too often police are a bunch of scumbags not prepared to enforce the law/keep the peace, I have no respect for them sadly
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Have been in touch with them asking about the process they’ve used and the reasoning/logic behind the dession. Pending what they say will be pursuing this further with a formal complaint as you’re not the only one who feels the police don’t take road safety seriously – other than, as you say, unless it happens to one of them.
Have also enquired with the Cyclists’ Defence Fund as to the process of bringing a private prosecution. Will look to have a day in court, and the press, one way or the other.
Yep as another poster
Yep as another poster comments, skip lorries and tipper trucks are a particular hazard to other road users. There’s a reason for this as the drivers are basically paid by the load, so are trying to get from A to B as quickly as possible. Not all the firms are the same. Some have made real efforts to improve safety. Some haven’t. For this latter category, it’s of note that there are some firms involved in repeat offences. Some ‘phoenix’ firms close up shop and then reopen for business again with a similar name shortly after with a son or daughter or other relative being named as director. For these last, there may or may not be some very unsavoury links as well.
I think I have been banned
I think I have been banned from the DM, whenever I send a positive cycling comment it never gets shown.
kingleo wrote:
Welcome to the club. Nice to know that DM readers are too sensitive to read posts from cyclists.
kingleo wrote:
Remember that there are two types of Daily Mail article: premoderated and post-moderated. If it’s an article involving children, Islam, Israel or – curiously – Chloe Madeley (I can only imagine that her father has threatened to sue them enough that they’re very cautious about what they allow as comments), it will be pre-moderated. For post-moderation, you can usually get away with a lot more, but remember that they have a filter that will remove ‘naughty’ words automatically. The usual stuff like ‘c**t’, ‘bastard’, ‘pædophile’ etc will all prevent your post from appearing. Curiously, the words ‘Dacre’ and ‘editor’ used to be banned during the reign of that particular pile of subhuman filth. I’ve not tested if this is still the case.
Remember also that the VPN and TOR will afford you a certain degree of anonymity, but I would caution against doing something like threatening to kill the Prime Minister or something similar. I feel sure that they would expend the effort to find you, if you did so.
That is unbelievably
That is unbelievably frightening! The number of these reports warrants urgent attention by the judiciary; we simply must have severe punishments given out to these offenders in the same way as drink-driving offences and for those convicted for using mobile phones while driving and causing accidents. Bad driving which threatens vulnerable road users also needs to be made as anti-social and stigmatised as in the way for drink-driving. Cycling organisations and the responsible press need to get aboard this issue and press for an educational change in the way drivers treat cyclists – in other words we need complete reform and a big noise made about it. We simply cannot stand by anymore accepting the victim blaming handed out by motorists and the daily abuse given out by them. I have sent 3 reports to Hampshire police in the last 3 weeks for close passes against me which were not as bad as the one portrayed here – nothing heard back yet. I am also going to write to my local MP outlining the issue and demanding that serious consideration be given to greater and more wide-ranging punishment of motorists who abuse the safety of cyclists. I am not going to accept the childish arguments of the anti-cyclist brigade of cyclists jumping red lights, no ‘road tax’, no insurance, no lights, no hi-vis clothing etc.
Having had an email reply
Having had an email reply from a Mr J Sing, Operations Manager of VMC Ltd. to an enquiry about how many road users their drivers have killed or injured, the driver in question was supposedly dismissed yesterday.
Mr Sing’s response was very defensive. This may be in part due to the number of enquiries they have ‘received for the last 24 hrs’, but also came across as though the company does not take its corporate and legal responsibilities seriously.
Anyone got any contacts in the local media in Kent, as they may be interested in the company’s response.
I bet that stag doesn’t even
I bet that stag doesn’t even pay roe tax.
Personally, I’d have moved
Personally, I’d have moved left out into the lane to take any doubt out of the morons mind. That was an absolute Cnut pass by the truck. As for “there’s a cycle lane, use it” the cyclist was clearly riding way faster than the 12 mph maximum guideline / law applicable to paths / cycle lanes, so they can shove that up their arse as well.