Live blog: heart rate poll results, Your Bike History, Froome nominated for Laureus Award and more
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.
2 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@chrisonabike exactly, words are cheap. They can safely bang the drum knowing that little will or can be done. OK, some things could be done, but the chance of nobody cocking something up . . ? Realist or pessimist, take your pick; but still optimistic enough to hope that things will work out :-)
@ChrisA isn't this story more along the lines of "tobacco company is demanding government crackdown on nasty rolling papers and dangerous pipes?" Silly of me! How could there be any conflict between and "improving things for their ... definitely not employees ... and the public at large" and these companies' entire business model...?
"Deliveroo has announced a crackdown on modified and ‘dangerous’ e-bikes . . . . . company is calling on the Government to prohibit the sale of unsafe e-bike conversion kits." Really? Do they not know how difficult it is to legislate for such things, the politicians inability to understand details, the competence of the DoJ in drafting such legislation and what seems to be a widespread disregard of those rules; not to mention the total lack of enforcement. Just saying.
@Nigel Garage The Mercedes driver drove through the light three seconds after it turned amber. Official government text: "AMBER means STOP. You may go on only if the amber appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident." Three seconds is more than enough time to stop safely at the speed the Mercedes was going so the driver was breaking the law and therefore committing a prosecutable offence. Deliberately putting others at risk and breaking the law is not "acceptable" and if you saw a cyclist running a red in those circumstances you would rightly condemn it. Is there anything you can't be completely wrong about?
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.
2 thoughts on “Live blog: heart rate poll results, Your Bike History, Froome nominated for Laureus Award and more”
Link to the cycle ban letter:
Link to the cycle ban letter:
http://www.ellisguilfordschool.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Cycle-ban-letter-12.01.18-2.pdf
CygnusX1 wrote:
Wow, this probably shouldn’t annoy me as much as it does… but man this is annoying.
Out of interest, what responsibility do the school have with regards to student welfare outside of the gates? i.e. are they liable if one of the kids off themselves, or if the kids off a pedestrian?
if the answer is yes, then that makes this situation more of a grey area, but if not, then this is just wank.
Essentially this is pandering to moaning from pedestrians / motorists complainign about school kids.
Lets be frank, kids are kids, and I am sure there are plenty of complaints of poor conduct regarding kids walking to school, the parents driving their kids to school, the kids using public transport… the difference is that the schools can ban cycling. They can’t ban kids being driven to school (parents would go nuts), walking or taking public transport, so they do this.
It is utter crap. Why won’t schools take a stand, tell these moaners that childrens conduct outside the school gate is not their responsibility. Why don’t they encourage best practice by offering cycle proficiency training (is it bikeability now?), why don’t they protect their interests by asking that children do not display uniform outside of the school gates?
Also, I thought schools couldn’t ban cycling? They could make it difficult, but out right ban it? Anyone know for sure?