Danish pro breaks leg on dancefloor; Great hack to check bike path smoothness; Xmas goodwill suggestion; Deliveroo cyclist filmed colliding with pedestrian; 5-year-olds verbally abused for cycling in park; Muc-Off tubeless launch + more on the live blog

36 thoughts on “Danish pro breaks leg on dancefloor; Great hack to check bike path smoothness; Xmas goodwill suggestion; Deliveroo cyclist filmed colliding with pedestrian; 5-year-olds verbally abused for cycling in park; Muc-Off tubeless launch + more on the live blog”

1. “A North Yorkshire Police

   “A North Yorkshire Police collision investigator claimed that a peaked baseball cap Mr Marron was wearing may have obscured his view of the parked BMW he crashed into, and that the dropped handlebar bike “encouraged riders to look down rather than up.” ​

    

   I bet a million pounds that this investigator has never worn a baseball cap whilst riding on the drops. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • the little onion wrote:

     “A North Yorkshire Police collision investigator claimed that a peaked baseball cap Mr Marron was wearing may have obscured his view of the parked BMW he crashed into, and that the dropped handlebar bike “encouraged riders to look down rather than up.” ​

      

     I bet a million pounds that this investigator has never worn a baseball cap whilst riding on the drops. 

     — the little onion

     I stopped cycling in baseball caps and switched to proper cycling caps decades ago because I couldn’t see properly wearing a baseball cap. Cycling caps are the way they are for good practical reasons.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. Has this investigator ever

   Has this investigator ever cycled on dropped handlebars or indeed ever cycled, more like.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. Typical entitled 5-year olds.

   Typical entitled 5-year olds. They come round our parks, terrorising the adults with their reckless speeding and are often noisy. How dare they think that they’re too good to be sat in traffic, breathing a bit of pollution and watching the world through a window!

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. “The coroner said highways
   “The coroner said highways officials had investigated whether the proximity of a cycle lane to a residents’ parking bay where the BMW was parked had been a factor in the accident; they also noted that Mr Marron had been cycling without a helmet, on a bike borrowed from a friend and was “travelling neither quickly nor slowly” before he crashed.”

   Er that cleared that up then????

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Cycle Route 52 is at either

   Cycle Route 52 is at either side of Abbey Fields Park so in a land of joined up thinking you’d expect to be able to ride through the park!

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • mikepridmorewood wrote:

     Cycle Route 52 is at either side of Abbey Fields Park so in a land of joined up thinking you’d expect to be able to ride through the park!

     (map)

     — mikepridmorewood

     Oh that is just absolutely ridiculous! 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • mikepridmorewood wrote:

     Cycle Route 52 is at either side of Abbey Fields Park so in a land of joined up thinking you’d expect to be able to ride through the park!

      

     — mikepridmorewood

     As always, nothing is simple. Its crap that you can’t ride through the park, however some of the paths are narrow and on a steep descent (south side of the park) I can see how it wouldn’t be safe to mix with pedestrians in those places, however, it’s nothing that widening the paths wouldn’t instantly mitigate.

     There’s a consultation/survey going on about Abbey Fields at the moment, feel free to fill it in and tick the cycling boxes –  https://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20814/for_our_future/1463/fields_for_our_future

      

     Edit – I’ve just read some of the comments on FB opposed to cycling in the park – PLEASE DO fill in the survey like a local and tell them you think a cycling provision is required. 

     Example

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. “Won’t somebody think of the

   “Won’t somebody think of the children???”

    

   (somebody had to say it  )

    

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. As someone commented on the

   As someone commented on the twitter feed, that the kids are forced to wear hi-vis and helmets just shows you the mentality towards cycling/safety. My grandson (6) cycles to school, only a few hundred yards mind on the pavement with his dad but all but one of the kids that do cycle (5-10 year olds) don’t wear hi-vis or helmets from what I’ve seen.

   However increasingly head teachers are forcing kids to wear otherwise they are banned from cycling to school, discrimination at its ugliest, and we wonder why cycling to schools has dropped off a cliff even since the early 2000s.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

     As someone commented on the twitter feed, that the kids are forced to wear hi-vis and helmets just shows you the mentality towards cycling/safety. My grandson (6) cycles to school, only a few hundred yards mind on the pavement with his dad but all but one of the kids that do cycle (5-10 year olds) don’t wear hi-vis or helmets from what I’ve seen.

     However increasingly head teachers are forcing kids to wear otherwise they are banned from cycling to school, discrimination at its ugliest, and we wonder why cycling to schools has dropped off a cliff even since the early 2000s.

     — CyclingInBeastMode

     Many more of the kids at my daughter’s junior school scooter there than cycle – 99% in helmets. Only a couple of the cyclists wear hi-viz, largely because they are on tandems/tagalongs on the road with a parent, rather than on the pavement. I’m not aware the school has any policy on what you wear to ride in – only that you walk once on the premises.

     Of the kids around here at the older schools, cycle clothing seems to consist of navy blazers and black jackets for the lads and helmets are generally an ornament for the handlebars – presumably worn only in sight of the parents/schools. The few girls I see cycling tend to wear brighter jackets, so a bit more visible, and have helmets on. I’d like to see more lights on the bikes in these dark mornings/evenings, as that seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, but, frankly, anyone travelling around during the school run times can reasonably be expected to be extra vigilant for children heading to/from school, regardless of what they’re wearing. Fortunately, the main road here has quite wide shared use pavements for much of it and they tend to use them, although there is a painted cycle lane on the road, too.

     I did stop one lad last week, but only to tell him his forks were on backwards!. He didn’t believe me, as it’s apparently how the bike came in the box, so I told him to have a look at his mate’s bikes and online.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. So everyone opposes the new

   So everyone opposes the new Silvertown tunnel, it goes against the mayor’s declaration of a climate emergency, it won’t actually solve the problem it is supposed to and will actually make things worse, it is incredibly bad value for money and the billion quid would be better spent on literally anything else, but the mayor wants to go ahead anyway.  Is he deliberately trying not to get elected again, or what is the real reason behind this absurd, illogical, insane decision?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     So everyone opposes the new Silvertown tunnel, it goes against the mayor’s declaration of a climate emergency, it won’t actually solve the problem it is supposed to and will actually make things worse, it is incredibly bad value for money and the billion quid would be better spent on literally anything else, but the mayor wants to go ahead anyway.  Is he deliberately trying not to get elected again, or what is the real reason behind this absurd, illogical, insane decision?

     — burtthebike

     MOAR CARZ

     Log In or Register to post comments

9. “The judge ruled that bike

   “The judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”​”

   This was was an unbelievably stupid thing to say, by definition you can’t expect the unexpected – I’d have been serverly tempted to say “In that case, I change my story I deliberately ran them down because they may have been about to pull out a gun and open fire.” I mean if we are to expect the unexpected.

   Also where do you draw a line on dooring incidents, if you hit the car door is it the car occupants fault, but if you hit the person stepping out is it now the cyclists?

   It’s dangerous to say that any person can do no wrong, just because they happen to be the more vulnerable party in the incident.

   This isn’t a comment on this particular incident – I haven’t seen the vid yet – but more in general.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Re Deliveroo Rider: –

     Re Deliveroo Rider: –

     It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). But then so did the car and Bus on the opposite  side so she was lucky she wasn’t crossing there. She was also about 2 yards the other side of the crossing area and probably had already gambled on the change or was crossing as traffic was at a standstill and lights coincidentally changed. 

     He actually stopped the bike in time but trying to recover his balance (top heavy bag(?) means he seems to hit her with his shoulder. One of those that will be interpreted either way depending on beliefs and agenda but something that was avoidable from both parties and luckily in this case, probably led to nothing more then some dirty clothes. 

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

       Re Deliveroo Rider: –

       It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
        

       — AlsoSomniloquism

       That’s a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I’ve ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • mpdouglas wrote:

         Re Deliveroo Rider: –

         It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
          

         — mpdouglas

         That’s a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I’ve ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

         — AlsoSomniloquism

          

         It’s a particully lethal junction for people stepping out without looking too. Everyone has it wrong, its the motors fault for blocking the junction, obscuring visability for everyone and in violation of the highway code.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • mpdouglas wrote:

         Re Deliveroo Rider: –

         It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
          

         — mpdouglas

         That’s a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I’ve ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

         — AlsoSomniloquism

         It looks like this is the area where the filming occurred. The crossing lights showing green on the far side do cross diagonally so should be this same one unless it has all changed in the year since google view last went through. However I’m aware in some busy junctions in London that the green man appears and is also replaced straight away with a countdown so the cyclist and far vehicles might have been Amber gambling rather the RLJ. Not saying either is in the right though. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • kt26 wrote:

     “The judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”​”

     This was was an unbelievably stupid thing to say, by definition you can’t expect the unexpected – I’d have been serverly tempted to say “In that case, I change my story I deliberately ran them down because they may have been about to pull out a gun and open fire.” I mean if we are to expect the unexpected.

     Also where do you draw a line on dooring incidents, if you hit the car door is it the car occupants fault, but if you hit the person stepping out is it now the cyclists?

     It’s dangerous to say that any person can do no wrong, just because they happen to be the more vulnerable party in the incident.

     This isn’t a comment on this particular incident – I haven’t seen the vid yet – but more in general.

     — kt26

     Hmm, it also isn’t a principle that seems to be invoked against drivers, at least not consistently. It’s apparently OK for drivers to be surprised by such things as ‘the sun being in the sky’ and ‘a cyclist being in the road ahead of them’.

     (Also, does that principle apply to the story on here a while back with the cyclist riding over a zebra crossing at speed?)

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Looks like the cyclist made a

    Looks like the cyclist made a point of using his shoulder against the pedestrian. It wasn’t a great place to cross, but the cyclist could have avoided her.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. That pedestrian was wearing

    That pedestrian was wearing black and didn’t have any lights on.  No wonder the cyclist hit her!

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • harragan wrote:

      That pedestrian was wearing black and didn’t have any lights on.  No wonder the cyclist hit her!

      — harragan

      Agreed. I’d say she’s extremely lucky to have survived, since she also wasn’t wearing a helmet.

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. Peted76 tried to fill it in,
    Peted76 tried to fill it in, but for someone who’s never been there it’s pretty impossible.

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. I like the transformer

    I like the transformer branding on the tiny ebike.

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. Are we sure ‘she’ isn’t Dom

    Are we sure ‘she’ isn’t Dom Jolly or Beadle, look at the scurry across and noises (amongst apparent silence) in fact she is a cyborg!

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. Khan taking the route-of
    Khan taking the route-of-least-resistance and sucking up to those he sees as powerful, as usual. That seems to be his defining characteristic, going right back to his not blocking the garden-bridge project when he had the chance very early on, but only when it had become obviously unviable and he felt nobody could criticise him for doing so.

    How come we can afford £1billion for a motor-traffic tunnel, but the cycling/pedestrian bridge had to be cancelled because it was projected to go way over the £300million budgeted? And will this road tunnel be cancelled when it, inevitably, goes over budget?

    (Furthermore, as an aside, I still want to know how come the Woolwich and Greenwich tunnels were built for £10million each in today’s money _after allowing for 100 years of inflation_, when we apparently can’t build a crossing for less than half a billion these days? )

    Log In or Register to post comments

16. r e Judge’s comments ” re

    r e Judge’s comments ” re Judge’s comments about expecting the unexpected. It’s not daft at all. We cyclists expect motorists, fellow cyclists and pedestrians to obey the rules and laws of the road , but do we often act with one eye on our fellow road users acting unexpectedly?  Yes, your bloomin right we do . Expecting or if you’d prefer a different turn of phrase, “being aware people may act in unexpected ways ” is a matter of course everyday cycling.  When you think about it, our road layouts, signage and rules all direct people to adopt an “expected” pattern of behaviour and we are mostly safe to assume that’s what will happen. Sadly cyclist often come off worse when people act differently to the way signs and road layouts direct them . So we do need to expect the unexpected, as opposed to the unimaginable (like aliens landing on your head) 

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. I have unsubscribed from

    I have unsubscribed from every email that I have received this week with Black Friday in the subject. I’m sure I won’t miss a ‘deal’ on anything I’d actually want to buy.

    Log In or Register to post comments

18. “The judge ruled that bike

    “The judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”​”

    (with apologies to Monty python’s FC) Much like the spanish inquistion!

    Log In or Register to post comments

19. Rule 170 of The Highway Code

    Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: “Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

     

    This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • andyp363 wrote:

      Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: “Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

       

      This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

      — andyp363

      exactly, the HC rule doesn’t pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

      The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police’s view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

        Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: “Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

         

        This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

        — CyclingInBeastMode

        exactly, the HC rule doesn’t pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

        The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police’s view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

        — andyp363

        50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user.

        Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing ‘no harm done’ and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

          Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: “Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

           

          This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

          — FluffyKittenofTindalos

          exactly, the HC rule doesn’t pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

          The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police’s view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

          — CyclingInBeastMode 50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user. Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing ‘no harm done’ and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.— andyp363

          And it was, the cyclist stopped with such force having to react to anothers reckless action that gave them not enough time to react that they came off their bike. They came round the bend at a low speed taking the burden of responsibility and still they had no chance to come to a stop, how much more burden do we place on another vulnerable road user?

          Also how fast do you think that a human brain can respond to unexpected situations, how long does it take for the brakes to come on after you start pulling them or for your action of steering to become effective, it’s not instantaneous!

          If we push all the responsibility onto one road user type which currently happens to people on bikes both not to harm or get harmed, then we create a massively inequitable situation. This is played out every day in the media and bby the words of the police, judges, social media and so on, even down to outcomes in criminal cases! Cyclists are demonised and blamed at every avenue, there’s one rule for everyone else and a totally different set of rules/set of responsibilities for people on bikes.

          When we know that even through the bent discriminatory police forces investigations that the majority of deaths of pedestrians are actually at fault peds and not people on bikes then we can safely say that it’s the pedestrians who need to take more responsibility for their actions. 

          The way things are we might as well give up cycling completely to avoid being blamed for incidents that even a computer controlled machine would not be able to avoid.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

            Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: “Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

             

            This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

            — CyclingInBeastMode

            exactly, the HC rule doesn’t pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

            The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police’s view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

            — FluffyKittenofTindalos

            50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user. Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing ‘no harm done’ and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.

            — CyclingInBeastMode

            And it was, the cyclist stopped with such force having to react to anothers reckless action that gave them not enough time to react that they came off their bike. They came round the bend at a low speed taking the burden of responsibility and still they had no chance to come to a stop, how much more burden do we place on another vulnerable road user?

            Also how fast do you think that a human brain can respond to unexpected situations, how long does it take for the brakes to come on after you start pulling them or for your action of steering to become effective, it’s not instantaneous!

            If we push all the responsibility onto one road user type which currently happens to people on bikes both not to harm or get harmed, then we create a massively inequitable situation. This is played out every day in the media and bby the words of the police, judges, social media and so on, even down to outcomes in criminal cases! Cyclists are demonised and blamed at every avenue, there’s one rule for everyone else and a totally different set of rules/set of responsibilities for people on bikes.

            When we know that even through the bent discriminatory police forces investigations that the majority of deaths of pedestrians are actually at fault peds and not people on bikes then we can safely say that it’s the pedestrians who need to take more responsibility for their actions. 

            The way things are we might as well give up cycling completely to avoid being blamed for incidents that even a computer controlled machine would not be able to avoid.

            — andyp363

            Maybe not such a great idea to be carrying such an unwieldy and heavy payload in a demonstrably dangerous fashion?

20. Bike was stationary in impact

    Bike was stationary in impact, it was his momentum / shoulder that knocked her over as she was already offbalance herself. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

21. The Program is on BBC2 right

    The Program is on BBC2 right now.

    Might be on iPlayer.

    David Walsh is being played by Chris O’Dowd.

    Wiki says it was based on Seven Deadly Sins which I though was fantastic, and couldn’t put down.  I will give the film a go.

    It was alright I suppose, it lacked the excitement, the intrigue of the book.  The complexity was missing, difficult to do in 95 minutes.

     

    Log In or Register to post comments