Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints; Ben Healy plays down Amstel drafting controversy; Tour of Britain stage finishes announced + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Is the Tour of Britain coming to a town near you? Stage finishes announced
The remaining four stage finishes for this year’s Tour of Britain have been announced…
Stage two on Monday 4 September will finish in the now Hollywood destination of Wrexham, while the following day heads back north to the East Riding of Yorkshire market town of Beverley. After a dip into Nottinghamshire on Wednesday (one of the three already announced stages) Thursday’s stage five finishes in Felixstowe before stage six will be decided in Harlow.
Manchester and South Wales are the destinations for the first and last stage, with full profiles and routes to follow “in the coming weeks”.
More experts, fewer conspiracy theorists on active travel TV shows please
> More experts, fewer conspiracy theorists on active travel TV shows please
"If I'd caught Pogačar, I think he would have been a hard man to beat": Ben Healy plays down Amstel drafting controversy
Cycling loves a good controversy to get worked up about. Last weekend, it was Amstel Gold Race’s director getting a little too close to the action, fans, team bosses and journalists suggesting race winner Tadej Pogačar got a little help from the car…
EF Education-EasyPost’s team boss Jonathan Vaughters was one of those most vocal in their criticism, while former UCI president Brian Cookson said it was “inexplicable and unacceptable”. But what does the man most affected think? EF’s breakout star, Irishman Ben Healy, finished second behind Pogačar but told Sticky Bottle he doesn’t think it made much difference to the result.
“I don’t think so. If I’d caught Pogačar, I think he would have been a hard man to beat. He definitely was holding something in reserve after he dropped me and Pidcock,” Healy said.
The 22-year-old has enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top of the cycling world this spring (even if Ryan will tell you he’s been around for ages) winning a stage of Settimana Internazionale Coppi e Bartali and GP Industria & Artigianato before taking his form to the big time, racking up two second-place finishes at Brabantse Pijl and Amstel Gold. A second Monument appearance of his career looms at Liège–Bastogne–Liège before a maiden Grand Tour in May. A Giro stage win would bring the house down…
The collab nobody asked for... Taco Bell cycling collection
Possibly the biggest news from the cycling world yesterday (how did we possibly miss it?)… Taco Bell and State Bicycle Co. has teamed up to release a bike, plus there’s a collection of cycling clothing and accessories… is this the cycling equivalent of when Greggs and Primark started doing merch?
The Klunker Bike is “a retro-inspired mashup of a beach cruiser, mountain bike and BMX, perfect for biking to grab tacos at Taco Bell” and comes with a Taco Bell x State Bicycle Co. custom frame bag, yours for $420…
There are also grips, bar ends, jerseys, bib shorts, t-shirts and handlebar bags… so much to choose from…
Jumbo-Visma used AI to master nutrition during last year's Tour de France
[A.S.O/Charly López]
Six stages and the yellow jersey was Jumbo-Visma’s impressive haul at last year’s Tour, success aided by AI it has now been revealed. New Scientist spoke to Maastricht University’s Kristian van Kuijk who told them all about working with the Dutch WorldTour squad to unlock their nutrition strategy, using machine learning and mathematical modelling to plan diets.
[A.S.O. / Pauline Ballet]
Race data, including biological and power stats, race profiles and weather were used to predict future energy requirements. To prove its effectiveness the AI model was tested alongside team coaches, both were asked to estimate calorie requirements for various athletes from stages of the 2019 Tour and Giro. The result? On a score of 0 to 1, coaches averaged a score of 0.55 while the machine-learned model averaged 0.82.
The computer says no… resting from carb cramming…
road.cc at The Cycle Show: Reilly's new Reflex gravel bike and a Cannondale SystemSix with Fat Creations finish
We’re at The Cycle Show today… Editor Jack is on the ground snapping some of the most eye-catching bikes on show…
Eye-catching? This Cannondale SystemSix with Fat Creations finish is certainly that…
Or how about this slightly more understated new Reilly Reflex gravel bike which is grabbing plenty of attention at the Ally Pally?
Head over to our Instagram for more of the highlights…
Maintenance moaning
Anybody else spend their lunch break mangling a brake cable thanks to not tightening their cable cutters? Oh, right, yep, only me… I love bike maintenance… especially when it involves threading budget cables at risk of fraying (because you haven’t cut them well) through shifters. Sorry, needed to get that out there… rant over. Cable fitted. Rear brake back to how it should be.
Cyclist dies after falling 90 feet while mountain biking on Peak District moorland
> Cyclist dies after falling 90 feet while mountain biking on Peak District moorland
Making La Redoute look easy (+ heartwarming bottle chucking)
“Bidon please” 🥰#LBL pic.twitter.com/FXXfNz5hz5
— Intermarché-Circus-Wanty (@IntermarcheCW) April 21, 2023
Wout's big days out
> Wout van Aert heads on epic post-classics bikepacking trip and “champagne chase”
British riders win three stages, GC, points and youth classification at Tour of the Alps
The 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 win of his career 👏
🏆 Simon Carr wins the final stage of Tour of the Alps and @efprocycling claim 𝙩𝙬𝙤 podium spots! 🥇🥈 #TouroftheAlps pic.twitter.com/dzOvRHRD3S
— Eurosport (@eurosport) April 21, 2023
A quarter of the top 20 on GC at Tour of the Alps hail from Great Britain, with Tao Geoghegan Hart winning the race ahead of Hugh Carthy. Youth classification winner Max Poole of DSM was 11th, while Geraint Thomas and Mark Donovan were 15th and 20th respectively. Geoghegan Hart also took the points classification, while EF Education-EasyPost’s Simon Carr was the winner on the final stage to top off a cracking week for the Brits…
From the mailbox...
An email from a road.cc reader to round off the live blog for another week…
Dear road.cc
Many thanks for all your close pass actions (even if this is a little depressing). I would like to propose that car drivers that fall foul of highway code standards regarding cycling should have to do a cycling proficiency test, or a group cycle ride. They may not be so keen to advocate cyclists riding on unmaintained cycle lanes if they had to cycle themselves. Cycling is one of the opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint. So should be encouraged by everyone to provide a better environment for the next generation.
Best regards
George
Have a good weekend
We’ll see you back on the live blog next week…
Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints
You know how these work by now… police force attempts to educate road users and those online on how to not put cyclists in danger… post gets hijacked by comments along the lines of ‘but what about *insert thing Brenda from location x hates about cyclists*’… we all get our bingo cards out to despair at the mindset of some people who use the roads…
We’re in Norfolk for today’s anti-cycling bingo where the county’s constabulary informed the public about its recent close pass operation, “proactively working to reduce the dangers caused by motorists who choose to drive too closely to cyclists”.
Officers on bicycles are equipped with action camera devices to secure and record evidence of driving offences. If an offence has occurred, it is reported to uniformed officers on motorcycles who are deployed within the operation area.
A motorcycle officer then sets out to stop the offending vehicle and provided the offence was not so serious as to warrant immediate enforcement action (e.g., drink-driving or dangerous driving), they are offered the opportunity to be escorted back to the engagement site for an educational input.
If the driver of the offending vehicle declined the offer of an educational input, they would then be issued with a Traffic Offence Report (TOR) for consideration of the offences of either careless driving or driving without due care and attention.
The educational input aims to make the driver aware of why their manner of driving was careless or inconsiderate, inform them of the typical hazards faced by cyclists and the use of a ‘Pass Mat’ which highlights the spacing that should be used for cyclists, with 1.5metres being the recommended overtaking clearance.
On this occasion, 19 drivers received educational engagement with a further five issued with TORs for a variety of offences including passing cyclists in a dangerous manner and use of their mobile phone.
Fair enough? Ermmm not in the eyes of this lot… markers at the ready, it’s comments time…(All presented in their original form, of course)…
“That’s really good and thank u. However, when will the police start to tackle the cyclists who but the motorists at harm, ie no lights on the roads in pitch black conditions, holding a phone meaning using one hand to cycle, putting people at risk as they think zebra crossing and crossing in general don’t matter to them? Easy to blame the motorists but I suspect it’s not about safety it’s more about u can make money out of a motorist!” Really strong start here, great ranting, good variation on the usual red light-jumping example…
“I’ve now lost count of how many cyclists I see without lights or even high visibility clothing after twilight, and that’s on busy main roads as well as country lanes. Maybe it’s time to repeat the slogan ‘BE SAFE – BE SEEN’ ?” Another strong entry, love the use of capitals…
“Hmm, no reflectors, no lights at night, cycling the wrong way into oncoming traffic, not obeying traffic lights and signs, using a mobile device whilst cycling etc etc…. [🤣] . Maybe you should issue a few fixed penalty’s.” Elite moan per word count here…
“Get them to use the paths that have been made for them [👍]” Short and not so sweet, an old favourite
“Would be nice to see education to cyclists as well – some of them swerve all over the road – and when they’re in large groups straggling down a windy country road they rarely leave gaps large enough for a car to pull into – I can be patient but it reaches the limit doing 8mph uphill with no chance of overtaking because there’s a line of 5837364 cyclists all over.” Five million eight hundred thousand three hundred and sixty four cyclists in a Norfolk lane? Blimey, Rachel, that is outrageous…
“How about educating the cyclists on how to use the roads seeing as they don’t have any kind of license or training??” The one we’ve all been waiting for, a brief road tax mention tagged on the end could have made this perfect, but I guess it’s always good to have something to strive for.
Wait a minute… what’s this? No, it can’t be… “It’s all about cyclists they are not able to look out for themselves.They don’t have to take a test .They don’t have to have insurance, they can basically do as they like they are above the law. Don’t even pay road tax.” 10/10.
21 April 2023, 08:17
21 April 2023, 08:17
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
75 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@hawkinspeter Hmm... while there is sensible stuff in there it's even better where the design and human nature carries more of the weight than rules or guidance. Speed limits being one; if it was just on the rules that would be a lesser way of ensuring safety than the road / space design. (Of course just changing a number on a sign *does* work to some extent, presumably in part via the "anchoring" effect and "when in Rome"). I'm thinking more of what we have in eg. UK motorway-design-level thought and applying that *. One example would be the Dutch taking the observation that a certain fraction of people will make dangerous overtake no matter the rules, paint or even considerations of their own safety and a muffed overtake can have very severe consequences ... and then simply banning overtaking on some classes of roads (and even bringing in physical barriers some places). Hey presto - a whole class of problems they don't have! (It's not perfect of course, lots of legacy roads there). * Only some classes of vehicles allowed, everyone going the same direction with no crossing traffic or stopping / parking, rumble strips at edges, energy absorbing crash barriers, curved layout to stop people falling asleep...
I liked his graphs.
And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.
@chrisonabike - the Highway Code is a good example of fool-tolerant rules. The emphasis is on how to minimise causing danger to others, but also avoiding collisions even if the other road users are being arseholes (e.g. not running over cyclists even if they're blatantly cycling on the wrong side of the road)
Bless you, I didn't realise you place your self-worth on the number of likes you receive on an internet forum. I've never yearned for the approval of others, I'm just satisfied in the knowledge that I've constructed a coherent and noteworthy post. The best one I've done so far was the one I gave with your pipe, ale and suggestion to move to my leafy cul de sac. I have to admit I cheekily read it back to myself a few times and chuckled *every single time*!
Yeah, I think you're right, it did get a bit more "oh yeah? Well what about this?!" latterly. There's a lot more polarising going on. I blame myself. And the unicyclists.
"They want us all locked in our homes...!" "Not all, only some..."
@hawkinspeter fool-tolerant design? Fool-foiling designs sound better but they tend to have unfortunate side-effects - at least when combined with human nature *. "Sustainable Safety" - design expecting mistakes and some rule-breaking eg. corner-cutting - but be *forgiving*. That means while *feedback* is provided (see adverse camber, slightly uneven driving surface etc) favour "everyone gets to their destination safely" over "the rules must be respected even at risk of collateral damage!" The penalty for failure shouldn't be serious injury or death. * Few want to be thought a fool and some may prove it if they believe that assumption was made.
@mdavidford - are those the new 0-minute cities that I've heard so much about?
@Rendel Harris - yeah, I can't deal with that kind of thing when cycling is inherently an inclusive activity (not that all cyclists treat it as such).
75 thoughts on “Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints; Ben Healy plays down Amstel drafting controversy; Tour of Britain stage finishes announced + more on the live blog”
“Why do moany people on the
“Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe?”
Because they believe they may be caught and punished. That.
Continuing the Norfolk theme
Continuing the Norfolk theme https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23468894.norfolk-police-release-footage-close-pass-initiative/ I’m sure the comments in the paper will be equally bingotastic
Also note they didn’t hide any of the faces like their colleagues in Suffolk did 😉
Meanwhile in Suffolk we hear
Meanwhile in Suffolk we hear ( and i predicted after they were absent on the women’s tour) the Tour of Britain is visiting and Felixstowe hosts a stage finish, though no idea where the stage starts yet.
https://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/news/felixstowe-to-host-2023-tour-britain-stage-finish/
Here’s some staggering cheek:
Here’s some staggering cheek: Range Rover driver first admits it was his fault for hitting a cyclist when pulling out of a junction onto main road, agrees to pay for damage, then claims it was the cyclist’s fault for not stopping and says he could sue the cyclist for damage to his vehicle, then claims there was no collision at all and the cyclist fell off his bike! This sort of nonsense is the number one reason I carry a camera.
https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/casestudy/range-rover-collides-with-cyclist-and-then-blames-him
A camera is a handy thing.
A camera is a handy thing. Last mishap I had, I didn’t see anything other than the sky, faces peering in, the ceilings of an ambulance and a hospital and various complicated machines for many, many hours. All good now though, and the driver admitted responsibility at the time and thereafter.
Excellent news. Also means
Excellent news. Also means the insurance company knows their policyholder lied to them. They may find their renewal refused. And when they go elsewhere they’ll have to declare that. Of course, they could always lie again but that then becomes fraud if it comes to light.
“Range Rover collides with
“Range Rover collides with cyclist and then blames him.”
I’m not sure that they’ve written that headline correctly…
(Even the cars are ‘aving a go at us, now!)
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisWhat a shitty person.
“It just goes to show that no matter how nice a third party might seem at the scene of the accident, do make sure you note all the details of the driver and vehicle involved and photographs at the scene, just in case. Whilst our clients are often surprised that seemingly nice people can turn nasty once they realise they will need to get their cheque book out – unfortunately, it has stopped surprising us a long time ago!“
If you’re involved in a collision or similar scenario which involves money (including business and other transactions) you should operate on the basis that the other party will evade responsibility by lying repeatedly. It doesn’t happen all the time but if it does it’s certainly an unpleasant experience for an honest person.
Simon E wrote:
If you have the werewithal after a collision, it’s a great idea to snap a picture of the person and the vehicle (preferably together and include the number plate) to avoid any subsequent shenanigans if they try to pretend they weren’t driving at the time or the number plate turns out to be fake.
Simon E wrote:
You will almost always find the only people who might be upset by you getting things in writing are the ones who were planning to fuck you around anyway. If you are all above board there is no reason for getting things in writing to be a problem.
The Tour of Britain is coming
The Tour of Britain is coming to a town near me. Well pleased.
I drove through Harlow last
I drove through Harlow last weekend for the first time in a long time and ECC need to get resurfacing sharpish.
I thought the Beds and Cambs roads I ride on were bad. They have nothing on Harlow.
In my expericence, Norfolk
In my expericence, Norfolk Constabulary have always been pretty good at dealing with close passes. There have been some inconsistencies over the years, probably due to staffing. As of July 2018 I’ve made 232 close pass/dangerous driving reports
141 were prosecuted, 2 went to court an were found guilty, 37 warning letters, 3 no further action, 14 not dealt with due to insufficient police resource and then 35 I got no feedback for.
Waiting for the results on 9 I sent yesterday and just had an email saying 2 were getting NIP
Since July of last year I’ve made 79 close pass reports and every one of them got prosecuted.
glad you are having a
glad you are having a positive experience with Norfolk Constabulary
very sad that you have had to send in 9 incidents in one day!
“Why do moany people on the
“Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints”
It’s twitter, what do you expect?!
Even worse… Facebook…
Even worse… Facebook…
Not sure why they went with
Not sure why they went with tomatoes
“Police hunt for tomato-throwing attacker”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2w3wnjd8ro
when apples were also thrown at people.
Although an unripe tomato at ~ 30 mph would be painful.
“The apparently unprovoked assaults happened in Eastbourne and Hastings in East Sussex.”
Full face helmet required in this area.
Hirsute wrote:
Victim-blamer. 😉
Hirsute wrote:
Was it an in-cider informant?
Either way, I hope they ketchup with the culprits
Quote:
Another driver completely lacking in self awareness
“What are you doing about all these cyclists I can see, that can’t be seen?”
Are they boasting about their super human eyesight, or providing evidence that lights and hi vis are not quite as essential* as they would have us believe?
Still since the cyclists in question have clearly been seen, they should be safe by the drivers own admission
*I do not advocate riding without lights at night by anyone, and personally I may or may not ride with hi vis at night depending on mood.
Surely the winner of the
The winner of the Absolute Classic Ironic Anti-Cycling Comment of The Year has to be:
“I’ve now lost count of how many cyclists I see without lights or even high visibility clothing…….”
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s fun to ridicule people who expect cyclists to take some responsibility for their own safety isn’t it. Good laughs all round.
Being able to see another road user from a long way away and seeing another road user at a close distance are two very different things but in both cases the road user is still ‘seen’.
Hopefully they’re not a smear on the highway by the time they’re seen.
But if this person claims
If this person claims they see the cyclist then why call out the need for lights and high-viz?
I think it may be a bit more
I think it may be a bit more nuanced than that – they saw them as they passed in the opposite direction, they didn’t see them as soon as they would have normally.
Lights are required at night.
Sorry don;t get me wrong,
Sorry don;t get me wrong, lights after dark should not be an optional extra. In terms of the quote I missed the bit about Twilight as I read it in the comments (yes I did read the blog post previously just failed to link the two properly).
FWIW I ride with lights turned on every ride not matter the time of day or lighting conditions.
DoomeFrog wrote:
The Highway code states that it IS the law to use lights between dusk and dawn. But again, I also use them during the day as an extra precaution.
DoomeFrog wrote:
Hirsute nailed it but I’m going to repeat for the hard of thinking. Seeing another road user when they are a long distance away and seeing them when they are close is not the same thing, but the road user is still seen in both cases. Being able to see another road user when they are further away is important as it means that one can take appropriate action before there is a risk to someone’s safety.
If we want drivers to be careful around us, the least we can do is to make ourselves sufficiently visible from far enough away that they can take the approriate careful action that we so desperately (being vulnerable road users) need them to take.
While I do use lights after
While I do use lights after sunset and on nastier roads it should not be necessary to avoid being hit. Drivers should be driving as if there could be an unlit *person/dog/rock/fallen tree/fridge that fell off a lorry/any other hazard* in the road and driving according to how far they can see because there could always be something in the road that doesn’t have blinky lights and high vis. If a driver is only able to avoid well lit hazards with plenty of warning they probably shouldn’t be driving. Driving to the conditions is a key part of safe driving and one that is routinely ignored by most drivers.
Every comment of “They were riding side by side round a blind corner!” or “They didn’t have lights and high vis” or “the swerve about all over the place” can be read as “I was driving fast enough that I wasn’t able to safely stop in the distance I could see or couldn’t safely avoid any unexpected event.”
Patrick9-32 wrote:
I agree that it should not be necessary to avoid being hit. But people drive too fast for the conditions. They drive faster than they could stop for an unlit object. They just do.
So don’t be an object that is difficult to see. Be something that is more likely to be seen from a distance that the driver can react to.
Yes, if you get hit it is not your fault but you are still the stakeholder that is more likely to die.
No point being right if you’re dead.
.
.
‘No point being right if you’re dead.’
.
Not on here, mate! Bike Fascists abound. They’d rather be dead than wrong.
.
What exactly is a bike
What exactly is a bike fascist ?
Do they hang people upside down for not following ‘the rules’ ?
But wasn’t it anti fascist to
But wasn’t it anti fascist to hang the original fascist upside down.
But it was in a petrol station, so you might have a point..
Yes we’re all dead
Yes we’re all dead
Yes… and I’m all for doing
Yes… and I’m all for doing “something” where that something isn’t particularly costly to me. However you’ll note in the report which generated the comment “what about invisible cyclists?” one of the offences mentioned was mobile phone use. There are also no shortage of apparent SMIDSYs posted here, during daylight hours, apparently excellent visual conditions.
Reflectives and lights – invisible unless looked at.
Will “educating cyclists” reach those who don’t currently bother to dress as lighthouses? Will it make much difference, given that you’d expect cyclists to be highly motivated to adopt something which we all say is vital to their wellbeing? Alternatively what’s the cost of trying to put the mobile device genie back in the bottle? That’s not legal but the enforcement clearly isn’t deterring people. How to convince people (who mostly don’t cycle) to pay a bit more attention when driving?
Or – will we ever reach a point at which the cycling infra is convenient enough so that most drivers also cycle or have friends and relatives who do?
Firstly, 2 wrongs don’t make
Firstly, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Secondly, if someone hits you while they’re on their phone and you are all grey against a grey background, the police are more likely to dismiss it as ‘momentary lapse of concentration’.
Thirdly, there are many poor drivers, distracted by their phones etc, on the roads. That is MORE of a reason to take preventative measures for your own safety (not less). It may be the cyclist who is more likely to be in the right, but it is also more likely to be the cyclist to be in a small wooden box at the end of the day.
A distracted driver is going
A distracted driver is going to drive into someone regardless of the measures they’ve taken.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Here we go again. Have a look at this clip I’ve posted on numerous occasions to the point I’m sounding like a broken record.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
For the record I’m wearing a very bright yellow rain cape by pactimo. I’m running a See..Sence Icon 2 fully ramped up on flash. Two static CatEye on my rack and a PassPixi logo on my pannier. Good visibility and the clown still tries to push through a traffic calming measure and makes contact. He would have easily seen me from 100m out and definitely seen me at 10m when he commits to his pass. Similar set up when I was t-boned and put in hospital for a week and off work for 4months.
It doesn’t matter what we wear. Motorists quite simply do not look for other road users beyond motor vehicles.
giff77 wrote:
Preventative measures do not work in all cases. That is not a reason to not take them.
For every case where being visible does not prevent a collision there is a certain number (could be a fraction of one, could be hundreds) where it does.
Next.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Here we go again. Have a look at this clip I’ve posted on numerous occasions to the point I’m sounding like a broken record.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
For the record I’m wearing a very bright yellow rain cape by pactimo. I’m running a See..Sence Icon 2 fully ramped up on flash. Two static CatEye on my rack and a PassPixi logo on my pannier. Good visibility and the clown still tries to push through a traffic calming measure and makes contact. He would have easily seen me from 100m out and definitely seen me at 10m when he commits to his pass. Similar set up when I was t-boned and put in hospital for a week and off work for 4months.
It doesn’t matter what we wear. Motorists quite simply do not look for other road users beyond motor vehicles.
— giff77 Preventative measures do not work in all cases. That is not a reason to not take them. For every case where being visible does not prevent a collision there is a certain number (could be a fraction of one, could be hundreds) where it does. Next.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Not sure I said that we should ditch brights. I was highlighting the fact that motorists out there are pretty weak on how to read the road and struggle with observation skills.
That seems more like bad
That seems more like bad attitude rather than poor eyesight inspired shitty driving.
I agree that, as a driver, I
I agree that, as a driver, I want to see cyclists and pedestrians using the road, at the maximum possible distance so that I can work to the maximum margin of safety for the least amount of effort. However, I also recognise that it is 100% my sole responsibility to drive such that I can stop within the minimum distance I can see to be clear.
As a cyclist of the non naked variety I have no problem putting on an outer garment that has the attribute of being conspicuous.
Still misconstruing
Still misconstruing everything possible, I see.
eburtthebike wrote:
Hardly misconstruing your sarcastic, dismissive comments, am I.
Calling people hard of
Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?
I don’t think it’s sarcastic!
I don’t think it’s sarcastic!
Poster has a track record of being offensive and dismissive.
perce wrote:
If you don’t realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world’s poor drivers (and there’s a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking. That is the polite version. It’s not rude to call a spade a spade.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
What do you prefer to be
What do you prefer to be called? ‘Intellectually challenged’? ‘Academically intolerant’, perhaps? Perhaps a classic like ‘a slice of bread short of a club sandwich’?
I’m happy to be flexible to mitigate your delicate sensibilities.
I don’t know really – I think
I don’t know really – I think intellectually challenged is a bit much, I do the Times crossword most days. I’d say a bit daft perhaps. But not rude.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You don’t need to be ‘flexible’ (I can’t quite figure out what that means in this context). But your posts, at least some of them, might be taken more seriously if you weren’t so rude.
Rudeness like this is underpinned by a form of misplaced arrogance (isn’t arrogance always misplaced?), which I’ve found over the years invariably means you don’t know half as much as you want others to believe. If you choose to insult people repeatedly for no apparent reason, even after it is pointed out as such, then your opinions are worthless. In plain English: you come across as a real wanker.
I’m happy to come across that
I’m happy to come across that way to people who refuse to admit obvious and basic truths. Like putting on conspicuous clothing makes you easier to see from further away, putting an object which is designed to reduce head injury on your head reduces the chance of head injury, that a accelerating a heavy wheel requires less force than a lighter wheel (I even gave my workings and references to relevant text books in that case) or that 1 is not 100% less than 2 (that one was only yesterday wasn’t it Rendel).
The only question I ask myself is why I engage in such ‘discussion’ in the first place.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I have amended your statement for accuracy.
I’ll know not to even begin reading your posts in future. I will have no difficulty in finding a better way to waste my time. Wanker.
Simon E wrote:
I have amended your statement for accuracy.
I’ll know not to even begin reading your posts in future. I will have no difficulty in finding a better way to waste my time. Wanker.— ShutTheFrontDawes
That’s probably for the best. If you’re too obtuse to understand basic facts, you shouldn’t waste your time.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
It was only yesterday that I tried to explain to you that difference between 1 and 2 (1) is 100% of 1, as indeed it is, and that the difference between 1 and 50 (49) is 4900% of 1, as indeed it is, yes.
Got me knackered, it just seems to get you enraged and annoys everyone else. I should go for a nice bike ride if I were you, it’s a great way of getting a wee bit of perspective on things.
I agree
I agree
Well I should think so too!
Well I should think so too!
I agree
I agree
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?
— ShutTheFrontDawes If you don’t realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world’s poor drivers (and there’s a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking.— perceIf only! The data shows that conspicuity has no effect on being hit by drivers who aren’t looking.
I await your miscontrued response with barely concealed delight*.
*Exaggeration for effect: there is no concealed delight, nor any approximation of such an outcome: not even the conception of a reflection of an imagined picture of disappointment.
Firstly “no effect on drivers
Firstly “no effect on drivers who aren’t looking” is not the same thing as “no effect”. Plainly a driver with their eyes shut is not going to see a cyclist whether they’re wearing high Viz or not.
I’m noticing a trend with your comments along the lines of “But it doesn’t work in the case of X, so there’s no point in bothering.” Helmets and high speed collisions being another example.
Perhaps you could share the data you’re talking about.
Cycling weekly has a good summary of the effectiveness of high Viz.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/what-is-the-evidence-that-wearing-hi-vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674
It helps.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?
— ShutTheFrontDawes If you don’t realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world’s poor drivers (and there’s a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking. That is the polite version. It’s not rude to call a spade a spade.— perce
I think we’re just bickering about “reduce risk by how much?” and “how certain are you of that?” Bickering because my safety is ultimately my responsibility but that includes noting when others (crap / entitled / habitually too casual drivers and their defenders) want to discount my safety for their convenience.
Clearly being wildly conspicuous sometimes has zero effect (as someone here has posted). Equally we all have anecdata of looking into the dark and seeing something shiny (even better if moving, like pedals).
Personally I apply extra visibility measures – but then I’ve already got plenty reflectives, lights which just come on when I ride etc. Plus I’m a helpful type. It also allows me to soothe myself mentally. No idea what actual protective effect this has – between “it’s obviously useful” to “touch wood”.
Reflectives are one step up from helmets in that they can potentially help avoid a collision, but as usual I’m more interested in even more effective solutions which have other benefits.
Anyone got any evidence of what the risk reduction is and some measure of how certain that is?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Yes it is, even if what you’re saying is true, it’s pretty rude to call a fat person fat or an ugly person ugly even if they unquestionably are.
It’s ride to tell the truth
It’s rude to tell the truth when it’s relevant to the discussion at hand?
You must go out of your way to be offended.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
How is calling someone stupid relevant to the discussion? If you think they’re that stupid (which is only your opinion, not “truth”) why are you bothering to argue with them? It took me a long while but I’ve finally realised that it’s a waste of time to bother to argue with a couple of the very stupid right wingers on here because, as Richard Dawkins sagely remarked, if you argue with an idiot the best outcome you can hope for is to say you’ve won an argument with an idiot.
I don’t think Raab would
I don’t think Raab would agree !
Record approach speed today –
Record approach speed today – 66mph.
Was watching them in my bar end mirror to see their path and speed after that.
So many drivers have this
So many drivers have this opinion that if 1 or 2 cyclists RLJ or ride in tbe wrong direction etc that means we all do. I’m sure they are intelligent enough to know not all drivers are speeding or close passing cyclists. So why are they so stupid to assume anyone on a bike is doing these same things that annoy them? You get tw@ts in cars and you get tw@ts on bikes. It’s all about making sure the ones in metal boxes are educated
The worst part about that
The worst part about that attitude is the “Those people did something annoying so it is ok to kill them” that is implied by their posts.
“Oh, yeah, the driver deliberately rammed a cyclist in what, in any other circumstances would be attempted murder, but we didn’t see the incident before? Perhaps the cyclist was somewhat inconvenient? Did you consider that?”
That and the “it’s not my
That and the “it’s not my responsibility to look out for them” attitude because they once saw a cyclist wearing black / riding through a red light & you know, they’re a bit of an inconvenience to have to look for.
That seems to change though when they start ranting about hi-viz, helmets & compulsory use of “cycle lanes” – then their concern is all driven from a desire to protect us (from ourselves obviously – cyclists are all unidentifiable maniacs with a death wish that are responsible for an epidemic of damage to cars apparently).
Off the back wrote:
The other evening, on my way home, I was close passed and then left hooked by an anonymous white van (not Amazon branded, I hasten to say!).
Fifteen minutes later I was left hooked by a bloke who overtook the four of us waiting at a light controlled crossing on a shared path but then turned left across in front of us to join the main road again just as the crossing lights changed.
True: both were being twunts.
However, the danger caused by both was not equal – one could have KSI me, the other could have VSI (very slightly injured) me and was a bit annoying
Off the back wrote:
I’d go further and say there are people who move around in a reasonable safe considerate manner, and there are people who move around like agressive dangerous knobs.
Isn’t it better if the agressive dangerous knobs are on bikes and not in 2 tonne metal boxes?
A load of old bollards:
A load of old bollards: Oxford LTN residents defend scheme after attacks
Residents in St Mary’s, home to ‘Britain’s most hated bollard’, say streets feel safer and more sociable without traffic
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/21/oxford-ltn-residents-defend-scheme-most-hated-bollard
Strange how Panorama managed
Strange how Panorama managed not to report that.
not sure if this has been
not sure if this has been reported on this site, but study shows that cycling against the flow of traffic on one-way streets just as safe as cycling with it (i.e. contraflows).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145752200330X?via%3Dihub
There are three rules of
There are three rules of masculine life, 1/ Beer Googles are the work of the Devil. 2/ Don’t contradict what a fella says about how good he is in bed. 3/ Don’t criticise a blokes driving. – It’s a well known fact that any red blooded bloke can pull ** insert your favourite celeb here.**, do it three time a night and drive better than 99% of everyone else.
“Of course I can pass a cyclist safely. I mean I’m a good driver aren’t I.”
Criticising your wife’s
Criticising your wife’s driving can be fraught with danger too. The first time my now ex wife drove to the end of our road on a freezing day I suggested she was going too fast as the hill at the end of the road usually has more ice on it than my road.
“don’t tell me how to drive, you don’t even have a driving lic . . . . “ was as far as she got before we slid into the opposite kerb on the ice. the rest of the trip was completed in total silence.