Please note that our live blog can sometimes be slow to load. If it seems to be taking way too long, please refresh you browser.
Live blog: Sustrans launch major overhaul of National Cycle Network; “It’s just not true to say the cause of congestion is cyclists,” says Mayor of London + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Fri, Nov 30, 2018 14:56
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.
14 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.
14 thoughts on “Live blog: Sustrans launch major overhaul of National Cycle Network; “It’s just not true to say the cause of congestion is cyclists,” says Mayor of London + more”
“..the Association of British
“..the Association of British Insurers (ABI) says that a widely reported claim last week by the government that drivers who undertake cycle awareness training will benefit from lower motor insurance premiums is nonsense.”
I find that hard to believe. Surely the government wouldn’t lie to us? And I’m sure the 2014 review of road laws will be with us any day.
The news about the Unblock the Embankment Campaign is yet another demonstration of special interest groups hijacking our so-called democracy, a bit like fracking and Brexit. The majority of people support more spending on cycling and walking, but all the money goes on massive road schemes and ego-schemes like HS2.
Quote:
Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety… But I guess “general road safety” isn’t a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.
brooksby wrote:
Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety… But I guess “general road safety” isn’t a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.
If it was the have an effect on general road safety ( I’m not arguing that it woudn’t) the Government should be paying for it as they are the ones who would be benefiting from it, not expect the insurance industry to pay for it, for ( as it turns out) no benefit to the industry.
marcswales wrote:
The Government’s money is our money, from taxes.
So, if we want general road safety then we should pay for it as we would be the ones benefiting from it. Rather than expecting the insurance industry to pay for it because they’re the ones who would benefit (since they wouldn’t have to pay out so many claims…?).
brooksby wrote:
Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety… But I guess “general road safety” isn’t a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.
It may not have much of an impact on insurance rates in general, but on a personal level, if you’ve taken the course you would presumably be a better driver, therefore avoid premium rate increases by avoiding accidents?
I work in the insurance
I work in the insurance industry and the first we heard of discounts for those who complete the bikeability course was when we read it in the press; the industry weren’t consulted prior to the paper being published. Surely, asking the industry what could be done should have been the starting point?
scouser_andy wrote:
Of course, ask insurers and they are bound to say ‘We aren’t paying for this,’ aren’t they? Don’t be fooled — this is just their first shot in a negotiation.
But there will probably be a proper consultation, when the industry can have their say and you’ll see how much public support there is for the idea. If enough people think it’s worth taking the training to get the discount, it’s more likely to happen, and the industry would be hard-pressed to argue against so many of their own customers. So they try to shoot it down before the idea gets established. Standard tactics.
If, to be fair, they do have a point, the government should waive insurance tax for people who have been trained. That is entirely in the government’s hands.
The Telegraph report is
The Telegraph report is quoting a press release from the ABI last week – as the industry wasn’t consulted then the other option is that the Government rebate part of the tax on insurance policies to those that qualify (and those that can manage a way to fraud the system)
Lots of nice words in that
Lots of nice words in that cycling safety review document – but virually nothing on funding. Not talking to the insurers in advance of the proposal kinda shows up how much of a priority this cycling review is for the DfT……
Sadiq – what tosh, can’t you
Sadiq – what tosh, can’t you see all those queues are queues of bikes ? All the cars have got home already as they are such space efficient vehicles, while the inneficient cycles are clogging up the roads. . . . . . Oh wait, I may have got those two means of transport transposed there.
Increased numbers of vans, and particularly PHVs (whom oddly get their licence to operate in the city from Sadiq’s TfL) don’t help.
Multiple “local collection points” across the central areas so people can collect parcels on their way to the tube home, and stopping the vast number of short stop/start runs by mainly diesel vans would be a big help. Offering incentives to the delivery firms to swap over to electric vans where they have to deliver in a stop/start cycle. And cutting the numbers of PHVs in the centre would reduce queues and make cycling a lot less dangerous.
StuInNorway wrote:
Except that’s not strictly true about the PHV licenses, there was a report earlier this year saying that there’s a loophole in the law being exploited by PHV operators which allows them to get a license elsewhere (say, Luton), but then only ever operate in London.
alexb wrote:
Time to introduce proper controls on that then…. along the lines of foreign truckers coming into Norway, they are allowed 3 internal jobs within a week before they leave the country again, to stop companies flagging out their fleet to eastern Europe and paying them a pittance, and on the jobs within Norway they have to pay the Norwegian minimum wage (about 6x what the eastern europeans are on)
I thought that looked more
I thought that looked more like a weasel.
If only there was a decent way to tell the difference…
The Sustrans story sums up
The Sustrans story sums up sublimely the problem with our transport system today; the government spends hundreds of billions of pounds of our money on road and rail schemes with very little benefit to society or public support, while walking and cycling schemes with absolutely huge benefits and massive public support are left to a charity.
Sheer lunacy and there is something profoundly wrong with our system of government.