“30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than three involving a cyclist”: Chris Boardman on dangerous cycling; Netflix teases TdF series with doping question; Alaphilippe’s sensational Giro win + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"A proposal based on fear not evidence": Cyclists react to new "death by dangerous cycling" offence
The big news that broke last night was the government agreeing to introduce tougher legislation to prosecute cyclists who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling. Ministers have backed Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which is said to aim to ensure those riding bicycles “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” if they are responsible for death or injury through dangerous cycling.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper last week said the proposed amendment would be considered “with an open mind”, the Department for Transport chief last night confirming the government’s intention to move forward with the legislative change.
“Most cyclists, like most drivers, are responsible and considerate. But it’s only right that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full weight of the law for doing so,” he said.
“Just like car drivers who flout the law, we are backing this legislation introducing new offences around dangerous cycling. These new measures will help protect law-abiding cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users, whilst ensuring justice is done.”
In the hours since there has been continued discussion on the topic, the issue having received widespread media and political attention since the bank holiday weekend when it was reported that a coroner’s court had heard a cyclist who hit a pedestrian in Regent’s Park would not face any charges.
Many have compared the plentiful column inches, radio rants and TV debates that have been afforded to one case of a person riding a bicycle involved in the death of a pedestrian versus the respective normalised nature of coverage of death and injuries involving a person driving a vehicle. But, the fact is, the noise has resonated with the government, who in the space of two weeks have moved from last year’s position of an ongoing “review” seemingly lacking much urgency to now pressing forward with an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act. Last summer, the line from ministers was that there would be insufficient Parliamentary time to introduce legislation. Now, within 14 days things have changed.
The West Midlands’ former cycling and walking commissioner, Adam Tranter, who this week resigned from his role, called dangerous cycling laws “a proposal based on fear not evidence” and suggested that while they might “sound reasonable” it is “an incredibly strange use of government time and resource given how rarely it’ll need to be used”.
“Every death is tragic but to put it into perspective, on average each year, more pedestrians are killed by cows than by cyclists,” he said. “It is a proposal based on fear not evidence. Those working in road safety will be perplexed given England does not even have a road safety strategy (one of few developed countries not to) and many responses on topics that would save lives are still sat on ministers’ desks.”
Things that the Government could do (and have said they would do), but haven’t, instead prioritising the creation of dangerous cycling laws:
– New laws for hit and run offenders, campaigned for by @RoadPeace
– Publishing of England road safety strategy
– Undertake full review of…— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) May 15, 2024
The Guardian’s Peter Walker took to social media too, arguing that a dangerous cycling law “won’t make the roads less safe”.
“If you were to write a list of the best ways to actually improve road safety, it wouldn’t even be on the first A4 page. It’s 95 per cent displacement activity,” he said. “It’s mainly an example of how in political terms, salience trumps normalisation. There have been two nasty incidents in London involving cyclists in the last few weeks. On an *average single day* there are 20+ hit and run incidents in London involving motor vehicles.”
The first of those incidents also actually happened in June 2022, only being thrust into the spotlight following a Telegraph news story on the coroner’s inquest, which was subsequently picked up across print and broadcast media, catching the government’s attention.
Transport Secretary Harper’s social media post about the move has also been flooded with comments and replies, many from cyclists questioning his attitude to other road safety issues.
Rory McCarron, a cycling lawyer at Leigh Day, said: “There have only been two fatal collisions in London where a cyclist was involved between 2020 – 2022 (last three years of available data from Stats19). This doesn’t even mention who was to blame. Want to guess the total amount of fatalities on London’s roads in that time?”
Are you deluded ? Think this is how to make streets safer ? pic.twitter.com/TlMX2ioRdv
— Greggs 💙 🇾🇪 🇵🇸 (@AnnGreggsRN) May 15, 2024
Many weren’t particularly concerned by the idea of cyclists being subject to the same penalties as motorists, after all you can find more than a handful of old (and recent) stories from the road.cc archives along the lines of…
> Suspended sentence for careless driver who killed two cyclists
Other comments included:
Andy Bell: “Yet again focusing on completely the wrong priorities. An absolute embarrassment of a transport secretary. Probably the worst yet and that’s a pretty high bar.”
Alex S: “You’d save more lives (directly and indirectly, better health etc.) by making cycling safer Mark. But that would require thought and effort, wouldn’t it? And you’ll be out in a few months…”
The Ranty Highwayman: “Where’s the consultation results for footway parking?”
Steve Walker: “As soon as we achieve this equity between cars and bikes I look forward to drivers being hounded in the media with the same vigour for each and every incident.”
Bob From Accounts: “So does this mean you’ll get let off with a small fine and some community service if you kill someone?”
Doping questions and Lefevere vs Alaphilippe centre stage as Netflix releases Tour de France Unchained trailer
The second season of Tour de France Unchained returns to Netflix on 11 June, the trailer for its return released this morning… and boy have they teased some storylines…
Jasper “we’re not here to make friends” Philipsen, Patrick “everyone should kill somebody to win a stage” Lefevere, Tom “I love the risk” Pidcock, Matej Mohorič’s Oscar-worthy post-victory interview, Julian Alaphilippe and his aforementioned mouthy manager, plenty of swearing, a few tantrums and a cellar’s worth of Pinot (of a Thibaut vintage), it’s a star-studded cast for season two.
Perhaps the most eye-catching part is footage of Jonas Vingegaard and his teammates being booed by roadside fans which cuts into Pinot sat being interviewed.
The big question comes…
Before swiftly moving on…
Other majors storylines appear to be Lefevere and Alaphilippe’s tested relationship, the two-time world champion joking that he is paid “too much for Patrick”. There is also the remembrance and tributes to Gino Mäder, last year’s Tour coming a month after his death in a crash at the Tour de Suisse. Of course this doesn’t stop the trailer moving swiftly from crash to crash, interspersed with injuries, shocked reactions and a general glorification of the dangerous side of the sport.
We also get Lefevere claiming “everyone should kill somebody to win a stage”, comments that are more than a bit uncomfortable given the Mäder context and the trailer opening with Fabio Jakobsen, whose high-speed sprint crash at the Tour of Poland in 2020 saw Dylan Groenewegen banned for nine months and Lefevere threatening legal action, claiming Groenewegen should be in jail.
Elsewhere, we see David Gaudu telling a Netflix cameraman to “f*** off”, an exasperated Ben O’Connor reject talking to the media, angry sports directors, Wout van Aert throwing his bike to the side and shouting on an empty team bus, all topped off with Tadej Pogačar’s famous attack.
"It's a shame to leave race like this": Fabio Jakobsen out of the Giro d'Italia after heavy crash in yesterday's sprint
Speaking of Fabio Jakobsen, the Dutch sprinter has left the Giro this morning due to “discomfort” from the impact of a high-speed crash during yesterday’s sprint. Jakobsen and teammate Tobias Lund Andresen were two of the riders affected, the team’s doctor explaining that the pain is the “main factor” for Jakobsen who “suffered some scrapes and abrasions in the crash, but no fractures”.
Jakobsen said: “It’s a shame to leave race like this. I was starting to feel better, my legs were improving, and I was looking forward to being in the fight for results with the team. I’m pretty sore after the crash so will rest up and recover before building for the next goals with the team. I wish the guys the best for the remainder of the race and I’ll be cheering them on from home.”
Giro d'Italia stage 12 and Vuelta a Burgos Feminas — a busy day's racing
It’s a punchy one in Italy, possibly more so than that profile does justice. Almost 200km and 2,200m of climbing, that with a pan-flat opening 50km. The last lump of the day tops out with 13km to go and averages 9.2 per cent for 1.2km. One for a breakaway? Will any sprinters be able to hang on?
There’s also some top-class women’s action at Vuelta a Burgos Feminas too, Demi Vollering, Lorena Wiebes, Elisa Balsamo and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig just some of the big names in attendance. Stage one should be a sprint. Wiebes vs Balsamo. Pick your fighter.
Cyclist shoved into ditch by hooded BMW passenger – spotted trying to "spook" other riders and locals – slams "complete lack of effort" by police to trace attacker
Something tells me this might be a breakaway day
🇮🇹 #GirodItalia
Looks like these two have sneaky plans today. 😏 pic.twitter.com/fF3E9KhSmY
— Team Visma | Lease a Bike (@vismaleaseabike) May 16, 2024
Just the 37 riders up the road at the Giro…
Leading the way is the not-so-incognito Julian Alaphilippe, a couple of minutes clear of a huge breakwaway including Filippo Ganna, Jhonatan Narváez, Aurélien Paret-Peintre, Laurence Pithie, Nairo Quintana and, well, quite a few others. No Jan Tratnik though, great lying or a monumental missing of the escape for the Slovenian. Half Visma-Lease a Bike’s remaining quartet are there though, Attila Valter and Edoardo Affini making the break.
Who’s going to win this then?
By contrast at Vuelta a Burgos Feminas, there’s a grand total of one rider up the road, Katrine Aalerud ploughing a lone furrow on a day expected to be a Lorena Wiebes vs Elisa Balsamo sprint showdown.
"You're not going to legislate away these sort of incidents": Martin Porter KC on cycling and the law + cycling and mental health for Mental Health Awareness Week
Manchester United fan cycles to Old Trafford... from Mongolia
A truly unforgettable story ❤️
In May last year, Ochirvaani embarked on a monumental bike ride from his home in Mongolia to fulfil his dream of visiting Old Trafford for the first time
He is a huge @ManUtd fan, and his favourite player and inspiration is @WayneRooney
When he… pic.twitter.com/7wOjLnGDGU
— Premier League (@premierleague) May 16, 2024
"When British Cycling teamed up with Shell, many of us puked our bodies inside out": Cyclists praise climate activists’ guerilla ad campaign as Shell slams "misleading" billboards and British Cycling says partnership with oil giant makes "positive impact"
Horrible crash mars opening Vuelta a Burgos sprint as Lotta Henttala takes victory
Billed as Lorena Wiebes vs Elisa Balsamo, the Italian former world champion’s challenge coming to an end in dramatic (and quite terrible) fashion, a crash into the barriers as the speeds were ramping up towards the close.
No news on Balsamo or the UAE Team ADQ rider involved, fingers crossed for something more positive soon.
After the crash, Lotta Henttala kicked early to take it from late attacker Carina Schrempf, Wiebes behind in third.
💥💥💥 A WHOLE LOTTA POWER!
Our flying Finn, Lotta Henttala, takes stage 1 of the Vuelta a Burgos after a brilliant sprint. 💕 pic.twitter.com/WxHZOY96fS
— EF Education–Cannondale (@EF_Cannondale) May 16, 2024
You were saying, Patrick? Julian Alaphilippe proves class is permanent with memorable Giro victory
On the same day Netflix unveiled the trailer for the second season of Tour de France Unchained, the friction between Soudal Quick-Step team boss Patrick Lefevere and Julian Alaphilippe apparently a major storyline, the Frenchman turned back the clock to take a solo stage win in incredibly impressive fashion.
Credit for Mirco Maestri too, the Italian joining Alaphilippe in the two-up escape, sticking with the two-time world champ until the final climb before dropping back to the chase group behind to take ninth on the stage.
The ever impressive Jhonatan Narváez beat Quinten Hermans in the sprint for second, Michael Valgren going close again with fourth. It would be rude not to defer to Eurosport’s French commentary team for this one…
🇫🇷😍 Le récital de Julian Alaphilippe ! Le Français renoue avec la victoire et avec la manière sur la 12e étape du #Giro, au terme d’un numéro qui l’aura vu être en tête de la course durant 126 kilomètres ! #LesRP pic.twitter.com/gfCkeywtxR
— Eurosport France (@Eurosport_FR) May 16, 2024
A third win of the race for the French and a Grand Tour hat-trick completed for their favourite cycling son, Alaphilippe now having won a stage at the Giro, Tour and Vuelta. Five minutes later, the GC favourites crossed the line, with no changes there.
The hottest cycling products for 2024! Cutting-edge bikes, tech and gear from Pirelli, Topeak, Fizik, Cycology, WTB, Castelli, Silca, Aerosensor, Ribble, Lauf, Cervélo + Argon 18
"30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than three involving a cyclist": Chris Boardman on dangerous cycling
Chris Boardman was on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning to talk about the dangerous cycling story and, if we may say so, he made some extremely important and compelling points.
“I struggle with talking about it, to be honest, and I’ll tell you why,” the commissioner of Active Travel England began. “My mother was crushed to death by a driver a few years ago, which devastated our family, and we’ve not really got over it. She was one of five people to die on the roads that day. And then the next day, there was another five… there’ll be another five today.
“There’s over 1,700 deaths caused by, or involved in, vehicles every year, 30,000 killed or seriously injured. It’s important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider.
“And as the Secretary of State [Mark Harper] said, this is such a tiny minority. More people are killed by lightning, or cows. And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It’s good for society. And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
He also appeared on BBC Breakfast to make similar points…
‘30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than 3 involving a cyclist’
Former Olympic cycling champion Chris Boardman spoke to #BBCBreakfast about Government plans to make causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling an… pic.twitter.com/UbbpWn1l4Q
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) May 16, 2024
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.
44 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I see quite a few MAAP items out in the Surrey Hills. The new shop has a cafe and they're from Melbourne so the coffee should be good: I'm looking forward to visiting.
@chrisonabike Mercedes was acceptable, but the second one (old Toyota people carrier/ex-taxi) was a prosecutable offence.
I wasn't saying that nor talking about people who say that. I said it was silly to claim that wearing a helmet indicates acceptance of dangerous driving and poor infrastructure. I choose to wear a helmet; I also regularly report dangerous driving to the police and correspond with councils and road authorities about ways infrastructure could be improved for cyclists. I rather doubt I'm the only helmet wearer who does so.
@JamieT (a pedant writes) she's a London Assembly member, not an MP.
@Rendel Harris ".....but the claim that wearing one is somehow to be accepting dangerous driving and poor infrastructure is silly." Not that silly. Demanding that cyclists wear a helmet is seen by many people as 'the answer' to cycling safety, so there's no need to put in infrastructure. The difference between infrastructure and helmets is that infrastructure works. Helmets are a distraction from what really works, and the more time we spend talking about them, the less time we spend on things that do work. Helmets should be consigned to the dustbin of history as a failed experiment, and we should cease even mentioning them.
@Mr Blackbird Hats off to George Hall My hat's not coming off- despite this touch of cycleway-washing, Hall still bears the Mark of Cain, until he repudiates his party altogether
Perhaps an article showing a) what is available in the uk as cargo bikes and) comments from real life scenarios from those already using bikes or cargo bikes as one gentleman has done in the comments. Perhaps road.cc could follow up with this. Even the London Assembly member said not every business should use cargo bikes but suggested a more nuanced approach suitable for certain trades or companies....
44 thoughts on ““30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than three involving a cyclist”: Chris Boardman on dangerous cycling; Netflix teases TdF series with doping question; Alaphilippe’s sensational Giro win + more on the live blog”
How many people would this
How many people would this affected in the past had the law existed?
ribena wrote:
From STATS19 data for 2011 – 2016, there were 20 pedestrian deaths from collisions involving cyclists. Of those 20, 4 assiged a factor to the cyclist only and 5 assiged a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist. So you’re probably looking at one or two prosecutions per year for Causing Death By Dangerous / Careless Cycling.
There are around 100 convictions per year for Dangerous or Careless Cycling, although I’m not sure how many of those involve serious injury to a pedestrian.
For context there were 711,000 prosecutions for motoring offences in 2022. 340 of those were for causing death (down from 419 in 2021).
ref – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a9d67e2e5274a7bd0047fa4/cycle-safety-review-report.PDF
ref – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ad8685c40f0b617dca71654/foi-171121016-cycling-convictions-tables.xlsx
ref – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2022/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-december-2022-html#motoring12
can’t we just have a cover
can’t we just have a cover all law to cover death or injury by dangerous or careless behaviour…..pedestrians with headphones, stepping into the road without looking would also be covered…..i agree in general that the minority of all people who cause injury should face the law – what is really at issue is whether the thresholds for prosecution are applied equally.
Quote:
Can anyone track down a source for this death by cows/cyclists stat?
https://www.ons.gov.uk
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathscausedbycowlivestockfarmanimalattackbetween2010and2023
Or you can just use https://killercows.co.uk/
thanks!
thanks!
It’s a truly magnificent stat
It’s a truly magnificent stat which I will be wheeling out.
Cows kill more people than
Cows kill more people than sharks every year.
Frankly, I’m surprised they manage to kill any sharks at all.
Don’t you remember the movie?
Don’t you remember the movie?
“We’re going to need a bigger
boatcow”Iain Duncan Smith’s amendment
Iain Duncan Smith’s amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which is said to aim to ensure those riding bicycles “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” if they are responsible for death or injury through dangerous cycling
Quite happy with that as those penalties are usually not much at all
A busted flush of a
A busted flush of a government with no direction and no policies. A four month silly season of focusing on a Plan for Motorists, pint wine bottles and rainbow lanyards and other non-issues now beckons.
I’m not sure if my helmet cam is an evidence source against drivers or pedestrians.
Of course cyclists (and
Of course cyclists (and people generally) should be held accountable for their actions. The threshold for maximum sentencing for receiving the maximum sentence of death by dangerous driving tends to be of the unimaginably awful “banned driver, no tax MOT or license, had previously been prosecuted, was off their face on cocaine and killed 3 people in a 20 mph zone whilst doing 60 mph” variety. Has anything remotely comparable ever been reported for a cyclist involved in a fatal collision? Charlie Alliston for example was cycling poorly on a bike that wasn’t street legal – whilst the outcome was tragic, it’s hardly comparable.
Like others are saying, it is utter tokenistic bollocks from a desparate failing and flailing disgrace of a government.
Quote:
Surely its not a good look comparing themselves to car drivers who flout the law?
More worryingly these are the people who write our laws and don’t seem to understand how the language works!
Did Pete Walker really mean
Did Pete Walker really mean “won’t make the roads less safe” ?
In the blog “There have been
In the blog “There have been two nasty incidents in London involving cyclists in the last few weeks. On an *average single day* there are 20+ hit and run incidents in London involving motor vehicles.”
And what do we hear on this from the mainstream – nothing and harsher penalties for hit and run driver shave been ignored again.
Chris Boardman have been
Chris Boardman have been interviewed on Radio 5 Live regarding the new law. Usual measured response from him and, from the part I heard, the interviewers actually gave him time to talk and put his view across.
Also the Today Programme on
Also the Today Programme on R4.
twitter link
twitter link
And this was literally their
And this was literally their very next tweet today
Baby dies after being hit by Land Rover in car park.
Following IDS logic, given
Following IDS logic, given the number of children killed by Land Rovers, there need to be urgent new laws to deal with the vehicles and the drivers.
Hirsute wrote:
That would actually make a lot of sense. Land Rovers, and their imitators, have grown far too big, too heavy, too powerful, with bonnets so high that a child has to be a car’s length ahead before they can be seen by the driver. But laws to either reduce the size of cars or require extra driver training for such large vehicles would impact on the profits of the motor industry. So, natually, don’t expect IDS to do anything about them.
Whilst I fully welcome Chris
Whilst I fully welcome Chris Boardman’s efforts to improve road safety, he has to change his language.
“
“There’s over 1,700 deaths caused by, or involved in, vehicles every year, 30,000 killed or seriously injured. It’s important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider.
“
Why is it “… vehicles…” but not “ … vehicle DRIVERS…” when it is “… a bike rider…” ?
http://rc-rg.com
Everyone probably does it
Everyone probably does it occasionally just because it’s so pervasive (presumably from age-old media strictures to avoid saying something that could be interpreted as prejudicial in any later case).
At least in the segment linked on Twitter on BBC Breakfast (Hirsute has it below) he says: “My mother was crushed to death by a driver…” and doesn’t use any form which says e.g. “hit by cars”.
He did use the word ‘driver’
He did use the word ‘driver’ when talking about his mum’s death.
I agree with the broad point, but we shouldn’t be too quick to criticise individual sentences in this instance.
I was surprised British
I was surprised British Cycling’s latest sponsor partnerChip hadnt created more twitter angst. They’ve signed up with Kettle Chips. https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/news/article/20240515-about-bc-static-British-Cycling-teams-up-with-KETTLE-Chips-to-spread-the-joy-of-cycling-this-summer-0
stonojnr wrote:
I think you’ll find that should be “KETTLE® Chips” if the press release is anything to go by… ?
I can’t understand what
I can’t understand what difference giving a dangerous cyclist who kills somebody a longer prison sentence will do – it will not be a deterrent, save any lives and will not save the NHS and government any money. The occasional moron riding a bike is the price we have to pay for the freedom of the bicycle.
I can’t help but think that
I can’t help but think that the cycling lobby should do better than a bit of “whataboutism” as the response to this.
The usual media suspects commenting on this are always pushing for higher punishment for driving offences particularly in the case of drivers “who kill”. This despite the fact that there isn’t brilliant evidence that harshness of punishment is particularly effective deterrent for any crime let alone one like dangerous driving where the ratio between an act of dangerous driving and a death by it is in the region of a million to one (about 300 convictions a year for death by careless/dangerous driving would mean the average driver would need to do less than 10 dangerous things a year to make it a million to one).
While we are at it the number of people killed by drivers using mobiles while driving last year was 22, yet a vast amount of effort is put into stopping this. It’s also why people think cycling Micky is a dick.
Human nature is what it is, infrastructure and proper places to cycle are what is needed and what should be lobbied for not annoying the biggest single interest group (people with driving licences) by demanding that it’s easier for them to be sent to jail or fined.
massive4x4 wrote:
Oh that’s OK then, only 22 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters killed for totally avoidable reasons. Only 674 injured too, and 4000+ injured where mobile use was “potentially” a factor (i.e. almost certainly was but can’t be proved). Nothing to worry about at all.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oh that’s OK then, only 22 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters killed for totally avoidable reasons. Only 674 injured too, and 4000+ injured where mobile use was “potentially” a factor (i.e. almost certainly was but can’t be proved). Nothing to worry about at all.— massive4x4
At a society level of 65 million persons in the UK 22 and 3 deaths are pretty much the same.
Mobile phone use will sort itself out overtime as cars do a better job of driving themselves and interfaces get better on devices so people don’t need to look at them or touch them.
massive4x4 wrote:
Good, that’s alright then. Presumably if your partner, mother or daughter was killed by some selfish idiot using a mobile phone while driving you would just shrug and say it’s alright, mobile phone use will sort it self out over time.
Some quality whataboutism.
Some quality whataboutism.
Were you at the Evil Cyclists Lobby meeting in the Church Hall earlier??
How to rein in a majority –
How to rein in a majority – well there is indeed a problem.
I’d have a listen to Chris Boardman again – less whataboutery, more “what’s the real issue here folks?” I’d say.
Your idea of an alternative though … isn’t really any easier or free from the issue you identify. Where are you going to put that infra and those proper places to cycle without annoying the
biggest3nd biggest interest group (people with driving licences, a fair way behind people who use motor transport in some way, and “pedestrians” (broadly put) – which is everyone to a first approximation)?And those places to cycle – are they going to go anywhere? Perhaps it seems sensible to connect residential areas with schools, amenities, transport hubs and workplaces? Sorry mate – need that parking, and we can only just fit two Land Rovers down here.
It isn’t a zero sum game … but I think the notion you can get more than fractional change without rocking the motor transport boat is for the birds *. Because it’s our addiction to an extremely space-inefficient mode of transport that displaces or suppresses other modes that is the root issue.**
* Whether we try to “police it better” – there’s a fair bit of low-hanging fruit in the UK, but I think “diminishing returns” after that – or do the cycle infra + public transport transformation + motor vehicle journey reduction – which I’d agree is the ultimate way forward. (Or of course we can just “keep driving because everyone’s a bit miserable but doesn’t know better” – politically safe!).
** A convenient and (somewhat) flexible mode of transport to be sure, but one with “pushers” who – unlike the “cycling lobby” – are running the show.
massive4x4 wrote:
That’s 22 people who were proved to be using their mobile – I suspect a lot of other RTCs were caused by drivers using their mobile phones but it wasn’t proven (e.g. reading messages rather than actually making a call just before the incidents)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, see my stats above (from the RAC website): 674 people injured by proven mobile-using drivers but 4000 more incidents where “driver distraction” was thought to play a part, with the most likely distraction being mobile use.
Read an article in the
Read an article in the Telegraph earlier
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/competitive-strava-cyclists-turn-uk-roads-into-death-traps/
It’s behind a paywall but I read it on a link site somewhere – basically writing about a cyclist who hit 52mph whilst cycling along 20mph Chelsea embankment one Sunday morning. They got the data from Strava. I’m sure there are some guys out there capable of high speed but that strikes me as a motor vehicle driver and the Telegraph using this (unsubstantiated) data to stir further hatred.
I just saw that. Someone
I just saw that. Someone found a map of the segment – partly off road and partly underwater.
Faster than sprinters in the TdF.
Gps glitch.
This is the current Strava
This is the current Strava leaderboard for Albert Bridge to Battersea Bridge along the (flat) Chelsea Embankment, from whence they presumably drew this data, with the leader at 86 kmh. If they weren’t so eager to grasp at anything to demonise cyclists they might have noted that her alleged power output to achieve this feat was 92W; by my reckoning, even for a 60kg rider on a 7kg bike, it should require over 3000W!
Id want my money back if Id
Id want my money back if Id paid to read it, the Daily Star used to print better quality storys than that, call that quality journalism ?
labelling anyone who uses Strava as an undercover athlete, ffs, and thats just a tiny part of its utter drivelness.
Front page today..
Front page today..
It should read ‘Land Rover
It should read ‘Land Rover Louts…’
This is a subset of what
This is a subset of what Rendel posted – Tite St to Chelsea Bridge
Not bad for 101W
Bike calculator for 70kg rider gives 24.02 kph for 600m
This law, dangerous cycling,
This law, dangerous cycling, is one that will very rarely be used. The chances of being in a collision with a cycle are small, when compared to the population, and small when compared to being involved in a collision with any other form of motor vehicle. Your chances of dying if you are hit by a cycle are 3.4 times less than if hit by a car. Interesting I predict that the uptake of battery vehicles, and the corresponding increase in weight will lead to an increase in fatalities unless there’s a reduction in the speed limits. Velocity x Mass = Death.
Two points:
Two points:
1: Tesla Model 3 is lighter than a fair number of equivalent ICE cars, battery cars are not that much heavier than ICE cars, modern cars are heavy. It’s the same when people talk about how expensive they are, like for like there isn’t much cost difference it’s just new cars are expensive and always have been. In most peoples head maths they are comparing a new EV with the used ICE car they bought some time ago.
2: The mass of the car is irrelevant in a pedestrian to car impact because the car is so much heavier than the person. Let’s say a 1600kg car hits an 80kg person at 10m/s, the pedestrian will be accelerated to 9.5m/s. If the car was 2000kg they would be accelerated to 9.6m/s. The height of bonnet and it’s compliance is far more important which is why vans and buses are so deadly as you head tends to get hit directly.