London cyclists warned to be careful… because of all the car fumes; Barrister asked if he was wearing a helmet – after being hit by a motorist; Viaduct reopens for cyclists and walkers; Is cycling linked to your education? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Cyclists told to avoid London today… because of all the vehicle pollution
Londoners have been advised to avoid strenuous physical activity in the city today due to extremely high levels of pollution.
According to the government’s forecast pollution levels will reach band 10 on the Air Quality Index, the highest level on the scale.
A combination of light winds and an intense area of high pressure currently covering western Europe has resulted in a lack of air movement across the city, which means emissions from motor vehicles and other pollutants will linger in the air for longer and won’t be as easily blown away.
Older people and those with heart or lung problems have been warned not to undertake strenuous physical activity, while even healthy people should “reduce physical exertion, particularly outdoors, especially if you experience symptoms such as a cough or sore throat”.
So who will suffer the most from these extremely high levels of pollution caused by massive car congestion? That’s right, cyclists.
Cycling commentator and writer Ned Boulting summed up the paradox at the heart of the government’s advice:
Told by the authorities to be careful today when I have to cycle into town for a meeting. This is because of the pollution from motor vehicles. If you are driving today in London, please consider whether you have any alternatives.
— Ned Boulting (@nedboulting) January 14, 2022
I really have no idea. I guess they think I should drive?
— Ned Boulting (@nedboulting) January 14, 2022
In effect, the government’s advice seems to boil down to: “Maybe best not to cycle into work today because of all the car fumes. Could you drive instead?”
The Guardian’s Peter Walker had another solution:
For avoidance of doubt, I’m not *actually* advocating this, but in a more just world, on days like this, the 2/3 of people in my borough without cars should be allowed the physical activity of building permeable barriers on their streets and tossing the keys to SUVs down drains. pic.twitter.com/eJO55UT2p0
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) January 14, 2022
This week London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said car use in the city had almost returned to pre-pandemic levels and that “if we do not double down on our efforts to deliver a greener, more sustainable future, we will replace one public health crisis with another – caused by filthy air and gridlocked roads.”
Simon Birkett, Founder and Director of Clean Air in London, was even more blunt: “Londoners are literally stewing in their own juice with our own fumes trapped in still air for days. It is a stark reminder of how much we need to reduce building emissions as well as traffic emissions. Please do not burn wood on Friday!”
“Were you wearing a helmet?”
So, I was knocked off my bike on Sunday morning by a car driver turning right. He told the police he was very sorry but had the sun in his eyes. Police told my wife it was an unfortunate accident….1/n
— Martin Porter QC (@MartinPorter6) January 13, 2022
Yesterday on the live blog we featured another example of the kind of standard-fare, pointless cycling safety question posited by backbench MPs with the sole aim of shifting the onus of road safety on to the most vulnerable users.
Now, as the last week, or month, or years have shown, politicians may not feel that their opinions, attitudes, or indeed their actions have any real-life consequences. But judging by the experiences of barrister Martin Porter this week, after he was knocked off his bike by a motorist, some perceptions of cycling safety appear to align with those of the Honourable Member for Bosworth.
On Sunday Porter, who used to blog under the moniker ‘The Cycling Lawyer’, was hit by a motorist who was turning right and claimed the sun was in his eyes. Porter suffered two broken ribs and damage to his teeth.
What followed was a series of incidents which seem to underline the place of cycling and cyclists when it comes to road safety.
According to Porter, the police told his wife it was “an unfortunate accident”, and every clinician and dentist treating him inquired whether he was wearing a helmet.
Most tellingly, when Porter informed the hospital physiotherapist that he had broken his ribs before while out cycling, she apparently replied “and the moral is?” Blimey.
Of course, this is an isolated incident and certainly cannot be said to reflect general public opinion. But it does once again highlight the level of miscalculation in Transport for London’s controversial ‘See Their Side’ advert. Empathy, eh?
“Iron Giant” reopens for cyclists and walkers
A Victorian viaduct, derelict for over half a century, has been reopened for cyclists and walkers.
Bennerley Viaduct originally opened in 1877 and runs between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. It was closed due to railway cuts in 1968.
Despite several attempts by British Rail to demolish the “Iron Giant” – the only UK structure on the 2020 World Monuments Watch list – repairs to the viaduct have been under way since 1986.
We are open for business! The wait is over. After 54 years of closure, David Pemberton, director of Railway Paths (in orange) announces the works are complete. The Railway Heritage Trust (RHT) funded £560k of the Bennerley Viaduct project which has cost £1.7m. https://t.co/K8LlFvBnmn
— Bennerley Viaduct (@TheIronGiant_) January 12, 2022
While there were initial concerns over what the bridge would be used for, it was finally decided that a cycling and walking route would be installed.
The newly revamped Bennerley Viaduct was officially reopened yesterday, with Andy Savage from the Railway Heritage Trust the first person to cycle across it.
Are university graduates more likely to cycle to work?
A newly published study in the Journal of Transport Geography has claimed that people with a university degree are far more likely to cycle for transportation than other city dwellers.
The research, undertaken by Dr Ansgar Hudde at the University of Cologne, examined the socio-economic status of people who cycle to work, analysing over 800,000 journeys by 55,000 people between 1996 and 2018.
He found that, irrespective of age, gender and even location, individuals with college degrees were 50% more likely to ride bikes.
Dr Hudde’s study builds on earlier research which has shown that people choose their transport method based on travel time, cost, and its symbolic value – in essence, how others will perceive it.
Traditionally, this has been linked to motorists who buy large, expensive cars to signal their socio-economic standing – I’m sure we’ve all heard the old ‘cyclist saving up to buy a car’ joke – while also (perhaps unconsciously) pointing out that they don’t care that much about the environment.
“With the bicycle, it’s exactly the opposite,” Hudde claims.
“People with higher educational qualifications usually do not run the risk of being perceived as poor or professionally unsuccessful, even if they are on the road with an inexpensive bike. Rather, they can gain status by cycling.”
Riding a bike, according to the study, can also mark out an individual as “modern, health-conscious, and environmentally aware. In contrast, people with a lower level of education might be more likely to use an expensive car as a status symbol to show that they have ‘made it.’”
The growth in bike usage, Hudde argues, is therefore linked to rising education levels.
However, he believes that more should be done to encourage a wider demographic to cycle, and that the increase in cycling infrastructure in cities could actually exacerbate social inequality.
“We need targeted policies that reach those who stand aside from the current bike boom: people outside the bigger cities and with less education.”
So what do you think? Is bike riding as a mode of transport a status symbol intrinsically linked to your education?
“Roses are red, violets are blue, forget Valentines, I want Di2…”
Great news – we’re exactly one month away from the stupidest day of the year!
But have no fear, as you can make the guilt-infested capitalist showpiece that is Valentine’s Day slightly more palatable with these rather brilliant ‘honest’ cycling-themed cards from Band of Climbers.
Although if you were really being honest with yourself, you would just go on your planned spin anyway and leave all of the unnecessary obligation to Hallmark. Have I made it clear how much I dislike Valentine’s Day?
Tussling with the Tinker Man
Following Cycling Mikey’s alleged altercation with a texting motorist, covered yesterday on the blog, more London cyclists have come forward with reports of their own run-ins with phone-wielding drivers:
The phone-using driver of this BMW X5 SUV pulled out in front of me on Kings Road, Chelsea on xmas eve. After politely challenging him, he punched me on the head with his hand, verbal abuse and as I was cycling away deliberately rammed me off the road. Driver arrested by Met. /1 pic.twitter.com/VL2ooYQYdH
— Nathan (@NathanP3333) January 14, 2022
Nathan’s story led another Twitter user to recall one particularly harrowing experience on the same road with a certain maverick Italian football manager:
Can’t punch you with anything else. Claudio Ranieri nearly ran me over on Kings Road once. I stay away these days!
— Paul Cave (@CaveyYNWA) January 14, 2022
Going by the location, I assume this incident took place when Ranieri was in charge of Chelsea. Maybe the Tinker Man was too busy contemplating whether he should drop Damien Duff or not… Or perhaps he was texting his No. 8 to get him a coffee?
National Champs kits done right
Joonas Henttala & 🇫🇮 RR Nat Champ kit. (📷 Novo Nordisk) pic.twitter.com/8EDZS8ajhp
— ammattipyöräily (@ammattipyoraily) January 14, 2022
There’s been a lot of talk over the silly season about poorly designed national champions’ jerseys (looking at you, UAE). So it’s refreshing when you come across one that ticks all the boxes, courtesy of Finnish champion Joonas Henttala and Team Novo Nordisk.
Sherlock Holmes and the case of the not-so-genius bike thief
Well that’s one way to get caught stealing a bike…
The thief was tracked down after he had provided his personal details when selling the stolen bike: https://t.co/MsL3kilxhk
— Ellesmere Port & Neston Standard (@EPortStandard) January 11, 2022
CPA threatens to sue The Cyclists’ Alliance over ‘fake news’ prize money concerns
⚠️ #Fakenews alert: to protect the riders we cannot lie to them! #CPA responds to defamation of The Cyclists’ Alliance about the Centralized #PrizeMoney Management System 🚴♀️ https://t.co/hF91HtSM63#CPAwomen #WeAreTheRiders #StrongerTogether #Cycling #WomenCycling pic.twitter.com/2GHXa5DYlE
— CPA Women (@women_cpa) January 13, 2022
The pro season hasn’t even started in earnest yet and there’s already been some serious inter-organisational conflict (remember the ASO-UCI wars of the mid-noughties and mid-2010s? Surely another one of those is scheduled soon…).
This time, the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA to you and me) has threatened to sue The Cyclists’ Alliance (TCA) for what it described as defamation and false information after the TCA published concerns surrounding the administration of prize money on the women’s side of the sport.
Often criticised for its cosy relationship with the UCI, the CPA is the officially recognised riders’ representative organisation. Headed on the men’s side by Gianni Bugno, a women’s branch was finally set up in 2017.
While the CPA Women is made up of national riders’ associations, the TCA on the other hand operates a ‘one rider, one vote’ system. Also established in 2017 by ex-pro Iris Slappendel, the TCA has been praised for its close work with riders concerning contracts, retirement, career advice and education, and is viewed by many as the ‘true union’ for women’s cycling.
Surely, I hear you cry, the two organisations would work together to secure the continuing development of the women’s sport? Ah, but not so fast. It’s Friday afternoon so I’ll spare you the details, but this month the UCI’s Centralised Prize Money Management system (operating on the men’s side since 2017) was introduced for women. In this system, deductions are taken from prize money at races to pay for costs including doping controls, retirement funds and the development of national riders’ associations.
This week the TCA released a statement, claiming that the riders – who the TCA says the prize money “belongs to” – were not consulted about the scheme. The statement asked a series of pertinent questions about the new system and called for an independent third party to be involved, preventing a monopoly over the administration of cycling’s prize money.
The CPA has since responded in a confrontational press release, accusing the TCA “of defaming the CPA and manipulating the riders.”
“The TCA not only appears to be ill-informed but manifests superficiality in its communications,” the statement read. “The riders are enthusiastic about how CPM works. With this transparent system no prize money is lost and riders are paid faster. Alessandra Cappellotto and CPA Women are doing important work in partnership with the UCI and other stakeholders to ensure that the gap between women and men is gradually reduced.”
The accusatory and hostile tone of the CPA’s response has been widely criticised throughout the sport. TCA representative and world time trial champion Ellen van Dijk tweeted the following:
Dear @women_cpa, I don’t think this is the best way to contact, but I feel like I need to react to your 🚨
As riders, we asked @Cyclists_All to ask questions as we need transparency around the prize money platform. All we need is answers instead of a threatening statement 🙏 https://t.co/EygTBCqNzq— Ellen van Dijk (@ellenvdijk) January 14, 2022
It is clear that both organisations are committed to growing women’s cycling, probably the most important issue in the sport right now. Disputes like this only do the opposite.
Ovo Bikes return to Cardiff after two month break due to thefts and vandalism
The Ovo bike hire scheme was reintroduced to Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan yesterday, two months after the scheme was suspended due to a high number of thefts and vandalism.
Before the suspension of the scheme in November, 300 Ovo bikes had been stolen and 260 vandalised. It was the first time operator Nextbike had been forced to withdraw its services in the UK.
Nextbike’s Krysia Solheim told Wales Online: “It’s a relief to be back on the streets of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. We know our customers have missed having access to the Ovo Bikes schemes.
“Bike share is a fantastic, affordable, and healthy way to move around our towns and cities – not to mention the fact that it’s one of the best ways of reducing harmful transport emissions.”
Let’s just hope it goes better this time…
Heading into the weekend like…
He like cycling pic.twitter.com/0KW9iQmZjr
— Aww! (@worldofaww) January 10, 2022
That’s it for the week folks! Thanks for keeping me company on the blog.
I don’t know about you, but I’m away for a lie-down. I was on the receiving end of a heavy tackle at five-a-sides last night, and my ribs have been sore ever since.
If only I’d been wearing my helmet…
14 January 2022, 09:55
14 January 2022, 09:55
14 January 2022, 09:55
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.
147 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Calling somebody a C..t is a "nasty thing to do". No public order offence???
Fine knowledge. I'm still running late 90s xtr and early to mid 90s xt.
"the speed limit does apply to them" Well, sort of. But they shouldn't be being ridden at all in the first place, at any speed. Exceeding the speed limit is just an additional offence on top.
Shimano started using 2mm hex for derailleur limit screws in 2015. Most of their groups now use those rather than JIS. This happened in the second generation 11sp road, so R7000/R8000 all use this, all the 12sp stuff as well, Tiagra from 4700 10sp, all GRX, CUES. Some lower end groups (Sora/Claris) do still have JIS screws and of course older stuff, I do still have bikes with them.
@ "Unfortunately the UK is covered with ill conceived cycle routes built in a rush with no real strategy. ..." That's no way to describe the Notional Cycle Network! Where abouts are you? "Covered" - there's certainly enough for eg. "(crap) cycling facility of the month" sure ... but you'll be saying that cyclists are "literally running the place" next! Unfortunately the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain's site and their "good cycle facility of the month" pages afloat to be no more ... but you can still enjoy the unbelievable infra of the Netherlands (but also banal - almost no people making a big deal) care of: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
@TrainWalkWheel RE: "We need to sit down and think what we actually want and then plan where it can go." Are you straying into "nobody is swimming the river, we won't build a bridge" territory? (Or is it "not many are coaching from Brimingham to London, we won't build a railway"? Only for cycling it's many orders of magnitude cheaper...) Certainly councils have "ticked the boxes, got the funds" and "built it not where most needed but where *possible*" ( eg. where they'll only have complaints about wasting money on cyclists and not death threats from businesses and residents.) However in many (most? ) cases the "let's all agree" idea is problematic. Few people cycle, most places are seriously car-sick. And there are some very loud voices ready to steer things away from any change to the unsatisfactory status quo that doesn't involve more motor provision. (Occasional exception: small areas of pedestrianised streets - that people can drive to). Why bother then? We can ill afford the growing cost and side effects of growing motoring. Cycling for most would be enhanced walking - and most people walk. It can work together with public transport to genuinely replace car trips. Places like parts of London, Manchester etc have found that after the dust settles people's existences weren't ruined at all and they just get on with life. What would makes that work? Quantity and building networks. Along with some motor traffic reduction / displacement (alas - that's the harder part). But of course in most places - given the motoring push-back and "but costs" - piecemeal infra is all that seems possible.
Why are there no line breaks? Or are we going for the middle class niche, like the G?
The mismatch between the brifter hoods and the handlebar bend is hideous. An extra layer of tape underneath would have made such a difference!
Rome mate, you are giving us all a bad name... Was she fully loaded, were the kids screaming on the back?
To black cab drivers, and this one may not be one for much longer, why risk those years of doing the Knowledge and the massive investment in the vehicle for a few seconds of feeding that addiction. It just ain't worth it. He knew he was in the wrong, that's why he hot potatoed it, and Kate, they don't stop when they start moving, they are just easier to catch in their criminality while stationary. I think your naivety is showing there. This man had two licences, and the law breaking was still happening.
147 thoughts on “London cyclists warned to be careful… because of all the car fumes; Barrister asked if he was wearing a helmet – after being hit by a motorist; Viaduct reopens for cyclists and walkers; Is cycling linked to your education? + more on the live blog”
Please can we get the
Please can we get the pollution particles to wear hiviz so that we can easily avoid them? It’s even worse at night, where most of them don’t even have lights.
Captain Badger wrote:
Can’t we just paint some pollution lanes for them to stay in?
mdavidford wrote:
But they’re full of parked cars…
You mean like the Covid
You mean like the Covid advice to “stay alert”?
chrisonatrike wrote:
You mean you can’t see free floating particles of virus? Shame on you!
brooksby wrote:
It’s easier, I’d likely only have to notice floating microsopic liquid drops but I’m not very perceptive these days.
Captain Badger wrote:
You can’t avoid them: most of them are floating a billion abreast like they own the air.
GMBasix wrote:
Oh, very good!
One benefit of the first
One benefit of the first lockdown (quite possibly the only benefit?) was the ability to cycle in London in clean and quiet air. The difference really was remarkable.
Jem PT wrote:
It wasn’t just in London. I noticed the difference in leafy Hertfordshire. not only the cleaner air, and how pleasant walking & cycling was without 1t+projectiles hurtling around, but the noise. A cacophony of birdsong that is usually drowned by the roar of vehicles.
Captain Badger wrote:
1t vehicles? Is this a petrolhead nirvana, where cars are actually lightweight?! I’ve just Googled the average weight of a new car, and in 2020 it was 1885 kg!!!
I read the pollution story in
I read the pollution story in one of the papers and it was being presented as if it was purely an atmospheric phenomenon (like the weather).
For some reason, the source of the pollution was not being addressed…
brooksby wrote:
One of the big problems with having a billionaire dominated media is that much of it is fake news, or so heavily slanted that it ignores the cause and blames the victims. We desperately need independent, authoritative, credible reporting, but that’s pretty hard to find, and the BBC is just as bad as the DM.
This story is no different, with the implication being that pedestrians and cyclists are putting themselves at risk by taking exercise in polluted air, not that it is the fault of motorists for polluting the air and the authorities for allowing them to do it.
The sensible response of course would be to severely reduce car use, perhaps to those who really do need it by virtue of being disabled. Our politics, yet again, have failed to analyse the problem, failed to take action, and failed us.
Exactly. If the problem is
Exactly. If the problem is that the weather system isn’t dispersing the pollution caused by motor vehicles, then surely as well as telling non-motorists to avoid physical activity they should be telling motorists not to drive.
brooksby wrote:
We need a better more efficient weather system
Captain Badger wrote:
We need to level up our weather! But we have already signed many great new deals to allow us to export it elsewhere.
brooksby wrote:
No No No. you’ve clearly misread the room. If the problem is the weather, then we need to change the weather. That way we can all drive more cars and not have to be bothered about a bit of smog hanging about.
Yours sincerley
Nigel’s Garrage.
I hear that the more luxury
I hear that the more luxury newer vehicles, the six cylinder turbo diesel monster trucks, have better air filters in them for reducing the effects of polluted air in the cabin.
This is clearly the answer to this problem, we need more chelsea tractors on the roads to mitigate the poor air quality.
joe9090 wrote:
Now we’re talking.. we need bigger air filters!
Solving problems that matter to people like me, one day at a time. You’re welcome.
Kind regards
Nigels Garage.
peted76 wrote:
I thought it was chaning the weather (through global warming) that led to more of these days where air is no adequately changed within cities.
Introduce legilslation that
Introduce legilslation that the use of all private veicles should be banned when air pollution within the area rises above a certain threshold.
Some means of signalling may be required, or we could put the onus on car users to check each and every day before they drive the air quality is OK.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I love that idea.
I’d extend it to include professional drivers as well – no deliveries via trucks on smoggy days, so that cargo bikes get a clear advantage. Of course, rich people will just buy an electric vehicle instead, so it’ll make poor people’s lives harder (which is the effect of most laws as far as I can see).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’d extend it to include professional drivers as well – no deliveries via trucks on smoggy days, so that cargo bikes get a clear advantage. Of course, rich people will just buy an electric vehicle instead, so it’ll make poor people’s lives harder (which is the effect of most laws as far as I can see).— hawkinspeter
Electric vehicles emit fine particles as well, so could also be banned on such days.
marmotte27 wrote:
That’s not a problem for me.
Let’s just hope that would apply to electric cars and not electric cargo bikes or e-scooters.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I mean such a ban as a positive, in light of your comment on social inequality. Bikes do emit particulates, but the quantities are negligible in comparison to cars, due once again to the enormous difference in weight and speed.
marmotte27 wrote:
Unlikely. Those volumes are dwarfed by the emissions from fuel. Think about it. How often do you change your brake pads and tyres, and even then only a tiny bit of the volume is worn. Compare that to the volume of fuel converted into fumes.
M
M
Unlikely. Those volumes are dwarfed by the emissions from fuel. Think about it. How often do you change your brake pads and tyres, and even then only a tiny bit of the volume is worn. Compare that to the volume of fuel converted into fumes.— Secret_squirrel
60% of PM2.5 come from tyres, brakes and road surface, with PM10 it’s 70%.
I’d back that.
I’d back that.
Technically it is, or it’s
Technically it is, or it’s more the weather makes it far more noticeable or doesnt disperse the pollution as much as normal that they are talking about & even low levels of pollution can be impacted by that.
FWIW I’ve not seen if London broke its yearly pollution targets yet this year already, it’s often by the 1st week of Jan.
I googled and found something
I googled and found something called iqair.com
That says that PM2.5 concentration in London air is currently 6.3 times above the WHO annual air quality guideline value.
However, being in Bristol I put that in and it says that PM2.5 concentration in Bristol air is currently 9.5 times above the WHO annual air quality guideline value.
The worst in England is King’s Lynn, at 12.4 times above.
But for some reason only London is reported in the news…
Always the case isn’t it. A
Always the case isn’t it. A few years ago when flash flood were happening around the country, barely any real coverage until London got a bit wet.
The thing with air quality
The thing with air quality here in the fens (the smog was noticeable this morning) is that we don’t generate our own pollution, depending on the position of the weather system it is either from conurbations in SE England of from the near continent. This is the thanks we get for growing all the Brussels sprouts for Christmas.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Before you get on your high horse I think an extensive study should be undertaken to investigate how much of the pollution we are all suffering is in fact produced by people who have eaten the Brussels sprouts you grow, methane is a serious greenhouse gas…
I’m so glad that our esteemed
I’m so glad that our esteemed leaders in this country address the major issues of the day such as yesterday when Luke Evans (Conservative MP for Bosworth) asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to encourage cyclists to use (a) high visibility clothing in the dark, (b) cycle helmets, (c) bicycle bells and (d) other safety precautions when out on the road. (https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/status/1481601887547887616).
If all cyclists used bells, then surely the poisonous air will listen and realise it has to get out of the way? Anyhow, it’s not as if people are dying from bad air quality, is it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I know I always feel safer during a close pass if I can let the motorist know my exact feelings tinging my little bell 🙂
hawkinspeter wrote:
I use my bell when cycling on shared spaces, but 9 out of 10 peds seem to have headphones so can’t hear anyway? Presumably the Hon gentleman will therefore ask the Sec State for Transort to make it illegal for peds to wear headphones when on shared spaces?
Jem PT wrote:
Could be discriminatory – some of them could be deaf.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Just require someone out in front with a high-vis flag – keeps pedestrians safe and saves cyclists from themselves. Obviously the flag should be made from organic seaweed sustainably harvested in UK waters. Maybe by former MPs – paid a fair living wage – after the next election?
Came across this in the
Came across this in the Martin Porter feed
https://twitter.com/anotherJon/status/1481697069106708481
Ooh – I know what’s wrong
Ooh – I know what’s wrong there, I know! Is it that the Braille is written left-right so obviously it will be the wrong way round in the blind person’s rear view mirror?
This van itself is a Braille
This van itself is a Braille version of “YPLAC” – indeed you don’t even need to read Braille to read it.
Point of order, Dr Luke Evan
Point of order, Dr Luke Evan’s posed his written question to the DfT last week, you may then have also noted he asked a further question about what steps are being taken to ensure the hierarchy of road users outlined in the Highway Code is understood by road users, but I’ll assume no one is interested in the answer to that question…
Written questions by backbenchers are a perfectly acceptable form of determining government policy in areas that are less publicised than the froth that keeps the media interest at Westminster, whatever our own views of the opinions that drive those questions.
Awavey wrote:
It may well be a perfectly acceptable method to get clarification on points, but I just find it frustrating that we’re in the middle of a climate emergency and it continues to be kicked down the road and largely ignored by policy makers (and has been for decades).
Well of the near 60,000
Well of the near 60,000 written questions MPs/Lords have raised in just the last year to government depts, no one asked about pedestrian headphones specifically, but Lord Mawson, a cross bench Lord, did ask if the government had plans to make it an offence to wear headphones riding a bicycle or electric scooter.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It may well be a perfectly acceptable method to get clarification on points, but I just find it frustrating that we’re in the middle of a climate emergency and it continues to be kicked down the road and largely ignored by policy makers (and has been for decades).— Awavey
A considerable amount of policy gets processed and implemented, but under the radar of the public gaze. Some of that is environmentally positive. The response to the question raised by Luke Evans received a reply from DfT PUS stating that the DfT has a plan to publicise the changes with an initial post-implementation fact awareness raising, followed by a behavioural campaign for the summer when active travel is predicted to increase.
This fits comments I’ve made previously: that the absence of messages so far should not be criticised too much, because the guidance it would highlight has not been approved yet and remains before Parliament.
What is less helpful is the random graphics conjured up my semi-informed grunts in the RW press, under-estimating the priority that people on foot, horse and cycle already have and over-estimating the priority that people in motor vehicles currently have.
hawkinspeter wrote:
— hawkinspeterIt’s only an emergency for people who care and those who will be / are being most violently affected by it.
The policy makers are not affected and therefore do not give a flying f*ck. They only care about the big money they can continue to make for themselves and their already obscenely wealthy friends.
And this problem isn’t just at government level, councils like ours have declared a climate emergency but done absolutely NOTHING about it, continuing with their old ways, which includes pouring money we don’t have into building new roads (while not maintaining the existing network); refusing to improve public & active transport provision; ignoring the ongoing pressure to divest their pension funds from fossil fuels into something more sustainable… the list is long.
Was Martin wearing a helmet?
Was Martin wearing a helmet?
Do they help with broken ribs ?
hirsute wrote:
Yes. the idea is to prevent people asking stupid questions, thus reducing the risk of popping ribs when you laugh derisively at them
Not that, as with the prevention of concussive head injuries, I’m making any guarantee that it actually works…..
hahahaha, owww!
hahahaha, owww!
joe9090 wrote:
I hope you were wearing a helmet….
Do clinicians where helmets
Do clinicians wear helmets when they ask stupid questions? To be on the safe side, I would recommend that they do.
IanMK wrote:
And afterwards ask them “And the moral is?”
You get asked if you’re Covid
You get asked if you’re Covid vaccinated if you call an ambulance, you’re rightly mocked by the general public if not. Why shouldn’t cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don’t wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.
if I hit my head skiing and don’t have a helmet on my travel insurance doesn’t cover me. It’s law on my motorcycle. Why not when you put the Lycra on?
Craig Prosser wrote:
again failing to seperate sport from transport.
Racing – helmets – club rides – helmets. riding off riad – helmets. Popping to the shops? shouldn’t be necesary.
If people are skiing on the flat for one mile between home and the shops, do they still need a helmet? Or are we really talking about downhill skiing, which is more equivalent to racing
wycombewheeler wrote:
The death rate of professional cyclists doesn’t seem to have fallen since they were forced to wear helmets, but the figures are too small to be certain, so they don’t seem to work for them either.
Hardly surprising since risk compensation is going to affect them just as it affects anyone using “safety” gear, and the level of protection afforded is much less than most people assume.
Craig Prosser wrote:
Vaccination status is fairly important to medical staff so that they get an idea of what the severity is likely to be and also whether the patient is going to be more or less infectious.
“Likely” seems entirely the wrong word to use when cycling fatalities are rare and a bike helmet is unlikely to provide serious protection in a collision at speed (IIRC safety testing is only carried out up to 12mph). You could use the same argument with people being “likely” to slip in the shower and hit their head although in that scenario a bike helmet will be far more likely to provide protection as it should be within design limits. Should we mock everyone that takes a shower without wearing a bike helmet?
Skiing is a more dangerous activity than cycling, especially when considering that most cyclists are probably utility cyclists rather than racing. Obviously skiing takes place on a slippery surface and my view is that using a bike helmet when cycling in the snow is going to be a good idea too as there’s much more chance of coming off and probably less chance of it being a collision with speeding tonnes of metal.
Motorcycles can go much faster than bicycles and motorbike helmets have a much stronger design (full face ones, anyway).
The main reasons that people don’t wear cycle helmets is either because they don’t have one or they find it uncomfortable to wear (more likely in hot countries) or it messes up their hair. Those reasons are more likely to be used by casual or utility cyclists, so it’s reasonable to infer that mandating cycle helmets will act as a barrier to some.
Looking at places that have mandated cycle helmets, the evidence shows that there is a downturn in cycling and conversely, if you look at cities that normalise cycling, you find that the majority don’t bother with helmets. This leads to a perverse situation where trying to improve people’s health by mandating PPE will lead to less people cycling and thus a reduction in the population’s health.
What tends to grind my gears is that some people (not accusing you) make a big deal about helmets and ignore much better alternatives to make the roads safer. Helmet mandates are also often used by unscrupulous police to target the poor and minorities who are more likely to be riding without a helmet.
For the record, I wear a bike helmet.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Motorcycle bodies will recommend either a full face or 3/4 helmet with the former being preferred. They discourage the use of the old ‘pudding bowl’ helmet from around 50/60 years ago which in reality is much like the modern cycling helmet.
As an aside Nordic Sking which is pretty much like utility cycling as a robust and economic way to travel. You will never see the skiers wearing a helmet. If they go over it’s going to be an ankle or wrist that goes. I did see a YouTube clip of Dutch cyclists dropping their bikes on an icy corner some time ago. Pretty much everyone who failed to keep upright, it was the hand, shoulder and hip that took the main force. But I’m rambling now…
I’ve heard of motorbikers
I’ve heard of motorbikers that have worn a pudding bowl style helmet (open-face?) and then having a collision with a car and catching their jaw on the car roof which doesn’t end well.
Yeah. Very open face. Pretty
Yeah. Very open face. Pretty much only the skull above the ears and forehead is protected. I’ve friends in the police who have attended incidents where the bikers were wearing a pudding bowl or the 3/4 and said it was never pretty.
I’ve heard of aliens flying
I’ve heard of aliens flying to earth to perform anal probes. I think they said all’s well in the end
Re helmets for skiing:
Re helmets for skiing:
These only started to take off, when narrow waisted skis made high speed descents possible even for not so skilled skiers twenty years ago.
You need a helmet in skiing mostly should you be hit by one of those with a helmet on.
I can’t think of another
I can’t think of another pastime / sport where people are allowed to travel as such high speeds with so little control – and beginners, competent skiers, and alcohol mix freely.
marmotte27 wrote:
A good point, and there is vanishingly little evidence that skiing helmets save lives either; just like cycle helmets, the manufacturers saw a marketing opportunity, and the gullible rushed to buy them.
I had a nasty crash on a
I had a nasty crash on a descent years ago when a cyclist did a U turn at the bottom of a hill right in front of me without looking. My helmet cracked into loads of pieces, but stayed intact. Apart from all my other injuries, my head was fine. I am completely sure that had I not been wearing a helmet, the outcome would have been much, much worse, if not fatal. So whilst I don’t believe they should be made mandatory, I personally will never go out without wearing one, as I believe it saved my life.
biker phil wrote:
So you don’t blame the idiot for causing the crash, you thank your helmet for saving you from the idiot. You may believe the helmet saved your life, but the statistics and data show that this was extremely unlikely. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
biker phil wrote:
Bloody cyclists are on the pistes now? Bet they don’t even pay slope tax (is this right?)
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’ll admit I’ve cycled home a few times after being out on the piste.
hawkinspeter wrote:
True, but even motorcycle helmets are only rated as effective to about 16mph, from memory so don’t ask for a quote. Basically, stopping your head rapidly from speed is extremely damaging, and the ability of a helmet, any helmet, to reduce that decelleration is limited by the size of the helmet. To be effective at the speed most people ride motorcycles at, the helmet would have to be extremely large 1m+ at least.
And besides, it is extremely doubtful that motorcycle helmets, despite their stronger construction, save lives. But, just like cycle helmets, the myth lives on “A lie often repeated becomes the truth.” (Stalin or Goebells, take your pick.)
I remember many years ago my
I remember many years ago my friend’s brother came off his motorbike and hit some railings. He died instantly, when they removed his helmet his head had basically fallen to bits, (Don’t know how else to describe it), inside his helmet due to the impact the helmet made on the road.
Craig Prosser wrote:
oh goodie. been a while.
Because being tripled jabbed
Because being tripled jabbed means you can’t get covid? Or pass it one? Or be asymtomatic?
Craig Prosser wrote:
— Craig ProsserVery likely save your life; no.
Despite promises of helmets reducing cyclists’ deaths by 85%, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase.
All the long term, large scale, reliable studies show that cycle helmets don’t save lives, let alone be very likely to save your life.
Craig Prosser wrote:
Citation please
Craig Prosser wrote:
So do I have an exemption? I commute by bike and I never wear Lycra 😉
brooksby wrote:
Only if you’ve had a collision recently… But not in Australia….
Captain Badger wrote:
But yes, exemption in Australia. A woman, who’s name I forget, has been arrested multiple times for not wearing a helmet while cycling, and when it came to court, was absolved because of her well-founded fear of the helmet increasing the risk of rotational injuries. Last report I heard was that she’s still riding helmet-less and the police don’t do nuffink.
Burn the witch !!
Burn the witch !!
Craig Prosser wrote:
Top tip: cyclists – in addition to helping society by being a more healthy and cheerful individual, adding negligable pollution to the environment, failing to trash the infrastructure and kill hundreds of people a year, why don’t you also contribute by more clearly identifying yourself as a weirdo and figure of abuse for certain types of obsessives by donning some marginally effective PPE? Then revel in the moment when you plaintively suggest you’ve now done enough to be admitted to the rest of humanity only to have them say “I didn’t see you, are you trying to get killed?”!
Craig Prosser wrote:
I’m not sure that hospital staff mocking patients is the way forward. I don’t know though maybe they should try a bit of fat shaming see if the silly idiots will cut down their food intake. I could go on. No, I thought not.
hirsute wrote:
No, wearing a helmet helps prevent a motorist blithely driving onwards despite being blinded by the sun, neither caring nor seeing what or who they are driving into. Obvious really.
No wearing a helmet stops you
No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one
Craig Prosser wrote:
Cobblers. The impact tests on helmets are so low speed (a drop from a meter from memory) that they have sod all to do with protecting your bonce at the accelerations you recieve in a crash.
Craig Prosser wrote:
Does it? they are not designed to resists the forces involve din collision with motor vehicles, otherwise they would look more like motorbike helmets.
They are only designed to protect against a cyclist falling over. Something an experienced cyclist riding for transport as opposed to racing is very unlikely to do..
Equally we could say there is zero reason not to wear a driving helmet, biggest cause of head injuries is car drivers and passengers, not cyclists. health and safety campaigners are very reluctant to campaign for driving helmets
wycombewheeler wrote:
Speak for yourself.
3 posts and
3 posts and
Great start to your posting career !
This should also be the first helmet one of the year too.
Pretty sure though if the forces are sufficient to cave your head in, then wearing a helmet will make 0 difference.
hirsute wrote:
I seem to remember there is some evidence that at a population level there is a small but measurable correlation between wearing lids and fewer of certain kinds of maxilo facial and skull fractures.
The difficulty is parsing out the causation. You are far more likely to be killed or injured in poorer areas with high traffic levels and worse cycling infra than in more middle-class areas with lower traffic and better infra.
In poorer areas people are less likely to wear lids as they can’t afford them. So do we see fewer injuries cos lids, or cos higher environmental risk and use of lids is inversely correlated for socio-economic reasons only?
As the effects seem to be small anyway it is hard to regress the data.
I also remember reading that concussive brain injury (caused by the head being “given a shake”) is not diminished by wearing a lid, and it is the most common and serious type of head injury (eg you don’t have to be hit hard enough to break anything to get a nasty dose).
I’ll still wear my lid – habit, low branches, somewhere to put the gopro, diminished risk of stupid questions from people who should know better, defense against cynical insurance companies.
And I will continue to roll my eyes at pious, hypocritical victim-blamers who haven’t got the decency to wear a stabvest and a driving helmet for a trip down to the shops. If it just saves one life……
hirsute wrote:
Is this Boo’s new account? I’m very much getting the same “shit troll” vibes here.
Craig Prosser wrote:
Which is presumably why you wear one every time you have a shower or go downstairs or walk along a street or even drive?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or post controversial comments online?
Craig Prosser wrote:
No. Do the research. Start here cyclehelmets.org
Exactly.
Exactly.
Helmets provide the last 5% (maximum!) of security, IF, and only IF, the other 95% (through closures, speed limits, infrastructure, legal measures etc.) have been provided first.
marmotte27 wrote:
Exactly; do the things that work, not the things proved not to work.
If closures, speed limits, infrastructure, legal measures etc, are implemented, the evidence from Holland and Denmark shows that helmets aren’t necessary or desirable.
Craig Prosser wrote:
If it were true that “cycle helmets” prevented injury from vehicle impact (and you’d have to wonder that they are not tested against that eventuality), why are they imposed upon cyclists in particular rather that all those at risk from motor vehicle impact? It just makes no sense.
Many here do, they don’t
Many here do, they don’t chelp at others about it. Now – where’s that cartoon again?
Craig Prosser wrote:
While you’re looking up the other citation I asked you for, can you provide evidence for this too…
I’d advise you not to ask the helmet companies (they’ll tell you they can’t make that kind of promise, or any promise as to efficacy in quantitative terms, or which injuries can be avoided at all) but don’t let me stop you
I don’t like wearing a helmet
I don’t like wearing a helmet, that is a valid reason for me!
I did go for my usual run
I did go for my usual run with my dog here in S London this morning. I wasn’t sure whether to do so as I’d seen the warnings. The air didn’t seem too bad when I went out but after a while I did note a slight metallic taste in my mouth. There were plenty of others out running and cycling and my wife cycled to her work in the centre of town this morning too. I was intending to go to the bmx track for a lunch time ride but I think I’ll skip that now. The air isn’t as bad as it has been on previous occasions but that metallic taste in my mouth definitely wasn’t a good sign.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Did you walk into a bar?
Went over it yesterday. I
Went over it yesterday. I think the long term plan is to link Bennerley viaduct into sustrans 672 that is open and heavily used in to Derby via Breadsall. The remaining section is a corridor od disused railway near West Hallam. I think a fair bit will need to be bought back from landowners. So some significant hurdles.
visionset wrote:
Need to get rid of that big yellow blob. Can’t see a thing..
In that picture I couldn’t
In that picture I couldn’t see four cyclists. However all the ninjas were entirely obvious.
Genuine question, but do we
Genuine question, but do we know if some sort of railing is going to be erected on top of the wooden sleepers? From the photos I have seen it looks like it would be a very painful crash onto the tops of exposed metal beams if you were to lose your balance an trip over the sleepers. I can’t be the only person to look at these pictures and see the potential crashes! Imagine riding along there, even at a moderate pace and then falling to the side. Broken limbs look very possible.
You mean like hitting
You mean like hitting segregated curbs and hitting traffic head on? That kind of thing? Comes under the category of stop pandering to H&S BS I think
visionset wrote:
Yeh. Health and safety! It’ll be the death of us…..
Why are we not allowed to
Why are we not allowed to comment on the story involving the famous footballer with the intials FL?
joe9090 wrote:
I know right?
I was going to put some pithy comment about footballers and link to this article about Glen Whelan escaping a driving ban so that he can drive to get to games and training:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-glenn-whelan-avoids-6490830
(Maybe that’s the kind of loophole that Grant Shapps will close once he’s dealt with all the statue loopholes that aren’t at all loopholes)
Because the story involves an
Because the story involves an ambulance-chaser with the initials NF, and someone on this site gets very het up on anything involving NF or (for that matter) the youtuber involved…
Subjudice.
Subjudice.
We don’t know that the case has been officially dropped, so the site play it safe.
Yep, the assumption is the
Yep, the assumption is the case has been dropped but could be other reasons at the moment. Might even have plead guilty hopefully.
I think it’s bloody
I think it’s bloody disgraceful. One rule for one…..
RE bikes + grads:
RE bikes + grads:
Another plausible argument is that many people start cycling for transport as students. It’s a prime opportunity for it – students tend to live in urban areas, be young and healthy, often unable to afford a car (or at least unwilling to justify the expense).
Once that habitat has developed, they are more likely to continue after graduating – they already have a functional bike, have become comfortable riding on roads, and appreciate the benefits of cycling.
I’d go with the correlation
I’d go with the correlation is not causation reason personally
Awavey wrote:
Exactly.
Lots of things associated with personal health and concern for the environment are positively correlated with higher education, from vegetarianism to not smoking. Cycling is just another one of them.
Cycling has become bigger
Cycling has become bigger amongst middle class middle aged people who are quite likely to also be grads though my cycling club friends are a fair mix both ways. Think it is just a rising trend rather than the cause being grads per se. It was kick started in 2012 too by the Olympics/TdF.
OnYerBike wrote:
Haven’t you seen the number of students at uni with cars these days??
Back when I was a scruffy, penniless undergrad quite many of us felt that you weren’t getting the full student experience if your parents paid for you to run a car while at college.
And IME a significant number of graduates didn’t take up well paid employment but ended up in low paid prole jobs (self included). Even in the early 1990s a uni or poly honours degree didn’t get you very far. It seems valued even less now, partly due to the huge growth in the sheer number of people who have obtained one during the last 2 decades.
But perhaps things are different in the German employment market.
“Individuals with a college degree are nearly 50% more likely to use bicycles than those without a college degree, holding factors such as age, gender, and place of residence constant in the analysis,”
But is the term “use” meaning pedalling a city bike for utility purposes such as a commute or does it mean riding as a leisure pursuit with other lycra-clad types on carbon steeds? Or both? The more I think about it the more intriguing it becomes… perhaps that’s my very distant social science background.
Us grads are just more
Us grads are just more intelligent than the average driver.
OK, that isn’t difficult, but still…..
since when was Valentines day
since when was Valentines day a holiday?
Pyro Tim wrote:
Since it was made the feast day of St Valentine in 496.
A feast, but not a holiday.
A feast, but not a holiday. He’s amended it now anyway. Never had a bank holiday for it. It’s just a day, and an over comercialised one at that
A feast day is holiday / holy
A feast day is holiday / holy day. A Bank Holiday (or for that matter, a public holiday) is different kettle of fish.
Oh – fish on Bank Holidays
Oh – fish on Bank Holidays too? Well, I suppose we’re increasingly worshipping Mammon these days… (Except for HawkinsPeter – or at least he apparently keeps a line open to the Great Old Ones just in case).
chrisonatrike wrote:
It’s simple logic:
If you are a cultist and an Elder God is summoned
You are rewarded for your hard work by being eaten first.
If you are not a cultist and an Elder God is summoned
You watch in horror as your reality is bent in otherworldly, hellish ways. Your face melts off, there are no directions, and everything is terrible.
If you are a cultist and an Elder God is not summoned
Nothing, other than you wasting your time.
If you are not a cultist and an Elder God is not summoned
Nothing.
So, if you’re a cultist, you make the worse outcome more likely due to your participation but your worse outcome is better than the non-cultist’s. The non-cultist has the best outcome if no Elder Gods are summoned, and the worst outcome if they are.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think it may already be too late.
…At this point, Chris Witty
…At this point, Chris Witty said “Next slide please”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I always thought he had more of an Innsmouth look about him
Wait until drivers find out
Wait until drivers find out about those graduates. Graduates who are likely to be higher earners, pay more tax and, therefore, contribute more to the upkeep of the roads. Pretty sure they’re going to want to move over and let those guys through.
Unlikely the gender studies
Unlikely the gender studies grad that makes my morning coffee can’t pay that much tax. Or the art one on the tills at Tesco?
Craig Prosser wrote:
You’re a real darling aren’t you.
Ooh I’ve got just the friend for you…..
This art grad teaches your
This art grad teaches your young ‘uns at school. Am I an exception to your hard and fast rule? Has your ecosystem just turned upside down?
Craig Prosser wrote:
You’re struggling to understand the meaning of “likely” in the phrase “likely to be higher earners”, aren’t you? Perhaps you need some education.
I wonder of graduates are
I wonder of graduates are more likely to cycle because they cycled by necesity during their student years. While those tha left education at 16/18, generally lived at home and bought cars.
I live up near Box Hill,
I live up near Box Hill, south of London and about 20 miles from the city. I take the dogs for a walk when it’s still dark at this time of year. It was very clear this morning and you could see the smog in the reflected light – never seen that before. In the summer you can see a yellowy-orange lens of smog sitting over London as you ride over the Epsom Downs, but to be able to see it before dawn is something else. Yuk. Glad I’m still working from home and not riding into the smoke
First day out this year in
First day out this year in traffic and the idiots reign.
Van driver reversing back through traffic lights to take a completely different direction, despite me shouting my presence.
Driving instructor over took me 30m from an ASL, then completely blocked it – no other traffic in front of him.
Driver over took in a 40 with no view past the hedge on the right with the bus indicating to pull out and me in primary. She had no thought that a car could easily appear oncoming any second.
Cav burglars sought
Cav burglars sought
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mark-cavendish-aggravated-burglary-ongar-men-wanted-b976739.html
Rupert Penry Jones has come
Rupert Penry Jones has come down in the world.
hirsute wrote:
Police are hunting Macauley Culkin and the Honey Monster…
Lawrence Fox and The Crack
Lawrence Fox and The Crack Fox
“and the moral is?”
“and the moral is?”
Don’t let a doctor treat you if they can’t tell the difference between your head and your ribs!
CUK’s video is excellent, and
CUK’s video is excellent, and an example of how to get your message across, quickly and clearly. Maybe TfL could use the same producers?
Another day full of fuckwits
Another day full of fuckwits in cars.
It’s been quite amusing
It’s been quite amusing whilst I’ve been at home, watching some nearby residents antics every day. They get their 2 ton Range Rover off the drive, plonk child in it, and floor it for…..200 yards, I kid you not! 200 bloody yards, to drop child off at school, the school which takes 3 minutes to stroll to. Parent then drives around the block and parks RR back on the drive! So, a 1.5 mile round trip to put child outside the school 200 yards away!
Fuckwits like this should have their licenses revoked, apart from making a totally unneccessary journey twice a day, they are pumping out lots of pollution, and creating danger to other children walking to school with their erratic driving.
You could show some
You could show some understanding – it’s because the roads are too dangerous to risk Junior walking to school, yes even 200 yards, because of all the idiots driving cars who shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel.
Sriracha wrote:
The most self-fulfilling prophecy.
“We have to drive Tamsin to school because it’s too dangerous for them to walk/cycle because of all the parents taking their Tamsins to school.”
I’m absolutely astounded that
I’m absolutely astounded that they’re telling people to stay at home and not venture outside so the fucking car drivers can continue to pollute the air so badly it’s a bigger health hazard than the pandemic we’re currently in. Whichever person put out that public statement should have been put in the stocks so we can throw shit at them (when it’s safe to breathe the air outside of course).
I’m absolutely astounded that
I’m absolutely astounded that they’re telling people to stay at home and not venture outside so the fucking car drivers can continue to pollute the air so badly
I’m not. After all, we’ve endured Northumbria Police telling us to avoid cycling during busy periods, and South Wales Traffic telling us not to cycle in the dark. This just completes the set. It seems to have been accepted by some that cyclists and pedestrians will suffer more ill effects from the pollution than the slobs sat in the guzzlers right in amongst it. I think this is doubtful-although it’s pretty bad for everybody, they’re getting their just desserts
wtjs wrote:
— wtjsThere is research showing that the air inside cars is more polluted than outside, and that people exercising breathe out the pollution more than car occupants.
Went for a walk this
Went for a walk this afternoon, going for a paved option.
There was a long layby which attracted numerous young lads in their “fast” cars. Regrettably, their speedy driving on an nsl was interupted by several cyclists undertaking unnecessary leisure rides.
None of the cyclists seemed to care that they were disrupting a very important business meeting on a Sunday afternoon.
I saw no evidence of suitcases though.