“We introduced him to rugby”: Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light; Tour de France stage 13: Bastille Day summit finish; Reaction to e-bike ban on popular path; Got a TT bike Uganda can use at World Champs? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Tour de France stage 13: Bastille Day summit finish at Grand Colombier
Over to Simon once again for today’s preview:
With Bastille Day falling on a Friday, the roadsides will be lined with revellers kicking off their long weekend in party mode and hoping to see a home win on the Fête Nationale for the first time since Warren Barguil triumphed in Foix in 2017 – and certainly, there will be no shortage of French riders trying to get into the break during a long, flat opening to the stage which ends in the Jura mountains.
The intermediate sprint comes during a long but uncategorised climb, followed by a descent before the road flattens out ahead of the final ascent, which begins with 17.4km left and averages 7.1 per cent. The Tour first tackled the Grand Colombier in 2012, with the first summit finish in 2020 when Tadej Pogačar prevailed – although today’s tough ascent will be from a different direction.
For all the stages and to take an early look at the third week, have a read of Simon’s mega Tour preview…
> Tour de France 2023: From Bilbao to Paris, our stage-by-stage guide to cycling’s biggest race
Reaction to council's e-bike ban on popular path
What an absolute shambles. This is going to be unenforceable, and challenged left right and centre. https://t.co/sstB7PsF8r
— Mike Stead (@tweetymike) July 13, 2023
Well, as expected, this got a fair bit of attention.
road.cc Simon is local and has spent many an hour riding bikes (including that glorious pink Colnago) along the Thames.
His thoughts are that having “spent far too much time at the spot I took this picture from it’s a lovely place, but in early evenings, or at weekends, it is way busier with people outside the pubs than it looks here. People who ride this route regularly will either detour, or go through slowly.
“But, some who don’t know the area, often on hire e-bikes, won’t know ways round bottlenecks, will often just try and plough through (eg tourists not used to riding bikes in shared space). There are a few pinch points on river in H&F, can understand council has to manage.
“I can understand why they have put restrictions in, at least it’s not a blanket ban. And alternative safe/quiet routes just off river do exist, see Jon Stone’s London Cycle Routes vids, avoids Thames Path like the plague Putney-Hammersmith then pops up to C9.
“If there is ANYTHING on wheels needs to be banned on this stretch though, it’s the nutter bloke on inline skates who’d barrel through like he was practising for Winter Olympics short track, screaming at everyone to get out of his way.”
So they are banning ebikes, but not analogue bikes.
Would that ban include ebikes with the e-assist turned off so they’re just regular bikes?
Has this actually been thought through?https://t.co/YIZx1T2sU6— Real Gaz on a proper bike: gazza_d@toot.bike (@gazza_d) July 13, 2023
RipThorn: “So I can ride with my mates on our pedal bikes but the one guy who needs an e-bike would have to walk? I understand the reasoning behind this, but it’s not right. They should just ban illegal e-bikes.”
Got a TT bike Uganda can use at World Champs?
Ok people. I need your help. Trying to find two TT bikes that the Ugandan team could borrow for Glasgow 2023.
Looking for a 24cm frame for a 1.48m tall female and 50-52cm frame for a 1.64m tall male. Any Stirlingshire bike shops that could help with set-up would be awesome too!— Dan Jarvis (@worldcupdan) July 13, 2023
10 ways to make the Tour de France even better — no weight limits, eliminations stages, tandems + more
Your thoughts on the LEAKED new Sepcialized road bike
Plenty of comments over on Facebook…
Andrew Hill called it “change for change sake”, Andy Ruane and Matt Cartwright are happy with their SL7 and SL6s respectively.
Properly chuckled at that one. Bike industry marketing departments making aero gain/stiffness/watt-saving claims? Never…
Randy DeVoe predicts it will “provide 31 per cent more vertical compliance while quadratic doubling of lateral stiffness therefore eliminating vector forces and road static v ratio vibration by 79 per cent.”
😳
> Chris Froome “absolutely not value for money”, says Israel-Premier Tech co-owner
Big news... UCI bans transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from competing in international women's races
Five years ago today...
Poor Chris can’t catch a break at the minute. While his boss mouths off about him not being worth his salary it’s also been pointed out it’s the five-year anniversary of this moment that will go down in Tour de France folklore…
P.S. If I was getting paid a reported €5 million a year editor Jack could say whatever he wants about me… if your reading this, Jack, it’s worth thinking about…
Reaction to rugby-loving cops forcefully halting cyclist's getaway after jumping red light
Right, let’s do reaction to the big story of the day’s live blogging… this could take a while…
Mungecrundle: “Might seem disproportionate for a RLJ offence, but failing to stop is going to ping any law enforcement officer’s spidey senses. Concealed weapon? Carrying illegal substances? Outstanding warrant? If nothing else, when keyboard warriors go on about cyclists being above the law, Police never tackle RLJ cyclists etc, then you can point them at this story.”
A minority of cyclists do cycle dangerously and they give ‘proper’ cyclists a bad name so I’m more than happy for them to be stopped and fined. It seems a bit extreme to rugby tackle them but we don’t know the full story.
— Simon Drury (@sidrury) July 14, 2023
Oldfatgit (their selected name, not ours…): “There’s some really false equivalence in the highlighted posts above … How exactly would an officer rugby tackle a car?
As far as I know UK Police have uses their vehicles in the past as physical stops on other vehicles, including rolling road blocks and physical impact.
“Rugby tackling a red light running driver … if the driver decides to leg it on foot, then yes, the police do use force to apprehend where appropriate. If they leg it in the car, see above. The cyclist jumped two red lights, and failed to stop … as far as I’m concerned the police did what they had to do and no more excessively than if it was a driver. And for those thinking that the police were excesive… how would *you* stop a cyclist that does not wish to be stopped?”
He shouldn’t have jumped a red light then ignored three police requests to stop, but is a rugby tackle appropriate when he isn’t wearing a helmet? https://t.co/cUUXH7a5kF
— Shropshire Triathlon (Sprint, Standard & Middle) (@ShropshireTri) July 14, 2023
Tom_77: “F*** around and find out, as the kids say. They’ve tried to stop him three times and he refused, at that point I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use force.”
HoldingOn: “Agreed – ‘don’t ride like a dick’, but also – don’t Twitter like a dick and don’t police like a dick.”
It's almost time...
As I look out my window at the rain-soaked grey streets, and then back at the TV to Bastille Day France in glorious July sunshine… oh what I’d do to be on the slopes of the Grand Colombier, beverage in hand and awaiting the peloton shortly. Here’s what’s coming up…
Last time @LeTour came to Grand Colombier, @TamauPogi won the stage and also set the @Strava KOM on the 17.15km segment (avg gradient: 7.1%)#TDFdata #TDF2023 pic.twitter.com/X5FQfk9FCY
— letourdata (@letourdata) July 14, 2023
As a side note, Caleb Ewan has abandoned the race. Dropped on the first climb of the day the TV pictures showed him crossing the intermediate sprint seven minutes down on the peloton. He has however since jumped in the team car and will play no further part.
Get your stage win predictions in the comments… UAE have been working hard to set up Pogačar, but the breakaway, including Alberto Bettiol, Michal Kwiatkoswki, James Shaw, Georg Zimmermann, Harold Tejada, Maxim Van Gils and some other heavier talent will have a four-minute headstart on the GC guys. Will it be enough?
Michał Kwiatkowski wins stage 13 of the Tour de France, Tadej Pogačar cuts Jonas Vingegaard's advantage
🇵🇱Michał Kwiatkowski takes his second Tour win with an excellent solo victory from the breakaway on Grand Colombier 👏
Behind, 🤍🇸🇮Tadej Pogačar attacks 💛🇩🇰Jonas Vingegaard to grab a few seconds back on GC 💥#TDF2023 #ITVCycling pic.twitter.com/LGUY1sQMXP
— ITV Cycling (@itvcycling) July 14, 2023
A superb win for Michał Kwiatkowski who left his breakaway companions behind midway up the Grand Colombier and never looked threatened, grinding out a memorable stage victory.
Despite UAE Team Emirates’ full-day effort to control the race, ratcheting up the pace on the mountain in the hope of giving their man a shot at stage victory and bonus seconds, two members of the break stayed away, Maxim Van Gils taking second behind Kwiatkowski.
The Grand Colombier climb has got to be one of the most picturesque in cycling 🤩⛰ #TDF2023 pic.twitter.com/JTRhklfOhj
— Eurosport (@eurosport) July 14, 2023
Showing incredible consideration for the TV director, Tadej Pogačar’s inevitable attack came almost immediately after the stage-winning Pole had crossed the finish line. At first Jonas Vingegaard was able to follow, wrenching his bike into his great rival’s slipstream as the pair passed Brit James Shaw, clinging on from the breakaway, at a quite extraordinary speed.
However, with the finish line coming into sight, the distance between the Dane and Pogačar increased, a half metre, a full metre, two bike lengths, and so on. Pogačar took the last of the bonus seconds available, four more to his tally, and had opened up a gap of four seconds on Vingegaard by the finish.
The GC picture has somehow managed to get even tighter, the two-time winner now just nine seconds behind the man who dethroned him last time…
"We introduced him to rugby": Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light
Let’s start Friday with this tweet from Greater Manchester Police shall we?
@gmptraffic saw a cyclist riding past red lights in the city. Refusing to stop he believed we had no powers if he had no helmet on. After 3 failed Police stops, we introduced him to Rugby as a new sport.
Charged: Dangerous Cycling, Fail to stop. Obstruct Police. pic.twitter.com/dFYpnfRtn4— GMP Traffic (@gmptraffic) July 13, 2023
I did have to double check we hadn’t fallen for one of those parody police accounts, the most famous of which is named after Hot Fuzz’s Sandford ‘crime-fighting’ station, but nope, it’s the real deal.
The post has sparked a few questions, namely how proportionate the response was? How do you safely rugby tackle a cyclist? Would the police accept risking serious injury to another road user to stop them after running a red light? Unfortunately we don’t have any footage so much of our impression of the incident is shaped by the police’s tone of the portrayal.
Rather predictably the comments are split between people with flags in their Twitter bio commending the officers on their work, and cyclists asking if the response was proportionate to the crime given… well, the sheer extent of similar (and more dangerous) road offences you’ll see if you go for even just a 10-minute spin around town.
> Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes
One reply from EricEatsPickles said it “sounds like a totally disproportionate response. Even drivers who kill & maim don’t get rugby tackled to the ground. Most drivers who ignore signals are themselves ignored. The few who ‘get caught’ receive a NIP in the post, not physically assaulted.”
Another account added: “I mean yeah definitely don’t ride like this, but would be nice if they spent a bit of time focusing on the greatest threat of harm on the roads – idiots behind the wheel of what’s essentially dangerous machinery. Meanwhile, third-party reporting is failing.”
However, one account called LetMeCycle said: “They ride among us. We can’t expect drivers to follow the rules in the Highway Code, if we (cyclists) don’t follow them too. Don’t ride like a dick.”
@gmptraffic put the brake on those commuting on Oldham Road, who weren’t shy going bumper to spokes.
Our Mighty Mat gave a visual clue with some words of advice to both drivers and cyclists. We hope now this gets a chain reaction to their conduct in future #OpClosePass pic.twitter.com/zoga6tZXX5— GMP Traffic (@gmptraffic) July 13, 2023
The tweet from Manchester’s police comes just days after we reported cyclists in the city had called for proper segregation as brazen vandals stole an entire bike lane’s cones… again. OneTrafford confirmed the “systematic theft” and said it had been reported to the police who they would be working with in the future to tackle the problem.
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.
90 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I was referring more to the cycling computers they produce, but I’m sure an opportunity to snipe couldn’t be missed. The article you refer to is for the older of their radar lights. My suggestion was that they have several cycling computers in a popular price bracket that seem to offer good usability. It would be nice to see those reviewed.
Laudable effort. Will a full review of the bike be following?
By their very nature the dockless bike schemes will result in bikes being parked in stupid places. The user has little incentive to find the correct place to park it. More so if they are tourists with a cruise liner to catch and only 3 hours to explore. So, if the operation can't be made to fit within the councils required operating method, then it should be removed. I'm pretty sure another operator will come in and propose a system acceptable to the council if they believe they can make money. I strongly suspect that the current operators can only make money by tacitly allowing bikes to be left where the tourist money wants to leave them, so time to rethink the financial model me thinks!
@bikercub "If they are good enough to be supporting the Groupama-FDJ United World TourCycling team, we should be looking at them as a contender." No, that only means that they paid enough to become a sponsor. Let's put the "pros use better stuff" myth to sleep, finally. And by the way, the trickiest part of a GPS computer is not data collection - that can be done by absolutely all of them. The hard part is the general user interface and turn-by-turn navigation, none of which really matters for a pro cyclist - and that brings us back to why any GPS computer could be good enough for just about any pro cyclist.
@mdavidford Absolutely, I am assuming that the OP means those lanes where it's so tight it's actually impossible for a cyclist to get through if there is a large vehicle, obviously if they can squeeze by each other nobody needs to go back.
You are quite correct about uniform signage. However this seems to be a fairly atypical set up. Having experience and knowledge of it would in theory make mistakes less likely. Part of my job involved writing operating and maintenance procedures for food manufacturing machinery. I quickly learnt that people need to be given direct, simple, non-conflicting, non-ambiguous instructions. If it is possible to make mistakes, then they will be made. The best of of avoiding a mistake is to design flaws out of the system.
I do not in anyway support the Daily Telegraph's continually mad anti-cycling journalism but, it must be said, that this particular section of cycle lane on King Street in Hammersmith has been an absolute disaster ever since it re-opened. It certainly wasn't perfect for cyclists before but ever since they remodelled the cycle lane to run as a two way lane on one side of the road it has become much much more dangerous and confusing for pedestrians, drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists alike. I'm not saying that all cycling infrastructure is badly designed but, on my 12 mile commute from home in South London to work at the West end of King Street, this cycleway is where I feel most unsafe. It's not an inditement on active travel but it should be a lesson in planning because it's been closed on 5 or 6 occasions since to be remodelled to correct issues that should've been obvious before it opened. I have been using this road to get to work since long before the re-modelling and it has definitely, in my opinion, worsened not just the safety of cyclists but also the relationship between drivers and cyclists in this area.
In principle, it shouldn't matter if you're familiar with a particular junction - that's precisely why we have (relatively) uniform signage across the country (I had this from a driver recently - Him: sorry, I don't know the area. Me: but a no entry sign is the same everywhere...). But in practice in a busy environment like this, simply adding another sign saying look out for cyclists is limited help. I don't love cycling on contraflows / a two way cyclelane on a one way street for that reason. In fact there's a crossing I don't love as a pedestrian which is look right (bikes) look left (bikes) look right (cars), island, catch breath, look left (cars), look left (bikes). (Yes, you could wait for a green man, but then it's still look everywhere (Deliveroo)).
I'm not familiar with Jeremy Vine's favourite cycle lane. However I do have sympathy with drivers if they have to deal with "Look both ways for cyclists" as well as "One Way" and "No Entry" signs. Especially if the driver is not familiar with the junction.
@mitsky Alas for a second there I was awarding the motorist in the window there points for wearing hi-vis in their car, then I realised they were also wearing a motoring helmet...
90 thoughts on ““We introduced him to rugby”: Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light; Tour de France stage 13: Bastille Day summit finish; Reaction to e-bike ban on popular path; Got a TT bike Uganda can use at World Champs? + more on the live blog”
Agreed – “don’t ride like a
Agreed – “don’t ride like a dick”, but also – don’t Twitter like a dick and don’t Police like a dick.
Exactly. Why do they have to
Exactly. Why do they have to go on Twitter and boast about what they have done? It’s not like they’ve busted an international drug cartel is it?
It’s telling people a) that
It’s telling people a) that they’re doing something and b) that they’re doing something about low-level criminal twattery like this, presumably to dissuade low-level criminal twats.
I’m enjoying tremendously the ones I’m seeing on FB with drivers of enormously expensive cars being nicked for not having front plates etc. Loads of enraged commenters there with the “not doing any harm, why not catch real criminals” boo-hooing: let’s not be like them.
perce wrote:
perhaps it’s their biggest triumph of the week. Or else crime is so low in the area this is all they have to focus on and we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing we are safe from crime in this area.
I just can’t see it as
I just can’t see it as proportionate policing in the absence of regular police actions taken on motorists speeding, going through red lights, using their mobile phones whilst driving, and close passing cyclists.
I feel that only thing that stops most car drivers from speeding is the car in front. Cyclist are not the only vehicles that go through red lights, and the risk to other road users is orders of magnitude worse for a 2000kg car doing 35mph vs a <100kg bike doing 15mph. Some motorists even accelerate if they see the light changing.
I would like to think if the
I would like to think if the police had seen a driver going through three red lights and failing to stop, they wouldn’t just turn a blind eye. (i know wtjs will have a different view of that!)
Agreed – the risks are much greater in a car than on a bike, but the risk to the offender is much greater on a bike than in a car. As OldFatGit says “The police are supposed to apprehend to allow for the process of Law, not to be the potential executioner.”
It is why I think rugby tackling the cyclist to the ground was possibly a bit much, but I am also unsure how they would have otherwise stopped him. Boasting about it was definitely over the line.
Perhaps not something the
Perhaps not something the police have already in their arsenal but a big karabiner, on the end of a rope, clipped to the frame would probably be a safer way of bringing a bike to a stop.
If they were able to rugby tackle they could certainly do that.
HoldingOn wrote:
Right. Running a red light is no big deal. Running a red light in front of the police is a far worse crime that nearly always results in a stop: “contempt of cop.”
I definitely didn’t say it
I definitely didn’t say it was “no big deal”
Having lived in Manchester
Having lived in Manchester/Salford and having experienced the joys of the local scrotes, I’m going to tentatively have no sympathy for one of them riding through multiple reds and repeatedly refusing to stop when asked to.
I’d suspect he was claiming that the police had no powers because of their helmetlessness, not his though. It’s a weirdly common belief, and one I can readily hear being expressed in the sort of hectoring Manc tone that would make anyone want to rugby-tackle you.
Brauchsel wrote:
Are you sure? I immediately read that as someone who’d seen news coverage about the police holding back when chasing people on motorbikes/scooters if they (the person on the motorbike/scooter) didn’t have a helmet on, supposedly because of a fear of the media coverage if that person was KSI as a consequence.
I’ve seen police using their vehicles to stop vehicles being driven by “wrong ‘uns” on Police Motorway Traffic Interceptor Cops, though, so clearly they do sometimes ‘teach rugby as a new sport’ (is that going to become a new euphemish?) on dangerous vehicles and not just on Scofflaw Cyclists (TM).
Big difference between the
Big difference between the speeds of a motorbike and a pushbike … more risk of a fatality.
Similar with the scooter … unlike a bike, mbike or car, there is nothing to safely strike; the only thing large enough to hit on a scooter is the rider, and again, it’s down to risk to the scrotum.
The police are supposed to apprehend to allow for the process of Law, not to be the potential executioner.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Oddly specific part of the anatomy for the police to target, reckon if they can hit my balls, they can certainy hit the scooter. But in the context of the police not stopping youths on scooters I assumed we were talking about 125cc scooters, not electric scooters.
No, not sure. I’d not heard
No, not sure. I’d not heard your interpretation, but it makes sense. A very low-stakes version of holding a gun to your own head during a siege negotiation, I guess.
Brauchsel wrote:
A “constable in uniform” can stop a bicycle (or motor vehicle) – ref.
I doubt even Mr Loophole would attempt to claim that not wearing a hat / helmet could be considered as not being in uniform.
Quote:
That’s a false equivalence right there. A cyclist riding like a dick does not excuse a driver endangering people – there’s a reason that you need a license to drive a car on public roads and you don’t need one for a bike.
Whilst not condoning the
Whilst not condoning the cyclists actions, the Police, who have an active ruling not to follow bikers breaking the laws of the road (look at the furore over the Ely incident or the video of the biker pulling wheelies next to the Police Car), don’t seem to have the same reluctance to push unhelmeted cyclists of their transport.
I posted a few weeks ago footage from the BBC of Police using their car to ram a youth off his bike who landed on his head and was lucky not to be very seriously injured. In that instance, the crimes were done off the bike and they were trying to get away on it which might make a difference but I hope to see Police ramming cars whilst they are doing 75mph alot more.
The Police use rolling road
The Police use rolling road blocks, Stingers and have used their own vehicles.
A criminal, using a bike as a getway … gets demounted by the plod … and I’m supposed to feel sorry for them?
Nope. Can’t do it.
Sympathy for the victims of the criminals action – yes … but not for the criminal.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
If a cyclist refuses to stop after being spotted running reds, then I’d say that a rugby tackle is reasonable force.
My only real issue with
My only real issue with police vs cyclists is the cases I have seen where there was no attempt to stop the rider per HW code (i.e. signal from behind for the rider to pull over).
In this case the rider ignored 3 instructions to stop, which makes a hard stop far more reasonable, whereas I have seen several cases of police complaining about a rider ‘blocking the road’ (i.e. riding legally and correctly for safety) by pulling in front of the rider and slamming on the brakes – something that should only be done after other methods have been tried…
They could have just carried
They could have just carried on following him, the guys head only has to hit a kerb and it’s a fatality, is that proportionate force ? you can’t control how he will fall if you rugby tackle him unless its at such slow speed you can just grab his arm anyway.
TBH, they could have just
TBH, they could have just stated they stopped him, not the how and this thread, if it had even been reported, would have been a lot smaller. I don’t think they tweet specifics for stopping other people.
“We punched him several times and tasered him”.
Pro-LTN councillors do not
Pro-LTN councillors do not suffer at ballot box, research suggests (Grauniad)
Voicing support for traffic schemes has no statistically significant effect on re-election chances, study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/14/councillors-support-ltns-election-impact-research
Quote:
Fuck Around and Find Out, as the kids say. They’ve tried to stop him 3 times and he refused, at that point I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use force.
The ignorant twat got what he
The ignorant twat got what he deserved.
S13SFC wrote:
.
I know cars go through reds,
I know cars go through reds, I know the scroates go through reds, usually pulling a ‘kin wheelie but it grips my shit when grown men on bikes do it.
I live in a small(ish) middle England town.
I was riding through a couple of days ago on my way home and stopped at a pedestrian crossing that was on red. A bus was two cars in front at the stop line.
A middle-aged bloke on a vintage steely rolls straight past the traffic on the outside and through the red light. There was no way he could see if anyone was crossing from the left.
50m up the road is another red on a busy crossroads. Again, he rode straight through as I waited.
What made it worse is that there is a wide shared-use cycle lane on the right-hand side that is well-used by commuters/locals. I wasn’t in it as I would have been turning left at the lights.
I was fucking fuming as it’s shit like that that gives us all a bad name. I took off after him and as he turned onto a quiet road I caught up. I asked him why he did it “To stay alive” was his answer.
I then informed him what an utter fucking dickhead he was, amongst other things.
Thankfully where I am it is very rare to see but it’s actions like his that endanger us all.
I care not one shit if you agree with my actions or not but if we are happy to call out shit driving then we should do the same with shit riding.
Agree apart from “gives us
Agree apart from “gives us all a bad name “.
I’m not responsible for others cyclists actions any more than as a driver I am responsible for dangerous drivers.
We may not like it but it’s
We may not like it but it’s foolish to believe that we aren’t collectively put in the same category just because we ride bikes.
S13SFC wrote:
It’s a ridiculous thing to do though. A driver seeing another driver speeding or using their phone won’t exclaim “they give us all a bad name”. Similarly if I see a pedestrian dropping litter, it doesn’t give all pedestrians a bad name.
We should call out this needless out-grouping of cyclists whenever it happens.
We should call out this
We should call out this needless out-grouping of cyclists whenever it happens
Agreed, but he’s just yet another of the increasing band of Nutters and Sons of Nutter afflicting this site
Bless your little cotton
Bless your little cotton socks cupcake. Does the nasty man scare you?
‘Nutters and Sons of Nutter’.
.
AKA ‘people who don’t have the same opinion as me’.
.
You sound more like Rendy every day – and that’s NOT a good image!
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No, but a lot of them will absolutley see a cyclist do something and take it out on other cyclists.
I don’t buy into the whole “collective responsibilty” thing myself, but I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t annoy me if I’m sat at a red with ten cars behind me and a cyclist comes past and runs the light, because I know I’m then going to get ten punishment passes when the light goes green.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
It seems strange to blame the cyclist that has caused you no harm when you could be blaming the ten idiot motorists that do endanger you.
To some extent, I think that you’re buying into the anti-cyclist narrative and excusing the absolutely appalling behaviour of some motorists. If someone close passes you, then it’s because they’re an idiot, they’re not a good driver and they’re both endangering you and breaking the law. It’s not due to some cyclist spotting an opportunity to sneak through a red light.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re 100% correct, I do agree that the “aggressors” (and the problem) are the drivers, and I never said that I “blamed” the cyclist, just that they annoyed me, but that’s just semantics in that situation because that doesn’t have any affect on the outcome for me – if the RLJ cyclist doesn’t RLJ, I won’t get the punishment passes.
I do think that collective responsibility is nonsense because that cyclist isn’t in any way related to me, and there’s nothing that I can do that will in any way change their behaviour. But as Awavey said in a different post – it doesn’t really matter if I buy into collective responsibility or not, the problem is that drivers do buy into it. No driver is going to get cut up by someone in a SAAB, then spend the next two weeks harassing every SAAB driver they come across, but a lot of drivers absolutely will do that to cyclists.
So, until the whole host of causes of this phenomenon – such as media bullshit, political point-scoring, and coordinated misinformation campaigns – are resolved, I will continue to be annoyed when a cyclist does something really dumb right next to me and paints a target on my back. I don’t have anything to do with them, I didn’t do the dumb thing, I’m not responsible for their actions, and so their actions shouldn’t have any effect on me (and they wouldn’t if we were two members of any other type of road user), but unfortunately in the real word, they do.
Some drivers will get annoyed
Some drivers will get annoyed at you for not jumping the light, if it means you’ll be holding them up when the light turns green.
Also, I think the grouping of people as ‘cyclists’ is lessening as the popularity of cycling increases.
I guess some of us don’t feel
I guess some of us don’t feel it is a choice as to which laws of the road we obey. “Sneaking” through a red light is definitely illegal. If you feel that is ok to downplay that by calling it “sneaking” then I am not sure I see how you can have issue with a driver deciding to ignore the speed limit or the rules on passing a cyclist. Personally I strongly take issue with both behaviours and will often challenge them.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I used “sneaking” to imply going through slowly and carefully. Whilst any kind of RLJ is illegal, there’s a clear difference in danger presented to others.
I think both are true. If a
I think both are true. If a driver ‘collectivises’ me, I’ll tell them how ridiculous that is. But I’ll also tell dickhead cyclists that, rightly or wrongly, their behaviour affects how drivers react to other cyclists.
Foolish to go along with the
Foolish to go along with the group responsibility notion.
Hirsute wrote:
So because you don’t like it it means that it doesn’t take place in the real world?
How odd.
S13SFC wrote:
So because you don’t like it it means that it doesn’t take place in the real world?
How odd.— Hirsute
Racism and sexism happen all the time “in the real world”, and it’s generally considered appropriate to call out people who use racist and sexist language and tropes. Obviously the victimisation of cyclists is nowhere near the scale of sexism and racism, but that doesn’t mean that we should repeat the nonsense, does it?
Why are you going along with
Why are you going along with it?
How will cyclists behaving make a difference to those who still say no road tax, insurance, MOT?
If you blithely accept this collective responsibility, you make it worse.
S13SFC wrote:
why are you buying into this collective responsibility? Do you complain about men committing sexual harrassment giving us all a bad name?
What about drunk drivers? do they give you a bad name?
Or just other cyclists?
We may not like it but it’s
We may not like it but it’s foolish to believe that we aren’t collectively put in the same category just because we ride bikes.
S13SFC wrote:
Yes but a caveat.
Many people lump “cyclists” together / stereotype.
BUT I believe there’s very little that any individual cyclist contributes to that. As in – the stereotype is already “yoof / crim on bike” / “entitled MAMIL” / “aggressive pedant / vigilante”.
I think underlying this is the feeling that cyclists are “cheating”. We’re using the same roads* but we’re in the way, we’re sneaking through gaps, we don’t pay “road tax” / have insurance etc. Oh, and “rights but no responsibilities” and yet some have the temerity to complain when cars pass “just like they would other cars” (e.g. too close).
Like any stereotype there is a grain of truth. Apparently in some places (London) it’s easy to find confirmation of some of these bad habits (ignoring red lights, riding inconsiderately).
I’d recommend cycling carefully and considerately – it will usually mean you have a better day. However doing that isn’t likely to change this stereotype soon, even if we all did so. What will? When most people are “cyclists” or their friends and relatives are. In which case there won’t really be “cyclists” (them over there), it’ll just be people cycling. Some of whom will be inconsiderate idiots, criminals etc. Just like the case now with drivers, walkers …
* Or sadly “pavements” where our councils have failed to provide / have stuck a sign on an existing footway and cried “shared use!”
Whether we individually buy
Whether we individually buy into collective responsibility or not, I think the reality of the situation is alot of those sat behind steering wheels who see cyclists “breaking rules” absolutely buy into it.
it reinforces their prejudices that cyclists are a collective group,and one who don’t share the same rules,responsibilities they do and will absolutely treat the next cyclist they meet on the road differently as a result, often to learn them a lesson about it even though that cyclist had no part to play in it.
I’ve lost count of examples where I’ve been admonished or called out for something another cyclist did, by a motorist, just because I happened to be the next cyclist they met.
So i’ll always call out cyclists who jump red lights, I wouldn’t go to the lengths of the GMP or S13SFC, life’s too short to get that wound up about it.
But how other cyclists behave on roads has an impact on me as a cyclist whether I like or not, so I call them out when i see them rule breaking, too many people turn a blind eye to too many things thesedays imo.
Awavey wrote:
If you want to call out law breaking cyclists, then that’s your perogative, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it will make any difference to the attitudes of some motorists. Even if you could persuade every single cyclist in the world to always obey every single traffic law, those motorists would just find something else to complain about (e.g. they’d just make up their own law such as it being mandatory to use any cycle lane).
Equally I’d say don’t fool
Equally I’d say don’t fool yourself that it has no impact on motorists attitudes towards cyclists individually or as an out group.
Of course the antis would always find another excuse to bolster their views, it doesn’t mean we should tacitly accept the situation or just keep handing them free ammunition.
Awavey wrote:
First – sorry to hear you were injured. I can readily see the link between an actual Bad Cyclist and people’s disapproval. We have all heard the stories – we may even have met the cyclists.
Like a poo in the swimming pool though it only takes one person* with a lack of control and everyone’s unhappy – even if they never witnessed the offense themselves.
I also think people will be primed for getting irked by cyclists until a much larger fraction of people are cycling from A to B regularly. Because cyclists are an “other” (not us, our family, our friends, role models) who are “cheating” (in the way, don’t wait in the queue like everyone driving etc).
I think having separate infra is a) the only way to achieve “lots of people who are happy to cycle some trips” and b) also avoids or reduces the “using the same road but not playing by the same rules” trigger.
The Dutch / Danish example shows that people driving can and will accept people cycling have a right to be in the same space. This happens a) where drivers are clearly in a minority (e.g. because that is not a through-route for them, by dictat etc.) and b) where they clearly understand this is a street (e.g. in residential area) not a road (e.g. a route between places). The infrastructure should make that clear also – which is another issue with UK civil engineering.
* Where they are from an easily identifiable – and normally minority – “group”.
its ok you dont have to do
its ok you dont have to do that 🙂 Im just trying to get people to realise this is not a zero sum game, and it f**kin hurts when someone rides into you even if you manage to stay upright
Unless he actually nearly
Unless he actually nearly caused a collision doing this or it really was reckless, then it’s not much different to cycling across a puffin crossing then joining the road.
Yeah, right, nothing at all
Yeah, right, nothing at all wrong in going through red lights when you can’t see who is crossing nowt wrong with that at all.
S13SFC wrote:
If it was unsighted and clearly reckless, then obviously that’s very bad. But it is possible to cycle through a red light safely, particularly pedestrian crossings. In some circumstances it can be much safer than stopping for the red light and waiting for the green.
I used to think this but then
I used to think this but then I realised that nobody was going to be converted to cycling by us acting like angels and even the idea of us being out-grouped less than we are now is dubious.
Anything cyclists can do, safely, that makes cycling visibly more convenient is a good thing.
So if a cyclist wants to carefully ride on the pavement, cross at a pedestrian crossing, or ride through a red light after giving way to pedestrians and traffic then I have no problem.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
And if a motorist wants to do these things, safely, because it’s more convenient?
We are all, more often than we realise, pretty bad at assessing what is safe. The other humans around us are also pretty bad at it. So, when you’ve given way before riding through a red light, you might not have noticed the person legging it to get across while the green man’s showing and if they’ve noticed you they won’t expect you to be moving.
The solution is remarkably simple: if you’re not in danger, stop at the fucking red light. You’ll keep yourself and others safe, with the bonus of not being a selfish anti-social arsehole to boot.
Brauchsel wrote:
The U.S. allows motorists to turn right through red lights when it’s safe to do so.
There’s also various places that have relaxed rules for cyclists as they recognise that the stop-start nature of roads has been designed primarily for motorists and isn’t particularly suited for cyclists (e.g. the Idaho Stop). I think there’s a strong argument for changing the rules around red lights and cyclists – especially those junctions where there’s clear sight-lines and that a cyclist can navigate through without having to cross streams of traffic.
However, I’m not saying that the particular cyclist in question was being at all careful or justified.
Brauchsel wrote:
The difference is motorists are not allowed to use puffin crossings or shared use cycle tracks.
There is little difference cycling across a puffin crossing vs. a pelican crossing, nor is there much difference cycling on a pavement vs. a shared cycle track.
I am watching this thread
I am watching this thread intently. I can see the pros and cons. Struggling to decide which I support!
Personally, I try to live by “if its illegal, don’t do it”, but at the same time I know the law isn’t as black and white as that.
I understand cycling through a red light at a pedestrian crossing if you are 100% sure there is no one crossing and it allows you to get clear of the maniac drivist that close passed you earlier (assuming you are not simply going to be close passed by them again further up the road!) I haven’t had to do it – but I can imagine a scenario where it would be safer to do it.
However – I also know there are people out there that would push that beyond the limit. Their version of “100% sure there is no one crossing” would be “well I didn’t hit them did I?”
Honestly can’t decide.
HoldingOn wrote:
I’ve been known to take liberties with red lights when I know the junction and can see it to be safe, but if a cyclist doesn’t spot a copper lurking around the red light, then I’d say that the cyclist wasn’t being careful.
HoldingOn wrote:
That’s exactly the scenario I’m thinking of – I had cause to perform such a manoeuvre the other day. I only tend to do it for reasons of increasing safety for myself and others, rarely is it done to save time.
The issue is its not people
The issue is its not people carefully riding on the pavement or checking the crossing is clear. They’re just riding like they don’t give a damn about anyone else, the guy who rode into me last year and screwed up my shoulder for a few weeks as it took the full impact force, and im not built for rugby tackling, as I crossed on a green light for pedestrians only crossing didn’t give a damn i was there or that he should stop, he didn’t even apologise for it, he hit me,swore at me for getting in his way, I swore back and he rode off narrowly avoiding getting taken out by a taxi as the light was still red.
This isn’t that dissimilar to the pspo on the Thames path, they wouldn’t need to bring anything at all if people were riding their ebikes or escooters carefully or with consideration, but they don’t I’ve sat outside that pub in the picture one lunchtime and seen enough near misses in a couple of hours to wonder why it took so long to crack down on it in the first place.
*thankfully, can’t access the
*thankfully, can’t access the comments on twatter due to not being a user*
There’s some really false equivalence in the highlighted posts above …
How exactly would an officer rugby tackle a car?
AFAIK, UK Police have uses their vehicles in the past as physical stops on other vehicles, including rolling road blocks and physical impact.
Rugby tackling a red light running driver … if the driver decides to leg it on foot, then yes, the Police do use force to apprehend where appropriate. If they leg it in the car, see above.
The cyclist jumped 2 red lights, and failed to stop … as far as I’m concerned the Police did what they had to do and no more excessively than if it was a driver.
And for those thinking that the Police were excessive… how would *you* stop a cyclist that does not wish to be stopped?
Stinger !
Stinger !
Oldfatgit wrote:
Safely use their vehicle to bring them to a halt.
The tweet makes it look like
The tweet makes it look like they’re rather proud of using physical force. What would their story be if they paralysed or killed the guy, would they say ‘rugby tackle’, or ‘we grabbed him using the least amount of force possible and he lost his balance.’
Will the dashcam footage of his RLJ’ing be released? How would you feel if it showed the guy rolling through empty junctions at 1mph? Would a rugby tackle still be the police ‘doing what they have to do’?
What if … what if … what
What if … what if … what if.
But … the what if didn’t happen and if it did, I’m sure that the tweet would have been phrased somewhat differently.
How would I feel about the guy rolling through the reds at 1mph?
Exactly the same.
Red light means stop … it doesn’t mean feel free to carry on your journey just because you are on a bicycle.
AFAIK, the guy was brought down for the failure to obey a legal and authorised command, and not for the RLJ.
The RLJ was the trigger to the Officer to request the rider to stop, not for the rugby tackle.
And, to complete the loop … if the guy hadn’t have gone through the multiple red lights – even at 1 mph – he wouldn’t have been challenged to stop, and wouldn’t have ended up on the floor.
Which part of this incident was triggered by the guy riding his bike in a legal manner and obeying a legally issued command?
What ever colour your spectacles are, the guy on the bike – based on the story as presented – is wholly at fault for the incident, and I feel not one ounce of pity or sympathy for them.
There’s a guy in my town that
There’s a guy in my town that dismounts at reds and runs alongside his bike while pushing it before hopping back on at the other side of the junction. It looks silly but presumably legal? I wonder if you straddle your bike’s top tube and propel yourself by walking that would be illegal?
If the guy demounts, and
If the guy demounts, and crosses the road *as a pedestrian pushing a bike*, then they have not technically committed an offence.
If you were to sit on the crossbar and scoot across the red, then technically you would be committing an offence as you are riding the bike. The frame of the bike would be taking the weight of your body, so you would be riding.
And before you go on to the “using a bike as a mobility aid” and going through a red … well, that doesn’t work either as a bike isn’t legally recognised as a mobility aid.
There is no way that you can go through a red light unless you have fully de-mounted and are pushing the bike.
Stop making excuses for people riding like arseholes.
Oldfatgit wrote:
And before you go on to the “using a bike as a mobility aid” and going through a red … well, that doesn’t work either as a bike isn’t legally recognised as a mobility aid.— Oldfatgit
First point – not sure what “technically” is doing in there. They haven’t committed an offence – unless as a pedestrian – full stop.
On your second point there is considerable ambiguity, though not (I agree) a precedent setting Court ruling of which I am aware.
I think basically that if someone using a bike as a mobility aid calls it a mobility aid, then it is one. I’m hoping for statute law to that effect as some point.
I’ve debated this with staff at disability organisations, and that seems to be the view.
Given that I am currently mobility impaired due to a condition which seriously slugs my energy levels being out of remission, I have wondered about taking my E-bike (which is a standard bike with an aftermarket E-assist) into Mansfield Town Centre to explore the issue; but I am not quite convinced enough.
There *are* actually some bikes that blur the lines between “Approved Mobility Aid”, “EAPC” and “Wheelchair”, especially afaics Mountain Trikes, which are quite remarkable bits of kit – and not especially cheap. For example this one is – I am told by someone who uses one – a registered mobility aid:
https://www.mountaintrike.com/products/etrike
Also note that – amongst the crud – the Hammersmith and Fulham Thames Path PSPO recognises the concept of “anyone with restricted mobility who uses any electric powered vehicle as a mobility aid”, which is broader than “registered”.
It’s a very useful grey zone.
If you look through enough of
If you look through enough of my posts, you’ll see that I am a mobility impaired ebike rider also.
A badly driven Mondeo put paid to my ability to walk unaided a little shy of 5 years ago [in fact August 10 is the 5th anniversary of being driven in to that ruined my walking ability for life]
I would hope that even calling an ebike a mobility aid if stopped for RLJ would not prevent a rider being penalised for the offense.
If a blue badge holder jumps the lights in their car, and are caught, they would be penalised, so it’s only correct that a disabled road user of any mechanical transportation that is not classed as being a pedestrian, is also penalised.
As the miscreant in this report has not been identified as disabled, it’s a reasonable assumption that they weren’t, as such, disablement is a red herring in this case.
Quote:
a 24cm frame? really? do such things exist. it seems to me that the lady is only 16cm shorter than the man, so there is no way her bike should be 26cm smaller. I wonder if they mean 42cm, even that sounds very small.
“We introduced him to rugby”:
“We introduced him to rugby”: Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light
Meanwhile, Lancashire Constabulary ignore red light offences by Audis, Range Rovers, large vans, tipper lorries, large lorries etc. etc. Tough on offences by cyclists…tough on the cause of offences by cyclists (which is ‘getting in the way of respectable car drivers by cluttering up the roads’). Despising the police is much underused!
wtjs wrote:
The actual tweet says “We introduced him to Rugby” – which is a bit out of the way for GMP. Makes me wonder if they drove at him so hard, that the force of the impact propelled him to Warwickshire.
Looks like the red-light
Looks like the red-light running cyclist was riding a brakeless fixie. Maybe a wanna be Terry B.
You might have seen this
You might have seen this already:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/14y65bg/midmonth_critical_mass_london_a_driver_incensed/
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cuo56qWo4e0/
A Porsche SUV ran into a midweek Critical Mass ride on Wednesday night at Elephant and Castle.
I hope they got a number
Cyclist rugby tackled after
Cyclist rugby tackled after failing to stop for the Police:
Might seem disproportionate for a RLJ offence, but failing to stop is going to ping any law enforcement officer’s spidey senses. Concealed weapon? Carrying illegal substances? Outstanding warrant?
If nothing else, when keyboard warriors go on about cyclists being above the law, Police never tackle RLJ cyclists etc, then you can point them at this story.
Police in some parts of the
Police in some parts of the US use the PIT maneuvre..
Police PIT maneuver has killed at least 30 people since 2016.
23 Aug 2020 — So far this year, nine people have been killed nationwide in PIT maneuvers, including a 16-year-old who was driving a stolen car in Longmont.
You know how the Govt talks
You know how the Govt talks about how money is spent on active travel…?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-66201424
Putting the traffic
Putting the traffic underground – while an extremely expensive option – at least makes it nicer for everyone else not driving.
As for “reduced journey times” / “less congestion”, time will tell.
But but it will
increase wellbeingmake us all richerboost the economy:Of course it’s clearly possible for more motoring to be a net cost to everyone* but still “unlock jobs and investment”. Bit like having a
hole in the groundmine which is expensive to run but which – if we don’t keep extending – we won’t be able to to pay the bills to allow us to keep digging to cover the expenses…* Apples and orangutans of course but various groups have done sums – a few figures here, Sustrans motoring vs. cycling here etc.
@Dan Alexander
@Dan Alexander
“P.S. If I was getting paid a reported €5 million a year editor Jack could say whatever he wants about me… if your reading this, Jack, it’s worth thinking about…”
with spelling and grammar like that, you have a point 😉
I posted this on the
I posted this on the appropriate news article but I’ll put it here too:
“North Somerset council are holding a public meeting about the Clevedon seafront
debaclescheme at 7pm on Thursday July 20th, at Clevedon Community Centre, Princes Road.The Leader of NS Council will be there, as will their “executive member with responsibility for active travel”.
Bring popcorn!”
I need one of these !
I need one of these !
https://twitter.com/calderwook/status/1679647564902047745
Looks like Johnny 5 is trying
Looks like Johnny 5 is trying to bluff his way into the golf club again!
And another thing. All these
And another thing. All these liberal lefties would have you reading books if they had their way. Don’t fall into their trap
Approved by Sustrans
Approved by Sustrans
(Public footpath sign somewhere in there !)
Makes a change from barbed
Makes a change from barbed wire, ‘beware of the dog’, ‘bull in field’ and ‘private keep out!’ signs.
I do wish landowners could be fined more easily for failing to maintain the highways over their land.
Not sure how many red lights
Not sure how many red lights he went through…
Motorcyclist knocked off by police