Jeremy Vine almost hacked down by ‘clown’ in a car; Urán sorry for baby blunder; Brit drivers set for tougher phone rules; UK’s longest bike path?; Porsche buy into e-bikes; What happened to pedal cars?; Cyclist frees goat + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
All hail this lycra-clad animal liberator!
What a nice post to get the day off to a positive start!
If proof were ever needed that cyclists are a great bunch, this clip of a fearless chap freeing a mountain goat (or is it a sheep?) who’d got its horn stuck around a tree would certainly be up there.
We raised our hands in celebration just like he did when the drama reached its conclusion. 🙌
Cyclist frees a mountain goat that got its horns trapped around a tree. pic.twitter.com/ycaXksAakk
— The Entertainer.🧑🎤 (@haverkamp_wiebe) November 19, 2021
(Pedal) power to the people
Posts like this warm our cockles on a cold Friday in November!
Being part of a peloton on the way to work looks way more fun than being stuck in a traffic jam 🚴♂️🚴🚴♀️.
This is what happens when you put in cycling infrastructure.
We need safe routes for people cycling all across the city – to combat the climate emergency, to help Londoners to get exercise in their daily lives and to reduce air pollution and congestion. pic.twitter.com/4G7RQf0qDS
— London Cycles (@London_Cycles) November 19, 2021
Hoy backs new track cycling series
Did you watch the first round of the UCI Track Champions League in Majorca earlier this month?
This glitzy and glamorous version of track cycling is aiming to revolutionise the sport and turn its stars into household names.
The second round takes place in Lithuania next weekend before heading to London in December and Sir Chris Hoy has been signing its praises.
He told The Scotsman: “It’s long overdue to have a competition series for the top riders. You can see how excited they were [in Majorca] and it’s only going to get bigger.
“The condensed three-hour session format, TV graphics, the tech behind it and heart-rate and power data from the riders like is taking it to the next level – a bit like Sky coverage did with Formula One.”
Do you follow track cycling? If so, do you think the series has a bright and long-term future?
Whatever happened to the pedal car??
Why did this innovative ‘horseless carriage’ never take off?
✅ You can carry it up the stairs
✅ You can use the larder as a garage for it
✅ The materials to build it cost less than a fiver
✅ The only overheads are the occasional spot of oil and some imbrication for those poor old legs.
What’s not to love?
@andyq9
Porsche move into e-bikes
Porsche has furthered its move into the world of electric bikes by taking over e-bike manufacturer Greyp.
The German brand already owned 10% of Greyp but are now majority shareholders and seemingly want a larger piece of the rapidly expanding e-bike market.
They launched the Porsche eBike Sport and Cross models earlier this year and will now begin working on updating those models as part of a €15 billion investment in new technology over the next five years.
What are your thoughts on this? Should car manufacturers be investing in bike companies? Will having major players like Porsche in the e-cycling market help raise the bar even further?
Answers in the comments section below please!
What’s the UK’s longest traffic-free cycle path (excluding MTB-type trails)?
— 🚲 Will is too honest to ever be an MP 🇬🇧🇿🇦 (@WilliamNB) November 19, 2021
This post has caused great discussion among the road.cc editorial team.
Our suggestions included the High Peak Trail onto the Tissington Trail in the Peak Distrcit, the Tarka Trail which traverses North Devon and Exmoor, and the Ystwyth Trail in Wales, but can you top those?
UK drivers set for tougher rules on phone usage
There can’t be many things more infuriating when you’re out on the road than seeing a driver messing about with their phone.
Well those drivers could now be in for a £200 fine and get six points on their licence after the UK Government announced plans today to toughen road safety laws.
The BBC are reporting UK drivers will be banned from filming, taking photos, searching playlists and playing games on hand-held devices from next year (texting and calling on hand-helds is already illegal), and transport secretary Grant Shapps has said it will become easier to prosecute offenders.
The Highway Code is going to be updated to reflect the new rules but motorists will still be allowed to use hands-free devices while driving, if it’s secured in a cradle, and make contactless payments while stationary.
Do you think these measures will make roads safer for cyclists? Let us know in the comments section below.
Urán apologises for contentious training clip with daughter strapped to his chest
Professional cyclist Rigoberto Urán has returned to social media to make what looks like a slightly tongue-in-cheek apology for nearly breaking the internet a few days ago when he published a video of himself riding with his baby daughter strapped to his chest.
We covered the story in this very blog so only thought it decent to offer him the right of reply.
This time around we find the Colombian rider in his jacuzzi at home promising “I won’t do it again” whilst his daughter floats around in front of him wearing the same sunglasses she was donning in the now-deleted video which caused such a stir.
Unfortunately, we don’t speak fluent Spanish so can’t understand everything he’s saying, but in his accompanying post he writes “I screwed up, I won’t do it again 🙏 it’s been a while since I was scolded so much 😭.”
Comedian or clown? We’ll leave it for you to decide:
We have a winner!
Earlier today we asked for your help in answering @WillamNB’s question on Twitter where he asked “What’s the UK’s longest traffic-free cycle path (excluding MTB-type trails)?”
Well, step forward Mr Rob Ainsley who emailed in to tell us it’s the 56-mile towpath along the Forth & Clyde and Union Canals between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sustrans appears to back this up and we have absolutely no reason to doubt it, so hats off to you Rob!
He also mentioned it’s all smooth, car-free tarmac so we’re now champing at the bit to give it a try.
Jeremy Vine almost hacked down by 'clown' in a car
Jeremy Vine has long been fighting the good fight for cycle safety but he nearly came a cropper today courtesy of one totally oblivious motorist.
Fortunately the BBC Radio 2 presenter had his helmet camera on so was able to capture not one, but two major misdemeanours by the errant driver and their equally ignorant passenger which are now in the process of going viral across the internet.
Fair play to the bystander who backed him up and we hope the ‘clown of the day’ will learn from his newfound infamy.
His position in the cycle box should have been a clue … Friday’s Clown Of The Day pic.twitter.com/GXsdraLTe1
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) November 19, 2021
19 November 2021, 09:21
19 November 2021, 09:21
Another day, another near miss...
Near Miss of the Day 662: Close pass bus driver forces oncoming driver to stop
Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today it's Oxfordshire
19 November 2021, 09:21
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 £2.49. 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.
Nick has been entrenched in the world professional cycling since 2010. He spent six and a half years with Team Sky before becoming Communications Manager for both the Tour de Yorkshire and Yorkshire 2019 UCI Road World Championships. Since then he has worked for Velon and Rouleur and is now part of the team at road.cc. Still based in Yorkshire, he rides his road bike as much as he can, although those opportunities have been significantly diminished since becoming a father three years ago.
108 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
My first road bike was a Raleigh, too. A 1976 Raleigh Record. I dragged it out of the shed a few years ago and got it working again. 14kg it weighed! A 52/42 crank and a 14-28 five speed 'cluster' at the back made hills pretty hard work...
@Destroyer666 Campag cranks use replaceable standard cartridge bearings, pressed onto the axles. They're a slightly unusual size but you can find them easily enough on bearing specialist sites or elsewhere.
More use of compulsory purchase is needed. Active travel route providers need the same kind of financial and legal power that Highways England and analogous bodies have. On the other side to the jam factory, by the junction in Histon, the busway path narrows as it goes past the bus stop and housing. It is the kind of pinch point where enforcement of the limit is most likely.
Yes. Local users of the maintenance track have said such things. Continuing to say them to decision makers is likely to encourage better decisions.
A bit late to this article but I can sadly confirm what they found, since my daughter started riding out more on her own in the last year. The amount of comments shouted at her on most solo rides is thoroughly depressing. And it is all men/boys. I am glad it doesn't stop her going out, but what goes through their brains to think it is OK to harass her? It's beyond me, but I guess some of us seem revel in our ignorance.
@Mr Blackbird I read "Netherlands" first. But then I realized a hole in the road eliminated that possibility. The bastards seem to repair them before they appear!
@Bungle_52 And obviously the cyclist was obstructing the lorry's movement. Do you realize how much CO2 it takes to re-accelerate that lorry?!
Believe it or not, Raleigh was a major cultural icon in the USA also - at least for serious cyclists of my age. My first geared bike was a Robin Hood three-speed. I longed for a Chopper, but it was never to be. Then, in 1970, my father bought himself a Raleigh Gran Sports. It was third in line of the racing bikes in the US catalog. Luckily for me, my father discovered that he was afraid of cars. So in 1974, when I was 13, he gave that bike to me. I became obsessed. It had 531 tubing. It was chrome. I was in love. I eventually ended up road racing from the late 1978-1982. Then I moved to NYC to be a junior "executive" (a YUPPIE). I left that bike with my parents in the suburbs where it would be safe and bought a series of NYC-safe bikes - two of which were stolen. That bike had legs. I eventually started riding it again in the 2000s once I was in the suburbs. Eventually it sat and rusted. Finally in 2017 I started a restoration project to resurrect it into a city bike. It took two years to complete. That bike is still with me today. My faithful Raleigh. When I ride it, I am in love.
@Rendel Harris I watched him at the world champs in Glasgow and he was never going to win but he still kept going around waving to fans and has always been a top pro who appreciates the fans.
Absolutely. And cycle ball (Radball). One for fixie fans. Oh, sorry, that should be on cycleball.cc ...
108 thoughts on “Jeremy Vine almost hacked down by ‘clown’ in a car; Urán sorry for baby blunder; Brit drivers set for tougher phone rules; UK’s longest bike path?; Porsche buy into e-bikes; What happened to pedal cars?; Cyclist frees goat + more on the live blog”
Wow! Braver than I would
Wow! Braver than I would have been…
Especially if he hears what
Especially if he hears what we do with chamois.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
(I’ll get my goat, I mean coat.)
Steve K wrote:
You risk being the butt of the joke..
Well there’s no need to bleat
Well there’s no need to bleat on about it.
I wonder if that was a stolen
I wonder if that was a stolen goat?
Apparently it’s a sheep and a
Apparently it’s a sheep and a jogger and it was at least 6 years ago, but other than that I think it is a great example of positive influence cyclists have on the world
Jammyb [at] hotmail.com wrote
Just to ram your point home, ewe can tell it’s a sheep because its tail points down (goat’s tails point up, sheep’s down – I thank QI for that bit of knowledge).
I thought sheep had wool, not
I thought sheep had wool, not down.
It’s still cycling-related,
It’s still cycling-related, though, in that it features a cross baa.
mdavidford wrote:
Chapeau for that one.
Agreed it’s a type of sheep –
Agreed it’s a type of sheep – a mouflon.
Re handheld phones – A well
Re handheld phones – This is a well-overdue overhaul of the rules to bring the law up to date for modern smartphones. Clearly it’s as dangerous to do any kind of activity on a phone – such as play game while driving or use the camera – as it is to make a call, usually more so. It was an odd anomaly that it wasn’t illegal in the first place.
Another welcome piece of legislation would also be to bring cyclists in-line with motoring laws regarding phones – it’s never been apparent to me why a cyclist should be able to ride down the road with a phone to their ear, as it’s both distracting and unsafe in the same way as it is for a motorist.
Motoring groups such as the AA were well behind the campaign to outlaw using phones while driving: “By making mobile phone use as socially unacceptable as drink-driving, we are taking big steps to make our roads safer”, said the president of the AA. It’s about time cycling websites campaigned for similar laws for cyclists.
Garage at Large wrote:
To be honest, I think cyclists are already as socially unacceptable as drink driving…
Garage at Large wrote:
If that is your genuine opinion then it’s also rather an odd anomaly that you have been vociferous in your spiteful and petty attacks on Mike (CyclingMikey) for catching people doing exactly what you claim to abhor, getting them prosecuted for it and raising the profile of the issue.
My issue with Cycling Mikey
My issue with Cycling Mikey has always been that I believe he is badly motivated, not to catch law-breaking motorists but for Youtube hits, self-publicity and personal gratification. Let’s not make this good news about him.
Garage at Large wrote:
He’s not, he’s a genuine guy who has worked hard to raise awareness of road safety following personal tragedy on the road. But a better description of you one couldn’t wish for.
The CyclingMikey who’s Father
The CyclingMikey who’s Father was killed by a drunk driver? That one? Are you sure about what you think his motivation for road safety might be?
They have been told that many
They have been told that many times but we all know their MO.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think this is the same writer who when a boxer was spotted doing some illegal phone use (he hadn’t even bothered to put a top on his car to hide it) hoped that CyclingMikey would get assaulted by same boxer. If I remember correctly I think he then suggested that he himself would act as a reserve if Eubank didn’t show (can’t be arsed to look up the thread)…
No, what happened was that
No, what happened was that mikey was bragging about being double-vaccinated, and I made a tongue in cheek joke that it would have been nice for Eubank to have given him a booster jab.
Hilarious pun, I’m sure you’d agree, but unfortunately one that the usual commenters twisted out of context to imply that I was hoping a member of the general public was assaulted by a professional boxer.
Garage at Large wrote:
So you weren’t saying that you were hoping a member of the general public was assaulted by a professional boxer? So you know that Eubank retrained as a vaccination nurse how, exactly?
TBF, he did say he would pay
TBF, he did say he would pay to watch this “third jab” so of course we should have all laughed along with it. And it was only his “opinion” before trying to state he said it in jest.
Of course the defense does fall apart when he seems to always indicate that cyclists deserve to be knocked off bikes at the hint of a bad word or gesture, and fully agreed with another poster that stated “if they were the farmer, the cyclist would be lucky to get away with only a scratched bike” during that article.
Not the first time that Boo, as both Boo and Nigel have stated a cyclist only films and publishes these incidents of law breaking for their youtube profiles and not actually for catching criminals even though most result in the drivers being punished.
Garage at Large wrote:
It isn’t an anomaly. The laws were written when mobile phones were literally phones, capable of making and receiving calls and texts and a few other things. As is so often the case, the law has been rendered outdated by the march of technology.
As other have said, the problem is not really the size of the penalty for being caught, it is that way too many drivers (quite correctly) identify that they are unlikely to be caught so will continue to do it, and continue to get away with it.
Until that is addressed I really have no interest in seeing the same rules apply to cyclists who, even in a distracted stated pose significantly less risk to other road users and, arguably more risk to themselves by riding distracted.
Too many people, as you demonstrated repeatedly, fall into the trap of thinking that equal is the same as equivalent. The law can treat drivers and cyclists equally without having equivalent laws imposed on them. Those laws need to be based on addressing the types and levels of risk posed by them on other road users, which are significantly different.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
I understand that you might find the trade-off between having a natter on your phone and having a nasty collision to be “worth it”, but you also have to accept that – for many people – the thing that puts them off cycling is the risk to their personal safety.
For the moment, let’s cast aside the unnecessary danger that a phone-toting cyclist poses to other vulnerable road users. Suppose a cyclist crashes and kills or seriously injures themselves as a result of being distracted by a mobile device. This person becomes a KSI, and these KSIs feed into national attitudes about the safety of cycling. So even though a cyclist might only do themselves harm in such a scenario, they are actually perpetrating psycological harm on the nation by making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is when performed in a safe manner.
Personally, I would not have
Personally, I would not have a problem with using a handheld phone whilst cycling being made illegal. However, I can also see why it’s not a priority. We are again seeing the false equivalence which says if a law applies to drivers then it must also apply to cyclists. The danger from cyclists using a mobile phone is tiny compared with the danger from drivers doing so. And where do you stop – should we also ban pedestrians using mobile phones whilst walking? A pedestrian could get seriously injured or killed whilst being distracted on their phone.
If we want to go further to mitigate the dangers of using phones whilst travelling, the actual next step (in terms of harm reduction) would be to ban the use of hands free phones – as research has shown that hands free calls can be as dangerous as hand held ones.
I’ve had a ped step out on me
I’ve had a ped step out on me whilst distracted by their phone. That put me atrisk as well as the ped.
Steve K wrote:
My “new” car has a bluetooth connection on the audio system which my phone connects to routing all calls via the incar mic and speakers, and with the answer/hang up controls on the steering wheel.
I can vouch for the one and only call I have taken using that system (from my wife) being way way more distracting than when she is sitting in the passenger seat.
As a result, I have turned off Bluetooth on the phone when driving and leave the thing in my laptop case.
better still, turn it to
better still, turn it to airplane mode, and save the battery and the ringing.
Especially when some people will try a second time after it rings to voicemail.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
It has long been established that talking to someone on the phone while driving is as dangerous as drink driving, and hands-free doesn’t change that. So, given that the government had the opportunity, again, to change the law banning such conversations and didn’t take it, again, I think we can be fairly sure that their statements that they take road safety seriously are complete, total and utter BS.
Just like everything else they say.
Pretty much in full agreement
Pretty much in full agreement with you on this. I think the time where phone use and cycling becomes an offence is when the modal share is at such a level that distracted cycling becomes a risk to other cyclists and we are nowhere near those kind of numbers.
Garage at Large wrote:
I rarely actually see anyone doing this. Genuinely. And those that I do see doing it are the same ones I also see pulling wheelies up the cycle lane and riding with their hands in their pockets rather than on the bars … I doubt it being illegal to use their phone would stop them doing it.
I never do it, and don’t need it to be made illegal to persuade me that I shouldn’t. Given the relative speed and the fact that cyclists are not “indoors”, the police will also find easier to enforce than the ban on drivers using them, and we can do without giving them another excuse not to focus on bad/distracted driving.
Garage at Large wrote:
Not an anomaly as such – more that the law was introduced when phones were more basic and they were mainly legislating against people making handheld phone calls. I suppose people could have been playing snake at the wheel back then, but I don’t recall noticing it much.
EDIT – sorry, just seen Jetmans Dad got there waaay before me
With reference to the use of
With reference to the use of a mobile to pay bills “whilst stationary” do they mean parked at the side of the road or just pulled up behind a red light?
Whilst I don’t like to be negative, I really can’t see how upping the fine/penalty is actually going to make a difference unless we start effectively policing the roads ie up council tax to pay for a much underated service. Here in Berkshire roads policing is now “shared” with Hampshire (two counties one Dept.) It’s enough to mke you cry!
I think this is meant to
I think this is meant to allow for contactless payments via androidpay / ApplePay at toll booths, carparks etc
The BBC’s article states it
The BBC’s article states it applies to making contactless payments “with a card reader” – i.e. you will need to be somewhere like a drive-thru where you pay by tapping your phone on a physical card reader. You still wouldn’t be allowed to use your phone to order things from Amazon whilst at the traffic lights.
The summary @gov.uk stated
The summary @gov.uk stated the pay exemption only applies to NFC tap to pay devices, such as Macdonalds or toll both.
You aren’t allowed to use
You aren’t allowed to use your phone if your behind the wheel, even if you’ve stopped at traffic lights. Legally, you need to be parked with the engine off and the handbrake on.
One plus point with the phone
One plus point with the phone changes. Cycling Mikey and the others doing good work getting bad and distracted drivers who kill off the road won’t need to get video evidence on how the phone is being used. Then they won’t be accused by the ignorant of trying to deliberately film into cars for other reasons.
Of course I wonder if someone will bring up uses on bikes for some reason when the far more people are distracted when they walk along a street staring at a screen then cycling with one.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
So many pedestrians seem to think it’s everyone else’s responsibility not to walk into them, rather than their responsiblity to look where they’re going!
Even during the height (I think we’re past the height, right?) of the pandemic, people still walking around looking at their phones not at where they’re walking or where other people are…
I’d be quite happy if they
I’d be quite happy if they applied the identical law to cyclists. If I’m using my mobile whilst cycling (I use it as a cycle computer / satnav) then it is securely attached in a Quadlock, same as in the car.
Yes, I’ve seen cyclists reach their phone out of their rear pocket to field a call one-handed whilst filtering through rush hour traffic other-handed. I admire their skill, and their stupidity.
Cyclist being nice to a
Cyclist being nice to a billygoat. The trolls won’t approve…
To be fair we have an
To be fair we have an individual here who will be ecstatic at this demonstration of altruistic behaviour.
It does occur to me that
It does occur to me that setting a new law, making an activity illegal, will make no difference whatsoever unless the new law is actually enforced. And to enforce it, aren’t we going to need police going around – er – enforcing it?
Although cyclecam/ dashcam
Although cyclecam/ dashcam footage should be more admissable now as the driver can’t argue that were using the screen as a mirror to add makeup or some other excuse not covered by “mobile communication” and forcing Mikey and others to have to show what the phone was being used for. Now it is in your hand whilst driving, against the law again.
Could always be done for
Could always be done for ‘without due care and attention’ though. The change just makes it explicit and presumably easier to process an FPN or NIP.
hirsute wrote:
A few of @CyclingMikey ‘s reports have failed because of no proof of active communication. I don’t understand why these drivers were not prosceuted for driving w’out due care instead?
Ethel Aardvark wrote:
Could always be done for ‘without due care and attention’ though. The change just makes it explicit and presumably easier to process an FPN or NIP.
— Ethel Aardvark A few of @CyclingMikey ‘s reports have failed because of no proof of active communication. I don’t understand why these drivers were not prosceuted for driving w’out due care instead?— hirsute
I don’t get it either. Driving whilst distracted is an offence in itself. I remember that there have been a number of situations where the police have successfully ticketed people who were doing things like eating a KitKat at traffic lights.
CPS says: “In cases where
CPS says: “In cases where there is uncertainty regarding the nature of the device, or dispute about whether it is being used, the alternative offence under Section 41(D)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle) may be preferred. In some circumstances the evidence may support a charge of careless or dangerous driving depending on the seriousness of the risk posed by the driving.” So I guess while mobile phone use can constitute one of the wider offences, it won’t always be a given.
hirsute wrote:
Isn’t the problem with that charge that the court is looking for you to have actually driven explicitly badly in order to consider you guilty? With this change, simply having the phone in your hand is enough, it doesn’t have to have had an actual tangible effect on the quality of your driving yet.
Eating bananas
Eating bananas
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/13356986.mum-fined-100-for-eating-a-banana-while-sat-in-traffic-on-barrack-road-in-christchurch/
“He (the officer) said I was driving without my hands on the wheel and was a danger to other drivers, but I said that was rubbish.”
Eating a banana I can
Eating a banana I can understand but if you were just throwing out the skin then I agree that’s rubbish
Give over.
Give over.
Cycling Mikey is going to catch everyone, everywhere.
Don’t forget all the things
Don’t forget all the things like speeding, driving while disqualified / without a licence etc. which suddenly appear in large numbers when you actually look e.g. on the close pass operations. And there’s the constant “but we have very serious penalties – 14 years! for death by dangerous” – ignoring the fact that these things have to be detected, actually charged, prosecuted and if necessary go through court, be successfully convicted of the offence. And at the end of all that a judge may impose a dummy punishment / a small fraction of the maximum possible, presumably because that’s kept for “monsters in human form” and one day one may appear…
Isn’t driving on the pavement / footway illegal also? Asking for almost every driver, ever…
chrisonatrike wrote:
— chrisonatrikeYes, but it has to be witnessed by a police officer. All those cars parked on the pavement got there by being pushed by the driver and his mates.
eburtthebike wrote:
Since s72 of the Highways Act 1835 says, “[If any person]… shall wilfully lead or drive any … carriage of any description…upon any such [footway]”, pushing the car onto the footway would still constitute an offence.
It’s debateable whether hiab-ing the car in place is ‘leading’. But since the carriageway would have to be pretty narrow to make parking on the footway remotely justifiable, the truck bearing the hiab would then have to be on the opposite footway to fit alongside the car’s carriageway position prior to lifting. It would then be necessary to have a large crane to put the hiab truck in place, and using the crane would probably require a highways permit.
It would be much simpler if it was accepted in law that the car shouldn’t be there, and that a NIP process is an appropriate measure to take.
Quote:
Are it?
GMBasix wrote:
Are it?
I think you’ll find it’s “am they”….
GMBasix wrote:
Are it?
Well, they’re certainly reporting some things, like HS2 no longer going to the places the government has promised to level up, but that’s pretty much the only form of transport other than electric cars they will report.
eburtthebike wrote:
My (pedantic) point is, it is reporting, since there is only one British Broadcasting Corporation.
GMBasix wrote:
But it can be conceptualised as a single corporate entity, or they can be coneptualised as many individuals engaged in a common endeavour. So both pronouns can be correct, depending on how you regard it/them.
mdavidford wrote:
In which case, “many individuals are reporting” would be acceptable. The BBC is a singular noun, however.
Surely the BBC gets to choose
Surely Aunty gets to choose their pronouns?
Sriracha wrote:
Yes, but not its verbs.
GMBasix wrote:
Yes, but not its verbs.
— SrirachaIt’s the subject that governs the verb.
marmotte27 wrote:
But who governs the governers?
mdavidford wrote:
They do; as I discovered when my complaint about their blatant helmet promotion got that far.
mdavidford wrote:
Not Paul Dacre, thankfully.
marmotte27 wrote:
But while people are allowed to chose their pronouns, I didn’t think chosing to be plural was on the table.
wycombewheeler wrote:
You didn’t know we were living in a pluralistic society these days?
GMBasix wrote:
The commentariat is diverse in its opinions.
GMBasix wrote:
Are it?
“My name is BBC”, he replied, “for we are many”.
[pedant on] “…
[pedant on] “….imbrication for those poor old legs.”
imbrication in American English
noun
1. an overlapping, as of tiles or scales
Maybe embrocation might work better. [pedant off]
You beat me to the pedantry
You beat me to the pedantry on this one, however as you didn’t include the dictionary definition for embrocation here goes:
embrocation
/ˌɛmbrəˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
a liquid for rubbing on the body to relieve pain from sprains and strains.
“a bottle of embrocation”
CygnusX1 wrote:
I was assuming that people knew what embrocation was.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well if it’s been a long trip and they’re dying for the loo that might help.
Do they actually need special
Do they actually need special rules on gadget use in vehicles? Is it not covered under driving without due care?
Its surprising, given that 6 points could be very costly, how many drivers you still see fiddling with smartphones at the wheel. Hard to see how the new rules will make any difference.
When if first started, this
When if first started, this came up on another forum and an ex traffic police officer basically said it made their job easier on terms of enforcement. On the basis of their posting history, I was quite happy to take their word for it.
I’m of the belief that this
I’m of the belief that this is lip service. Creating or modify a law is pointless if it enforcement is hit and miss, but it ticks a politicians “something must be done” box.
See also HS2 / NPR funding being “repurposed”.
Where I live, enforcement of
Where I live, enforcement of road traffic rules is non-existent. Changing the law on mobile phones will make no difference, in the absence of enforcement.
Couldn’t agree more. Assuming
Couldn’t agree more. Assuming you’re based in Harrogate have you seen the number of drivers who ignore the left turn only at the end of Beech Grove and go straight over onto Victoria Ave? It’s constant and very dangerous as they often come close to coliding with vehicles turning right off Victoria Ave or wiping out cyclists (as in my case) who legitimately go straight on at the junction. I even pointed it out to two police officers when it happened in front of them and they failed to notice it! They said they would do something about it . Needless to say…
PRSboy wrote:
Before it was only banned to use it as a communication device (phone calls, internet, music streaming) but not accessing any data already on the phone.
The new rules remove the need to prove the phone was being used for communication at the time. Whatever you were doing with the phone is not allowed. (except apple pay/android pay at the drive thru or toll booth)
Was about to say this. For
Was about to say this. For anyone interested in the detail and issues around enforcing the current law on phone use while driving, see: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
Having recently come off my
Having recently come off my bike, I hit some mud on a wet corner. That Blue cycle lane triggers my anxiety. Serious question; is there a specified coefficient of friction for that sort of infrastructure?
Didn’t they find that out
Didn’t they find that out when London (under Johnson) first painted them all blue with super slippery-when-wet paint? The replacement seems alot better and I’m sure is used all places now.
Didn’t you run that story
Didn’t you run that story with the deer before?
That, plus the old story on the photoshopped warning sign from the other day and the six year old goat/sheep jogger/cyclist story today – is this a live blog or a resurrected one?
Different people in charge at
Different people in charge at the time, along with cyclical nature of these type of memes….
It’s alive!
It’s alive!
I can tell. Gone to the pub
I can tell. Gone to the pub already?
[Edit: this doesn’t make so much sense now that the other posts are all back.]
Quote:
They got faster and (mostly) lighter:
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/09/the-velomobile-high-tech-bike-or-low-tech-car.html
They still come in lots of varieties:
https://www.notechmagazine.com/2014/11/the-big-velomobiles-graphic.html
How’s about a 25kg bike which can apparently give you around 60kmh / 37mph at 190W?
Some of them got batteries:
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles.html
Nice series of video reviews by this chap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWds-GTFJeo
Quote:
Not pedal cars but there’s interesting “prehistory” not just for electric scooters (as posted a few days back) but electric cars. They were making them in my town in 1898 in possibly the UK’s first car factory…
It’s the shock of the old!
“Should car manufacturers be
“Should car manufacturers be investing in bike companies?”
It’s probably not a coincidence that it’s an e-bike manufacturer, not a bike manufacturer, I doubt Porsche would have invested in one of the latter. That they invest in one of the former compounds my uneasiness with these vehicles.
“cold Friday in November!”
“cold Friday in November!”
Not to want to appear pedantry but its actually unseasonably (worryingly?) warm today…
Quote:
This – I think the thing to highlight here is the number of people. If you count people rather than cars you can see just how much more efficient that cycle track is for moving people. Can’t see inside the cars / vans well enough to do this but from general experience I doubt they’re carrying 4 people each.
6 cars and 5 motor scooters
vs.
27 cyclists + 1 electric scooter
Currently we’re barely at the beginning of a process of seriously reducing car usage – just count the road budget! Even in Copenhagen and The Netherlands car ownership and usage is still high. But we certainly should make space for walking and cycling. And not the same space!
We’re a long way off peak bike though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8
This looks like Kennington
This looks like Kennington Park Road. I used to cross here for work and at my commute times there were far more cyclists than car occupants. Since then some adjoining residential streets have become LTNs and cycling has had an overall increase of something like 87%. In some of the streets, there has been no increase, so for the average to be that high means some routes have seen over 300%. One Oval don’t like it though.
markieteeee wrote:
Looks like here. CS7. Yeah – it’s not yet Dutch quality e.g. the busy-looking side street here doesn’t have cycle tracks so no “network”. However there are sensible bus stop bypasses here, continuous footway / cycleway done properly here, there’s some protection for cycling at this junction, one-way cycle paths on both sides. I’d say this is A grade for the UK and a decent middle ground between “cheap as paint” and “best in class”. Mind you look at the road – still has five lanes plus a bus lane in places.
Yes, just where I thought. I
Yes, just where I thought. I agree with what you say about it. It’s a mix of TfL roads and Lambeth side streets. Kennington Park Road feels pretty safe for cycling, considering it’s the A3 and a prime route for people entering by car. The side streets should be easy to tackle as most households don’t own cars and something close to 80% of journeys by residents are on public transport. They’ve made progress around this part of Lambeth but there is a surprisingly low proportion of controlled parking zones, considering the positive approach the borough has on measures for healthier streets.
I take that A grade back – I
I take that A grade back – I hadn’t looked in the opposite direction. Travel that way and almost immediately we’re into something more familiar in the UK here. We have a combined bus / cycle lane. The only good thing is this is signed as a constant operation / 24h bus lane. So no separated cycle tracks, no bus stop bypasses. Normal driveways not continuous footway (here). Junctions just have ASLs (bike boxes) with no other protection and e.g. no cycle bypass for the lights if you’re not crossing the side arm of a T-junction. Junction here.
Here’s how some of these could be done instead: minor side roads (video version), larger junctions (video). Here’s the part of the last video which explains bypassing lights at T-junctions. Note that this works because there is enough space around the cycle track (not lane) so that pedestrians can safely cross that independantly of the main road and its traffic lights. Yes – you may then need to take space from the cars to achieve this. But here the main carriageway is 4 lanes wide (2 bus + 2 general)…
I can only imagine it’s the same as we had in Edinburgh – interventions are made where you have “excess” / “extra” space so you can put in cycling without disturbing the motorists too much. Or to be charitable without having to change the existing carriageway too much.
Going easy on Nick went well
Going easy on Nick went well then! You is a right horrible lot…
Jack Sexty wrote:
Sorry
Jack Sexty wrote:
Ach he’s up for it and can hold his own. I’m sure his shoulders are broad enough to take anything that gets thrown at him though not broad enough to obscure the view of following motorists.
Arghh. I misread the post. Had been a long hard day and wasn’t concentrating ? Apologies to Nick and Jack for doing so!
Mobile ‘phone on cradle laws
Mobile ‘phone on cradle laws a step in the right direction, not sure a panacea though: just rode home through Brixton (surely the UK capital of mobile use at the wheel, I’d reckon 60% of drivers at any one time) and followed an Aston Martin, no less, whose sole occupant had his substantial mobile clamped in a holder just to the left of his steering wheel as per new regs. It was showing a football game.
It’s already against the law
It’s already against the law to watch TV while driving, so you should have done a Cycling Mikey on him.
Edit – here’s the law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/109/made… although I have to say it’s worded in a way that makes it sound like a top lawyer could find a loophole…
Good lord, are you quite
Good lord, are you quite alright? I know it’s the you and Rendel(l) show but you seem to not only be agreeing but also advocating some kind of “vigilantism”. (And not the kind that involves the vigilante in the car assaulting the other “vigilante” collecting evidence).
As always, detection and enforcement are everything – which is where Cycling Mikey types potentially come in. I agree with you though about possible loopholes – I also wonder whether there are any restrictions on fitting “television receiving apparatus” before selling vehicles as that could be said to be contradicting the message of the other bit of law. Sample size of two but heard from some long distance truckers back in the day that a TV was a must-have.
I also think that with a small measure of interpretation that existing law *should* have handily covered mobile phone use also. Not a lawyer though! Looks like the usual gap between the political “we made a law so we fixed this issue” and what the police, courts and society actually consider within standard practice.
Garage at Large wrote:
If those are the current regulations then you don’t need to be a top lawyer to see they don’t cover watching TV on a phone. Not many phones have cathode ray tubes. Another case of the law not keeping up with the technology.
But it just comes under
But it just comes under without due care and attention.
Police did this with lorry drivers picking up TV watchers and cooking (!!) when one force went out with their special video equipped lorry
Yes, absolutely, although
Yes, absolutely, although that brings us back to the point about whether the law needs changing on using phones or whether the general careless driving etc offences are sufficient.
More anti cyclist bile from
More anti cyclist bile from the even more than the guardian hate filled and anti cyclist Observer.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/21/a12-essex-cycle-park