Motorist deliberately rams cyclist before driving off – as passenger films; British Cycling and Shell fallout; More oil and gas in the peloton as Movistar linked to Repsol deal; Active travel “not the answer” to cutting pollution + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Motorist deliberately rams cyclist before driving off – as passenger films collision
Gardaí have launched an investigation following a hit-and-run incident in Dublin over the weekend, in which a motorist deliberately struck a cyclist from behind as one of the car’s passengers filmed the collision on their phone.
Sticky Bottle reports that the victim was cycling just outside Dublin Airport on Saturday morning when he was hit by the motorist, leaving him with what the police have described as “non-life threatening” injuries.
The footage, which was posted online and has been shared widely on social media, shows the driver gaining on the cyclist as a passenger is heard to say: “Here we go, watch, watch, watch”.
A bang follows as the driver ploughs into the unsuspecting cyclist, before someone says, “Gone, go, we’re gone”.
According to Irishcycle.com, the TikTok account responsible for posting the footage of the sickening collision online also features a video of a motorist driving erratically on a Dublin road, running red lights, using the bus lane and weaving between cars.
“Gardaí are investigating a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and car that occurred on the Naul Road, Ballymun, at approximately 7:45am yesterday morning, Saturday, October 8th,” a police spokesperson said.
“The cyclist, a man in his 20s, was taken to Beaumount Hospital to be treated for his injuries which are non-life threatening. Investigations are ongoing.”
“Is this a parody account?”: Bath Conservatives weigh in on LTN debate after local claims active travel measures “are not the answer” to reducing pollution
We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. @evanrud is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.
“Boy rushed to hospital as ‘pollution’ brought on asthma attack” https://t.co/qfnNg1lHfS
— Bath Local Conservatives (@BathCA) October 10, 2022
Turns out British Cycling wasn’t the only organisation getting grief for its environmental position yesterday…
The Bath Conservative Association – a longstanding advocate of active travel, judging from its Twitter timeline (or maybe not) – was roundly condemned by cycling campaigners after it weighed in on the issue of congestion and pollution in the city… by claiming that the only answer is to get motor traffic “moving”.
The party association was responding to a letter in the Bath Chronicle by Evan Rudowski, a local who has lived car-free for over two decades but believes that the conversation surrounding how best to reduce car use in the city has been “poisoned” by “a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution”.
In the letter, which can be read in full here, Rudowski writes:
Bath is choked with cars. Reducing car use would benefit the city greatly in terms of overall quality of life – reducing traffic, congestion, pollution and, in the long term, our collective carbon footprint.
Of course, getting rid of cars is a massive challenge and needs to be solved primarily on a societal level. But all of us are still obligated to do what we can locally, and personally. In my family’s case, we’ve chosen to live a car-free life for the past 24 years. We’ve made deliberate choices to achieve this, in terms of where we live, work and go to school…
Unfortunately, the conversation regarding how best to reduce car use has been poisoned in Bath, and more broadly, by a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution.
They argue that closing certain roads to car traffic, thus making it less convenient to drive but more friendly for cyclists, will hasten the shift to different modes of transport. Such schemes are referred to as low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) or active travel or, sometimes, Liveable Neighbourhoods. They are not so much intended to improve things immediately, but rather to help us achieve net zero carbon in the future.
Living alongside the A36 as my family does, no one would like to see car traffic reduced more than we would. The frequently poor air quality we suffer here, and that all of Bath suffers from regularly, has had real health impacts. My oldest child uses an inhaler. I’ll never forget the night I had to rush him to the RUH with breathing difficulties. But low-traffic neighbourhoods are not the answer.
Yes, LTNs make some people’s streets very pleasant, reducing through traffic on those streets while still enabling those residents to keep their own cars and drive in and out or receive deliveries however they please. How nice for them.
But the traffic, congestion and resulting air pollution moved off those privileged streets has to go somewhere. Where? Onto main roads where many more residents live, work and go to school. Neighbourhoods such as Bathwick, where I live, already have enormous amounts of through traffic but relatively low car ownership. It’s unfair, impractical and self-defeating to push more traffic onto our main roads.
Praising Rudowski’s letter, which also called for the introduction of a Clean Air Charging Zone, a workplace parking levy and increased spending on public transport in place of the more “extreme” LTN measures, the Bath Conservatives wrote: “We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. [Rudowski] is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.”
Unsurprisingly, many on Twitter, for some reason, disagreed with the apparent sentiment that increasing car usage would reduce pollution:
Is this a parody account? https://t.co/VOfzEaWiPZ
— Ken Borg (@kenborg24) October 10, 2022
Sorry if I’m being dense, but isn’t “getting traffic moving” a recipe for more traffic, not less?
— 🏚️ ꓠꓲꓯꓕꓲꓤꓭ ꓠꓱꓘꓳꓤꓭ (@willsortitout) October 11, 2022
Do you actually read and think about your own tweets? Someone is a victim of traffic pollution and you use that to justify the free movement of cars? Take a good look at yourself.
— GT 🍃💚🍃 (@Graham21) October 10, 2022
Call me fixated, but I still can’t shift the idea from my head that it’s the motor vehicles that are creating the pollution. If only there were more space-efficient, less expensive, less polluting alternatives to motor cars. https://t.co/MxRGHVTfc5
— Tim on two wheels (@2wheelsgoodBrum) October 11, 2022
As an asthmatic myself, I would appreciate you not appropriating my condition to further your misplaced cause. As transport preference is clearly the issue here, you should be encouraging motorists to adopt other forms of transport to get from A to B to protect my lungs.
— Andy (@IAmKuriousBrown) October 10, 2022
It’s been proven time and time again. Increases in road capacity are absorbed by more traffic. “Induced demand”.
And it works the other way too. Removing capacity and the trips reduce. Traffic ends up reverting to similar levels… Just with less pollution.
— Dave Mc (@Guigsy) October 11, 2022
And no better way to illustrate that than the single occupancy SUV that is seen in this picture
— Evan P (@YourSUVsucks) October 10, 2022
The only way to reduce pollution is to move people from driving to public transport, walking, and cycling. Making traffic flow more freely just generates more traffic and more pollution.
— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) October 10, 2022
Built many new roads in my life, as a highway engineer of 20 years. I can go back to any road I’ve been involved in and it will be most congested and most polluted part of that area.Restricting traffic in urban areas only way to resolve air pollution.More capacity=more pollution
— Scott Cooper (@CoopsPine) October 10, 2022
Shell and British Cycling: a counterpoint
While British Cycling’s partnership with Shell may have produced the kind of mitigated PR disaster once confined to an episode of The Thick of It, cycling journalist and author Sophie Smith this morning lifted her head above the parapet to offer the first (at least the first that I’ve seen) attempt to provide a balanced, or at least not wholly negative or angry, take on the controversial deal:
Understand the furore around Shell sponsoring British Cycling, but there is a degree of ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ to it. Carbon bike frames are made from oil and no one objects to those.
— Sophie Smith (@SophieSmith86) October 11, 2022
The noticeable change in environment and weather at the Tour de France this year especially was terrifying. The furore is warranted and I support it. But we should equally be lobbying the likes of Shell as ruthlessly, and, dare I say, making more conscious choices at home too.
— Sophie Smith (@SophieSmith86) October 11, 2022
One of cycling’s biggest weaknesses is coin – or rather a lack thereof. It’s hard for a sport with a poor funding model to say no to big bucks based on ethics. Not saying it’s right, but it is – until stakeholders come up with/agree to a better business alternative – practical.
— Sophie Smith (@SophieSmith86) October 11, 2022
Unsurprisingly, it hasn’t gone down too well:
“you use oil-based products at home so maybe think twice about objecting to @Shell sponsoring @BritishCycling“
Monumentally bad take.
The idea that consumers are somehow to blame, or lack ethics / morals, for multi-billion dollar company’s marketing decisions gives me the ick
— Jack Thomas (@Jack_R_Thomas) October 11, 2022
@100Climbs said something similar which in fairness to him has since been taken down.
This idea that “everyone needs to do their part” is pretty futile if 90% of packaging in supermarkets is plastic, 90% of new cars are petrol / diesel, councils not offering recycling
— Jack Thomas (@Jack_R_Thomas) October 11, 2022
Technically a loud contingent of people do object to carbon frames, preferring more renewable and durable materials like steel or titanium
— Hannah 🚲 (@theeyecollector) October 11, 2022
This feels like a big false equivalence, Sophie. Fossil fuel companies such as Shell have had a huge hand in growing and sustaining our immensely damaging car culture. That they now give a tiny amount back via this sponsorship doesn’t undo that, nor are they now on our side.
— Simon von Bromley (@simonvonbromley) October 11, 2022
People generally don’t set fire to the petrochemicals in their carbon bikes everytime they go somewhere on them.
— Dave Fev (@davefev) October 11, 2022
“No better way to start the day”
Since everyone’s favourite angry, cyclist-chasing, comically-falling motorist is doing the rounds again online (thanks to the No Context Brits Twitter account), it would be remiss of us not to feature it on the live blog:
No better way to start the day. https://t.co/2BUYRcaanC
— Simon Warren (@100Climbs) October 11, 2022
> “Clown takes a pratfall” viral video cyclist talks to press
You can’t win the Tour on oil and gas… but it helps: Petrochemical giant Repsol reportedly set to double Movistar’s budget
You know the old saying, multinational oil and gas companies are a lot like buses. You wait ages for them to invest in cycling, then two come along at once…
While British Cycling was busy setting the internet – and its own reputation – alight after announcing yesterday that the national governing body had agreed an eight-year sponsorship deal with the UK subsidiary of Shell, reports emerged in Spain that Team Movistar could also be on the receiving end of that lucrative oil and gas money.
> “Greenwashing, pure and simple” – fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling
Spanish radio show Onda Cero reported yesterday that Madrid-based multinational energy and petrochemical firm Repsol, which boasts over 3,000 filling stations in Spain and has an annual turnover of €50 billion, is being lined up as the longstanding squad’s co-sponsor for 2023, in a deal that would double the team’s budget.
In another move eerily similar to Shell’s partnership with British Cycling, which – it is claimed – will accelerate the governing body’s “path to net zero” by prioritising electric vehicles, Onda Cero also reported that the Spanish team will be renamed Solar 360, promoting a joint venture between the oil and gas giant and the squad’s current sponsor Movistar, selling solar panels for domestic use.
The reported deal, said to be worth €35 million a year (allowing the squad to compete financially with the likes of Ineos and UAE Team Emirates) is yet to be confirmed by Movistar’s management and it is not yet clear if it will include the women’s pro team.
Of course, Repsol would not be the only petrochemicals giant in the pro peloton if it decides to invest in the venerable old Spanish squad run by Eusebio Unzué.
Even if you ignore (though you really shouldn’t) the presence of Bahrain and the UAE, two oil-rich states associated with more than just greenwashing, a quick glance down the 2022 Tour de France start list will swiftly find TotalEnergies, home of three-time world champion Peter Sagan and one the seven so-called ‘supermajor’ oil companies.
Meanwhile, chemicals giant Ineos decided to celebrate Filippo Ganna’s spectacular Hour Record on Saturday – one of the greatest and purest athletic feats ever achieved on a bike – by… making the Italian pose with the company’s fuel-guzzling 4X4 Grenadier:
Credit – Ineos Grenadiers
“Is this about the Shell sponsorship?” British Cycling asks if deal with oil and gas giant was behind cyclist’s decision to cancel membership
Spare a thought for the poor souls who work for British Cycling’s membership department.
Because it seems like they’ll be dealing with the same enquiry over and over again, for the next few days at least.
For instance, one cyclist, who rang up this morning to cancel his BC membership in protest at what he regarded as the governing body’s complicity in ‘greenwashing’, was greeted instantly with what I presume was a weary, resigned sigh: “Is this about the Shell sponsorship?”
Just cancelled my membership.
First question was “is this about the Shell sponsorship?”
Shows a shocking lack of common sense from the leadership (and it’s not the only recent incident) https://t.co/Y7ntADgLWs— Wrighty (@Gromski) October 11, 2022
The cyclist told road.cc: “Spoke to a nice chap in the membership department and said I wanted to cancel. His first question to me was ‘Is this because of the Shell sponsorship?’
“Went through the brief process of cancelling (end of term versus right now and send card back) and he advised that I email the membership address and explain my reasons so it gets logged and (hopefully) makes it further up the food chain.
“Sounds like they’ve had quite a few emails so far today, but not as many calls.”
If you’re a member of @BritishCycling you should write to their membership team and let them know what you think.
This is what I think pic.twitter.com/12c9c64hc3— Wrighty (@Gromski) October 11, 2022
“Legends say the bike lanes are red because of the blood of their fallen prey…”
One of life’s great mysteries, finally solved…
Finally. The secret is revealed. Dutch bike lanes are red because the asphalt is drenched in the blood of pedestrians that have fallen victim to the ruthless Dutch cyclists. pic.twitter.com/mkWuhdEI7M
— Lennart Nout (@lennartnout) October 11, 2022
“The bicycle is the transport choice of the future, but fossil fuels are the energy of the past”: Open letter sent to British Cycling over Shell partnership
@BritishCycling is allowing @Shell_UKLtd to taint cycling with dirty money, without consulting its members. If you agree, please consider signing this open letter this morning. https://t.co/cj5QN5ANQi
— Steve McInerny (@TheSharpSharp) October 11, 2022
According to cycling journalist Andy McGrath, the Shell deal apparently went ahead against the wishes of many senior staff, as well as – it seems clear by now – the vast, vast majority of the body’s members:
My understanding is that numerous British Cycling staff and management were vociferously against Shell sponsorship deal and it went ahead anyway. The move could also affect future funding amount from UK Sport and Sport England too
— Andy McGrath (@Andymcgra) October 11, 2022
Measures to reduce through-traffic in Richmond, Bushy and Greenwich Parks made permanent
💥NEWS💥 @theroyalparks are making permanent the measures to cut through traffic from Richmond, Bushy & Greenwich Parks https://t.co/OMLFOPEyzh
— Will Norman (@willnorman) October 11, 2022
The Royal Parks announced this morning that measures brought in at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic to reduce the impact of cut-through traffic in a number of the body’s parks have been made permanent.
Restrictions on through-traffic in Richmond, Bushy and Greenwich – the parks included in today’s announcements – were introduced in July 2020 to allow Londoners to “continue to enjoy new car-free areas”.
The two-year trial allowed Royal Parks to collate extensive feedback from visitors and evaluate the measures’ impact on traffic.
In Bushy Park, the closure of Chestnut Avenue between Teddington Gate and Hampton Court Gate will now be made permanent, with commuting vehicles no longer allowed in the park, while the Avenue in Greenwich will also now remain completely closed to vehicles.
In Richmond Park, the following measures have been made permanent: no through traffic will be permitted between Broomfield Hill Car Park and Robin Hood Car Park, the vehicle link between Sheet Gate and Sheen Cross will be permanently closed, and on weekends and public holidays a restriction on all cut-through traffic will be in place between Roehampton and Richmond Gates.
A decision on the trials taking place in St James’s Park and the Green Park will be made early next year, while the trial in Hyde Park will continue as Royal Parks await a decision from Transport for London regarding the cycle lane on Park Lane, which has currently forced the full-time closure of South Carriage Drive.
Groan… More fake transfer ‘news’: This time it’s “Manx Cavendish”
First Remco, and now Cav – I fear that we’re going to have to get used to this sort of nonsense over the next few years. The ‘soccerisation’ of cycling and all that…
🤩 I just can’t stop yet. I’m so honoured to be riding with @BBHOTELS_KTM next season.
Thank you so much for everything, @qst_alphavinyl. It was an absolute honour to be with you. Pure class. You were brilliant teammates.
Let’s go!!! #project35 pic.twitter.com/SB1LRJN7HU
— Mark Cavendish (@ManxCavendish) October 11, 2022
Though fair play to the jokester for trying to mimic the Manx Missile’s Twitter vernacular and use of emojis. A few swears and it might have been convincing…
Quick, someone tell the Bath Conservative Association…
Research has found that if one in five urban residents swapped just one car journey to cycling each day, it would cut emissions from all car travel in Europe by 8%! 📉
Small changes add up to make a difference 🙌 👇https://t.co/2SN9WzbYKj pic.twitter.com/WASubUN6Yn
— Sustrans (@Sustrans) October 7, 2022
Reader reaction: “Attempted murder with a blunt weapon”, interesting British Cycling and Shell takes, and how to solve congestion in Bath…
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the tumultuous last 24 hours for British Cycling, there was plenty to discuss in the comments section today.
Regarding that oil spill-shaped elephant in the room, many of our readers were critical of cycling journo Sophie Smith’s tweets, which appeared to equate (to some degree) British Cycling’s decision to partner with Shell with cyclists purchasing carbon bike frames made using oil.
Understand the furore around Shell sponsoring British Cycling, but there is a degree of ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ to it. Carbon bike frames are made from oil and no one objects to those.
— Sophie Smith (@SophieSmith86) October 11, 2022
“Don’t hate the player because some bike components are made using oil? Interesting take, and I totally don’t go along with that kind of whataboutery,” wrote Awavey.
“We don’t know this was a big bucks deal for BC, the accounts from both organisations may hint at the size of these things, though likely hard to spot in a company that makes £10 billion profit in three months, and we don’t know who the alternatives were, so how can anyone state Shell were the best or only choice available?”
Rendel Harris also pointedly argued that “making an equivalence a few pints (gallons?) of oil needed to make an object that, with care, may last 20 or 30 years (and that actively cuts carbon emissions when in use) with the many billions of gallons burned every day for transport is like saying that because you mow your lawn you’ve got no right to raise concerns about the deforestation of the Amazon.”
“The Carbon Fibre argument doesn’t work for me,” says IanMK. “Yes, composite materials will be made from by-products of the oil and gas industry but using those products to make long lasting items is effectively carbon capture and I would imagine relatively low energy, i.e. it’s not directly contributing to global warming.
“Okay, there may be an issue with recyclability but compare that to a titanium or aluminium frame where we would not only have to consider the mining processes involved in virgin metals but also whether the energy used to recycle that metal is sustainable, which I suspect it won’t be.”
If you haven’t had enough of the British Cycling-Shell story already (it really is everywhere), don’t worry – there’s a special road.cc podcast episode coming your way soon…
On this morning’s story, which featured a motorist ploughing into an unsuspecting cyclist from behind – seemingly to simply post on TikTok as a very questionable jokes – OldRidgeBack wrote: “That’s horrendous. The driver needs to be taken off the road and the passenger as well. I hope the victim heals up okay.”
Leipreachan was even more blunt in their assessment, and argued that “the driver and the passenger should be taken to prison for an attempted murder with a blunt weapon.”
“I’m sure someone will be along shortly to point out that attempted murder requires ‘intent’ to seriously injure or kill, but seriously – they intentionally rammed him with two tonnes of high-speed metal, how far can you reasonably take the ignorance defence?” asked BalladOfStruth.
“You couldn’t shoot someone in the face, or set them on fire and claim ‘it was just a prank for Tiktok, I didn’t intend to hurt him’.”
Rendel Harris also pointed out the dubious use of language from the local Gardaí in relation to the incident: “Again with the language from official bodies, for heaven’s sake; if the account of the video above is accurate (as I have every confidence it is) then why on earth is it ‘Gardai are investigating a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and car’ and not ‘Gardai are investigating a serious assault on a cyclist by a car driver using their vehicle as a weapon’?”
Finally, we turn to Bath, where a few of our readers picked apart the featured letter writer’s arguments concerning the impact (or otherwise) of LTNs in reducing car ownership and promoting greater use of other modes of transport.
However, it was road.cc reader pockstone who had the perfect solution, which will surely be appearing on an election leaflet dropping through your letterbox soon:
Congestion in Bath could be much reduced in one fell swoop. A six lane highway in place of Pulteney Bridge and the weir, demolish the Abbey, the Roman Baths, the Pump rooms,the Guildhall and the Art Gallery to connect seamlessly to Broad Quay bridge and the A36 south of the river. Result: no tourists, no shops, no gridlock around Sydney Gardens… the much-reduced traffic will fly through the city centre…come on Bath Conservatives, THINK BIG!!
11 October 2022, 08:52
Could we be witnessing the beginning of the Turbo Trainer Wars?
Anything look familiar? Wahoo sues Zwift and JetBlack claiming new Zwift Hub smart trainer is "copying the Kickr Core"
Wahoo claims the new Zwift Hub trainer infringes three patents relating to its Kickr Core trainer, and accuses Zwift of hurting "the overall health of the cycling industry" with its direct sales model
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.
45 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I'll counter that by saying the Bryton 750se I have drives me nuts at times. Inconsistantly picks up on routes created on Komoot and the app re-syncs every few seconds when trying to set up the device and sends me back to the home screen. The most infuriating one is that I turned live track on. Once. It now won't turn off and repeatedly flags up the live track is starting, and then disconnecting every few seconds whilst riding. I haven't timed it but it wouldn't suprise me if 10-20% of the time the the screen is covered with an error message. That's been about 6 weeks now. Other than that it's great :/
RE: Police launch road safety operation... by clamping down on cyclists using footbridge Meanwhile in Glasgow, Police Scotland are riding their motorbikes over the pedestrian and cyclists only bridge. https://x.com/FietserGlasgow/status/2065106152917012523?s=20
@Paul J Van Schip certainly seems a bit of a dick, but he's a European and multiple World Champion on the track, pretty sure you don't get there without having some talent in your legs.
Poor Vincent cannot get over the simple fact that given the choice people prefer dedicated cycling spaces, rather than pretending to be cars like vehicular cyclists.
What is the point of the fancy air sensor if it can't account for changing weather conditions?? If all you care about is a delayed approximation of aerodynamic watts in steady conditions, you don't need any special sensors for that. Just your speed on a decently flat course is enough to approximate rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. And the rest must be aero. If you assume a less aero body position at the same watts, your speed will drop while rolling resistance also drops, which means approximated aero watts goes up. And that's enough to demonstrate what you've shown in your testing protocol ("I sat upright and the number went up a little while later").
Your correction is accurate - it's almost always been "the (lack of) thought that (doesn't) count". "Massive" - less than a billion a year spent on active travel (trying to catch up / building a network across the entire country) Not massive - 6 billion every year (2026-2030) spent on road *maintenance* of existing "already built, goes everywhere, very convenient" road network for inactive travel Ultimately the reason "cycle infra" is *needed* is those unbelievably colossal amounts spent every year (and for more than a century now) on making mass motoring not just viable but apparently the "best choice" for most journeys. As the Dutch and others have shown, the majority of people *are* prepared to cycle and even mix with very light, slow local motor traffic *if* cycling is also made safe and convenient for the whole of their journey (including secure parking at both ends). (The history of the financial drivers of the current situation are a complex topic but note that while people complain about "crumbling roads" and underfunded motor infra - with some reason - by us continuing the fuel duty escalator freeze (for example) we're actually helping motorists pay *even less* for that activity / subsidising more of the cost of driving than ever.)
yes, but people will still object - which was my point.
So ' Priority of Road Users' and 1.5 metre clearance at 30mph has been been reduced to 'sharing'? NCN route 2 here in South Hams is an absolute scream with white vans, tractors and total idiots who refuse,or are totally incapable,to reverse on high Devon banked lanes ...means you have to get off and pedal back to a passing place....could be at that all day...so I don't bother...
@MaxiMinimalist Agreed. The big problem I see now is today's parents grew up being driven to their schools, and therefore, see private motor vehicles as the only viable form of transport. The vast majority of UK infant and primary schools have a catchment area that is within easy walking distance from home to school. Yet, the traffic caused by pupils being driven to/from school is astonishing. Banishing the "School Run" should be a priority for all schools.
When I was a kid (that was during the previous millenium when phones were connected to a plug in the wall), I rode my bicycle to school, music academy, sport grounds, parties even during the winter. The government didn't have to spend, correct that, didn't have to think of spending massive amounts of money to build cycling specific infrastructures. Over the past 3 or 4 decades, cars have grown bigger, taller, safer (for their drivers) and faster. Meanwhile, motorists have become abusive, aggressive, hypersensitive to people moving on two wheels, aka cyclists. Spending billions upon billions on new infrastructure won't address the crux of the matter. Sadly.
45 thoughts on “Motorist deliberately rams cyclist before driving off – as passenger films; British Cycling and Shell fallout; More oil and gas in the peloton as Movistar linked to Repsol deal; Active travel “not the answer” to cutting pollution + more on the live blog”
I think that’s more than a
I think that’s more than a road traffic collision – how about hit-n-run and serious assault with a deadly weapon?
Royal Parks confirm that
Royal Parks confirm that measures to reduce the impact of cut-through traffic in Richmond, Bushy and Greenwich Parks will be made permanent: https://twitter.com/theroyalparks/status/1579754932818747392
That’s horrendous. The driver
That’s horrendous. The driver needs to be taken off the road and the passenger as well. I hope the victim heals up ok.
The driver and the passenger
The driver and the passenger should be taken to prison for an attemted murder with a blunt weapon.
I’m sure someone will be
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to point out that attempted murder requires ‘intent’ to seriously injure or kill, but seriously – they intentionally rammed him with 2-tonnes of high-speed metal, how far can you reasonably take the ignorance defence? You couldn’t shoot someone in the face, or set them on fire and claim “it was just a prank for Ticktok, I didn’t intend to hurt him”.
With you but again – elephant
With you but again – elephant in the room – very many people are driving, all the time. I think that’s the logic here (although I bet most of these decisions are taken via the usual “how I feel about it” process). So the comparison would be if there were firing ranges everywhere and most adults were discharging firearms for a significant portion of the day – often accompanied by their dependents. And it’s “necessary” – so maybe many of them are actually hunting to eat. This is encouraged by the government, media etc. Now we allow other people to walk across / cycle down the ranges (it helps if they’re “other” people – not our family and friends who we know are very careful…). And most people still manage to go through life without killing or being killed!
All of a sudden “the sun was in my eyes” / “tragic accident” seems more reasonable, no?
This is a patently silly vision and it doesn’t excuse anyone. But maybe it helps get our heads around the decisions – which I still often find inexplicable – produced by the legal system?
I get what you’re saying here
I get what you’re saying here – that there’s a perception of necessity for average people to drive, so the likelihood of conflict/road-rage/accidents/moments of madness is higher than with something like (for example) firearms, so that can be used to argue against malice/intent (E: also that there’s a general culture of “everyone drives, so we can’t have people pointing out how dangerous cars are”). But I don’t think it applies here.
This wasn’t a road-rage incident or an accident, and the fact that everyone drives doesn’t (IMO) come into it. These guys went out, found a cyclist, obviously discussed their plan enough for one of them to have a camera ready (premeditated), intentionally rammed the cyclist in a totally unprovoked attack and dove off (so they knew what they had done was serious enough that they didn’t want to get caught). They also didn’t feel enough guilt or remorse to prevent them from posting the video.
My point is (hence my comparison to the gun) is that they will have known the potential for death/serious injury a car poses, they’ll know that cars kill thousands and seriously injure tens of thousands every year, and the still did it. Therefore, they can’t claim ignorance and say that they didn’t intend to injure – this should (in my opinion) meet the threshold for attempted murder. It won’t, of course – if they’re ever caught, it will at best be three points and an insignificant fine, but still…
Again – I agree but I’m just
Again – I agree but I’m just trying to explore the normalisation of driving (for myself as much as anything). There clearly is bias – from the “just a witness” stuff by the police to the more famous cases (e.g. Michael Mason …). And “hardship” – that becomes easier because the victim (if there was one) is out of the picture by that point. However on some occasions the motorist is clearly enough of an “other” that it’s “common sense” that they’re a dangerous driver. The degree of overlap is confusing to me – some cases which appear wildly egregious seem to slip past. Are charges of “careless” and “dangerous” are still infused with the “intent” which I believe they were designed to lessen (e.g. vs. murder / manslaughter / GBH). And because “everyone drives” the requirements of proving that (even if that’s not what is supposed to be needed) seem to be very high?
Maybe driving is just one of those “common knowledge” activities where despite – or because of – doing it every day we really have very little understanding and awareness of. And at the same time we’re certain that we understand it because our daily experience?
The gun range argument is
The gun range argument is fine but more pertinent is kitchen knives. We all use kitchen knives almost every day but when someone takes that tool and uses it to cause harm it is treated as a weapon. Why is the same not true of drivers.
In this case there is clear video evidence submitted by the defendant of premeditated decision making to use their tool as a weapon so the same charges which would be levied against someone who went out with a kitchen knife and stabbed a random person for tiktok should be levied here.
I don’t know the rule in
I don’t know the rule in Irish law, but in the UK we have the concept of “oblique intent” – basically, you knew that your actions would be expected to give rise to death or serious injury. It’s not very commonly used, and I doubt anyone would use it for a motoring incident because god forbids that someone suggests that cars are seriously freaking dangerous and should be treated the same way as deadline weapons when they are intentionally misused.
I feel like our roads would be a hell of a lot safer if we started clamping down hard on people that intentionally used cars to threaten intimidate or injure. Whilst everyone “makes mistakes”, the prevalence of punishment passes or intentional collisions (lets be honest this isn’t the first story this week featuring a motorist intentionally using his car to injure a cyclist) clearly demonstrates that the sanctions for people taking a conscious decision to use their car as a weapon are insufficient.
I mean, cars kill more people than guns in the UK but can you imagine intentionally shooting someone and not ending up in prison?
Irish law is English law,
Irish law is English law, then forked off after about 1922. So, my vague understanding at least, is that a lot of the English legal concepts apply directly here. Indeed, there are still many statutes on the books in Ireland passed in England. There was reform in 2007 apparently – with all pre-22 legislation revoked, bar those listed in a schedule. Which is here:
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/schedule/1/enacted/en/html
Many of those are Acts of the English parliament that were specific to Ireland anyway, but a lot were general to the UK (including all of Ireland, then).
Or at least on an assault
Or at least on an assault charge
Re Bath: If you only see
Re Bath: If you only see motor vehicles (but notscooters & Ebikes?) as ‘vehicles’ then LTNs may not seem the answer to ‘traffic’. However, when one includes non-motorised methods, including cycles, pedestrians etc, traffic becomes a measure of the flow of people & goods. LTNs can then be seen differently.
Seems similar to the rephrasing of ‘accidents’ as collisions.
Why is this trope of cyclists
Why is this trope of cyclists causing traffic delays in urban environments so difficult to kill?
I regularly drive around and through Cambridge, a city noted for the number of cyclists on the roads. They figure so far down the list of things that cause delay to a car driver that they are barely worth a mention.
At minimum, a cyclist will be pedalling along at 12mph, an average speed that car drivers in many congested cities would be quite envious of.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Because it’s not only crocodiles that live in denial; accepting that the vast majority of delays are caused by excess traffic (and also that building/expanding roads won’t relieve that) would mean accepting that motorists might have to do something about their behaviours. Most people faced with a choice between accepting they are wrong or blaming someone else will go straight for the latter alternative.
I live in Bath; I’m lucky to
I live in Bath; I’m lucky to live in a road that has minimal rat-running but there are at least 5 rat-runs close by (down narrow streets, often only a cars width). I had to walk to the local shops before 5 yesterday and I can only describe the roads as hellish; queues and motorists flying down every road with that self-entitled death-stare look. The local tories, who don’t occupy a single seat in the Bath city area, seem intent on picking a fight with all and sundry. All the B&NES tory councillors are in the countryside seats (Rees-Mogg turf) and no doubt champion their consituents who are incensed that their car journeys into Bath wil be hindered by LTNs, scooters, safer walking routes etc. They even wheel out the excuse that Bath is hilly so a cycle route is a waste of time. The scooter scheme has just been expanded to include the university site so I’m looking forward to the next round of spleen-venting.
Dont hate the player because
Dont hate the player because some bike components are made using oil ? Interesting take, and I totally dont go along with that kind of whataboutery 🙂
We dont know this was a big bucks deal for BC, the accounts from both orgs may hint at the size of these things though likely hard to spot in a company who makes 10billion pounds profit in 3 months, and we dont know who the alternatives were, so how can anyone state Shell were the best or only choice available ?
Those takes are all over the
Those takes are all over the place and I can only assume they are not genuine arguments. Nobody could reasonably do those kind of mental gymnastics in good faith.
Awavey wrote:
As I commented on the lady’s Twitter feed, making an equivalence a few pints (gallons?) of oil needed to make an object that, with care, may last 20 or 30 years (and that actively cuts carbon emissions when in use) with the many billions of gallons burned every day for transport is like saying that because you mow your lawn you’ve got no right to raise concerns about the deforestation of the Amazon.
There was a carbon footprint
There was a carbon footprint done on a “typical” carbon bike built in Asia and shipped to the UK (I forget by whom) and if I recall correctly the biggest element of the total footprint was the delivery by road from port of arrival, through distribution to LBS or purchaser’s home. Even then I seem to recall it was approximately 1000 miles of replaced car journeys for break even. It would be interesting to see the work done again using electric vehicles.
It was Trek, the 1000 mile
It was Trek, the 1000 mile number is for average american car fuel consumption but it is also for the most polluting trek bike (a full carbon, full suspension, electric mountain bike.) An ordinary commuter bike would need to offset far less than 1000 miles of driving to be a carbon negative.
It’s such a weird take from a
It’s such a weird take from a journalist within the sport of cycling to make, I could understand it maybe from someone who had no exposure to cycling since primary school bar a passing glance, but she wrote a book on the TdF for Pete’s sake.
And there are probably half a dozen better ways you could try and justify it if you were playing devils advocate, from BC really really needed the money now or Shell really are on board & do want to promote cycling sustainable transport,cut their emissions. To Shells deal was the best long term deal available and aligns with BCs aim to lower reliance on handouts and work to change big corps for the better. Or it enables BC to rejuvenate its road race series properly, allow grass root funding & projects to provide that pathway for juniors upto full time professional riders it gets another 1million people riding Etc etc etc.
I mean still all garbage reasons that I would argue strongly against Shells money paying for even if they’re laudable aims, but it’s a better attempt than well you cyclists use oil so what’s the big problem.
The Carbon Fibre argument
The Carbon Fibre argument doesn’t work for me. Yes composite materials will be made from by-products of the oil and gas industry but using those products to make long lasting items is effectively carbon capture and I would imagine relatively low energy. ie it’s not directly contributing to global warming. Okay, there may be an issue with recyclability but compare that to a titanium or aluminium frame where we would not only have to consider the mining processes involved in virgin metals but also whether the energy used to recyle that metal is sustainable, which I suspect it won’t be.
Again with the language from
Again with the language from official bodies, for heaven’s sake; if the account of the video above is accurate (as I have every confidence it is) then why on earth is it “Gardai are investigating a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and car” and not “Gardai are investigating a serious assault on a cyclist by a car driver using their vehicle as a weapon”?
This ^^
This ^^
Police wouldn’t be investigating a collision between a person and a knife.
Although the American police
Although the American police are (allegedly) quite keen on people colliding with a fast moving bullet…
brooksby wrote:
Ah yes, the old “officer-involved shooting.”
Mr Rudowski’s argument
Mr Rudowski’s argument effectively boils down to LTNs don’t cause modal shift or traffic evaporation, but other interventions do.
I would argue the evidence is pretty clear on the first point: Mr Rudowski is wrong. There is good evidence that LTNs do cause a reduction in to traffic, a reduction in car ownership, and greater use of other modes of transport: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design-contents/design-guide/all/5-a-guide-to-the-evidence-around-low-traffic-neighbourhoods
https://westminsterstreets.org.uk/the-evidence-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/60003fabf3791928a02b707f/1610629036655/LTN+Briefing_FINAL.pdf
On the second point: I don’t think anyone is saying it is either/or. LTNs are not a perfect or complete solution. We absolutely can and should be doing other things to, including making public transport and other forms of active travel more attractive.
On the “cycling lobby”, Mr Rudowski makes it sound like anyone arguing for better cycling provision are motivated solely by self-interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. I already cycle most journeys around town, despite the almost complete lack of infrastructure. I do so because it is fast, cheap, convenient and keeps me healthy. I want everyone (or at least many more people) to be able to benefit from having cycling as a viable option.
Look at London – pretty much the best public transport network any city could hope for, generally pretty good for walking (the only part of the country where pavement parking is banned) and yet cycling has risen dramatically as the infrastructure has appeared. Why? Because given a real choice, people realise that cycling is a good way to get around. The cycling lobby simply wants to give that choice to everyone.
Congestion in Bath could be
Congestion in Bath could be much reduced in one fell swoop. A six lane highway in place of Pulteney Bridge and the weir, demolish the Abbey, the Roman Baths, the Pump rooms,the Guildhall and the Art Gallery to connect seamlessly to Broad Quay bridge and the A36 south of the river. Result: no tourists, no shops, no gridlock around Sydney Gardens… the much reduced traffic will fly through the city centre…come on Bath Conservatives, THINK BIG!!
This really pissed me off –
This really pissed me off – “They argue that closing certain roads to car traffic, thus making it less convenient to drive but more friendly for cyclists,” from Mr Rudowski. Is that alll LTNs are for? Just for cyclists?
It’s a convenient way way for
It’s a convenient way way for the antis to frame the debate – important that all beneficiaries speak up.
All together now, “what do we want? other people’s cars in front of our houses!”
An entitled waste of oxygen:
An entitled waste of oxygen:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63207659
Its good British Cycling have
Its good British Cycling have a sponsor. Everyone complaining about it is a hypocrite, we all know it. Like HSBC were any better. Oil companies feed, cloth and heat our society. Over 60% of the electricity consumed in this nation is derived from burning gas. Turn off your heating, throw away your plastic derived products and your bikes if you hate fossil fules so much …no? …thought not. Glad there are adults at British Cycling making decisions. Now let the keyboard-kings start the hate. Pussies.
alexuk wrote:
You seem to have started by yourself. Watch out for the toms.
Oh dear. Sad and lonely
Oh dear. Sad and lonely under your bridge are you?
It does seem to be the third
It does seem to be the posters third attempt to get a rise out of people on this topic with over the specific words used.
As any (fossil) fule kno
As any (fossil) fule kno
Whilst I wouldn’t question
Whilst I wouldn’t question the claims of Evan Rudowski to have been car-free for 24 years, I’m intrigued as to how he then reaches the conclusions that LTNs are solely the result of lobbying by cyclists. Neither do I understand why he appears to be opposed to LTNs when he has no car himself; surely he would want the benefits of not owning a car to be shared by everyone? He also brings out the old chestnut of displaced traffic, which has been disproved more times than trickle-down economics. He seems to be comprehensively ignorant on the subject of LTNs, but like many profoundly misinformed people, has no difficulty in sharing his invalid opinions.
Quite frankly, his position as a non-car owner baffles me. Why oppose measures that have mass support and will improve the lives of thousands when those measures will not impact you at all?
If I’ve understood it
If I’ve understood it correctly he thinks that LTNs are very nice for the people who live in them but he still has to put up with pollution from cars that go past his house. He may feel that this has increased due to the LTNs which is a very commonly held opinion. Not sure it’s bourne out by stats but the fact is that he and his family don’t benifit from LTNs which doesn’t seem fair as he is not contributing at all to the problem.
Strangely he doesn’t offer an
Strangely he doesn’t offer an alternative solution….
This is then compounded by Bath Tories, that should know better because it was their party that produced Gear Change in which their former leader effectively explains induced demand.
“LTNs are for the middle
“LTNs are for the middle classes / an imposition on the poor” / “LTNs cause pollution” / “They make it dangerous for women” / “They stop the old and disabled from getting about”. You hear some of these from posters here too!
I’m just waiting for “LTNs are woke”. I think it’s become an ideological flag. That’s presumably why this chap – who would seem to be someone who’d see some benefit from them – is decrying them.
All “LTN” means is “an area which is designed to not facilitate through traffic”. Note in the Netherlands that sometimes even reaches to “through cycle traffic is not encouraged”! However in the UK they can be used to facilitate cycle routes and public transport too. But that can be done without declaring a “LTN” also.
They aren’t a new thing. This design was in use long before people were invoking “active travel”.
Like any traffic management intervention there are some crucial details – e.g. it’s quite possible to “make” one poorly. Size matters!
At the end of the day it’s just about choices again. Do we continue to prioritise motor “convenience” e.g. multiple means of access everywhere? If so, can we see the issues with this choice? Our “side streets” become narrow main roads due to rat-running. That leads to chaotic traffic flow as people try to cut back into the main routes. Meanwhile traffic on the main streets expands to fill any reductions there.
EDIT: as OnYerBike says – cutting down on through-traffic is just one idea to make cycling, walking and wheeling some journeys more appealing than driving. If we want change we have lots of tools in the box and need them all! Note again in The Netherlands they’re less likely to tie themselves into knots about this kind of thing because they’ve moved on to a different understanding – monofunctional roads.
eburtthebike wrote:
Is that Liz Truss is doing?!
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Yes. Much touted as the key to growth, but it’s never worked in practice. Funny, but you might have thought someone proposing it might have done a little research, but I’ve just posted on fb that Thick Lizzie is the personification of Dunning-Kruger.
And trickle down economics too.
Of course, I approve of
Of course, I approve of tricke-down economics – by nominative determinism. But I’m also a fan on the “on your bycle” school of movation.
“put you f***in mouth shut’
“put you f***in mouth shut’ is still one of the all time greats.