road.cc live blog: How to watch the Cyclo-cross Worlds, 12 riders test positive at one race, Should drivers with points on their licence be required to have black box car insurance? + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond
Fri, Feb 02, 2018 09:00
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.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
25 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Paul J 31 minutes ago
If we don't fight it now, we'll all end up forced to wear baggy shorts!
kinderje 2 hours ago
@Rendel Harris Agree, I am baffled that the 84 year old who is now banned from driving for year can then start driving again without a retest. We should be re-tested regularly.
Rendel Harris 3 hours ago
@mitsky Just checking the figures and apparently the 2026 average cost is £58,000 per year per prisoner; worth noting that is only the direct cost, you then have to factor in ten years of lost tax income from the prisoner, ten years that the prisoner is making no contribution to society as a worker or as a consumer, plus the fact that if they were the primary breadwinner very likely the costs will include benefits for their family as well. None of which should be a reason for keeping violent recidivists out of prison of course, nor drug/drink drivers who kill, but it is a factor worth considering for lower-level offences.
Rendel Harris 3 hours ago
@Surreyrider I ride in Surrey a fair bit and absolutely many do look like that but the point is they all *think* they're driving perfectly reasonably (as one discovers when remonstrating with someone who's skimmed one by 30cm, "I gave you masses of room") so deterrent penalties have little effect. That's why we need to strike at the root cause and actually train drivers properly and test them stringently (and more than once over the course of a potential 70+ years of driving, it's absolutely absurd that competence and knowledge in what for most people is the activity in their life that will run the biggest risk of killing people you never have to have your qualifications renewed).
Rendel Harris 3 hours ago
@mitsky Imprisonment currently costs over £50k p.a. per prisoner and obviously that will rise over the course of a ten-year stretch with inflation. Regarding culpability and mitigating sentences etc, of course I'm not against condign punishment for drivers who kill (and cyclists on the tiny, tiny handful of occasions when this happens), including prison as appropriate; I was objecting to the ridiculous and oft-repeated demand of MM that drivers who kill cyclists must get ten years, "no excuses, no exceptions".
Blackthorne83 7 hours ago
Hey, but their wool blend cycling adjacent t-shirts are/were fantastic.
RoadYeti 8 hours ago
@Surreyrider Still the boss. Ride one, you'll see why
chrisonabike 11 hours ago
@Smoggysteve "Most would happily ride on the roads and be treated with respect by drivers". But people aren't - and as far as I can see they won't be. Not until there is a lot less driving and it's slower around cyclists, and far more people driving have "skin in the game" eg. they sometimes cycle and their friends and family do also. That's what leads to the model - which is perhaps most advanced in NL - where cycling, walking and driving are all seen as separate normal transport modes. Their needs, vulnerabilities and any dangers to others are considered. And *that* leads to "mix / share when possible, separate when necessary". But "possible" is "where your 10-year old would be safe to cycle unsupervised" - so very few motor vehicles, going slow! And AFAICS everybody - even "existing cyclists" - is happy with the result. (I dunno about a few pro cyclists - but don't they tend to have training camps in different counties anyway?)
chrisonabike 11 hours ago
@quiff as an Edinburgh resident I can confidently say he's speaking without moving his lips in one sense: - while as I noted in a separate comment there *is* now some real separated cycle infra, all the examples i can think of have *at least as much space* for pedestrians. The rest of the "cycle infra" is essentially similar to the situation in the rest of the UK: eg. bus lanes*, cycle lanes and shared use paths (eg. "build" infra by sticking up a sign). Edinburgh is one of the places with a moderately extensive network of former railways which have been converted to "shared use" paths (completely motor traffic few). However though shared they are not narrow by UK standards. And this is all effectively a "free extra" for all non- motorised users, not like the "sign a cycle path" where pedestrians do lose space. I think this all comes from the "popular understanding" of cycling in which ultimately cyclists are the "other". They don't fit "motor vehicle" or "pedestrian" (including wheelchairs on the very rare occasions people think about that). Thus "cyclists are cheating" in multiple ways! They shouldn't get their own space as "there aren't enough" of them. And "they can just use the road / path". But being able to *choose* "on the road" or "on the footway" (shared use path) is clearly unfair - nobody else gets to do that! BUT of course even if they did pick just one of road OR pedestrian space it's still not fair anyway because they're "too slow" for the road (don't pay "road tax" etc...) and "far too fast" for pedestrians... * Though some existing cyclists may appreciate them when there are few buses, buses and bikes are a very poor mix for several reasons.
mikecassie 12 hours ago
Whilst a shame for any employees, their bib shorts had the worst chamois pad I’d ever encountered, utter waste of my money. Even though they were Strava challenge discount purchases, still a waste of money.
25 thoughts on “road.cc live blog: How to watch the Cyclo-cross Worlds, 12 riders test positive at one race, Should drivers with points on their licence be required to have black box car insurance? + more”
I doubt there would be enough
I doubt there would be enough black boxes for all drivers with points, let alone engineers to fit them. Making them mandatory for any driving offence not covered by a fixed penalty notice would appear entirely reasonable though.
Grahamd wrote:
Nothing to fit, no engineers needed. One of the UK’s largest insurers, Aviva, do this through a phone app.
Quote:
Yes.
I think a better idea to the
I think a better idea to the insurance thing would be something that goes on your numberplate outlining the type of offence, eg as symbol to show you’ve been caught speeding, one for texting while driving, one for drink driving. the shame would probably be enough to stop a number of people, especially those with personalised plates, wouldnt want that ruined with something that shows you’ve been caught drinking and speeding, it’d help other motorists and the police identify who to look out for too.
RobD wrote:
You would get some people who’d make that a collectable thing, and want to get the whole set
RobD wrote:
There speaks the voice of someone who has a car for each member of the household.
For the rest of us who have several people using the one vehicle then that would not work
Given that the current system
Given that the current system clearly isn’t working, we need to look at alternatives, and this one seems quite promising. Some drivers might try using the big brother argument and privacy issues, and there is some traction in those, but I think my life and the lives of my loved ones is more important.
Until we have 100% driverless cars, human error by drivers will continue to kill thousands a year, and maim tens of thousands more. If it was any other field of human activity, it would be banned until the problems had been solved, but because we are a car-centric society, our politians are too weak to do this.
I’d suggest that this actually doesn’t go far enough, and all new cars should be fitted with the black box.
burtthebike wrote:
Be careful what you wish for, there’s plenty of reasonably founded speculation that the autonomous vehicle lobby will seek for segregated lanes, stealing valuable and ever-dwindling street space from human powered transport. And unlike us after some decent cycle lanes worth a damn, they’ve got existing funds and the elusive promise of £b for the economy to sway councils’ decisions and get protective legislation in place.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
“… there’s plenty of reasonably founded speculation that the autonomous vehicle lobby will seek for segregated lanes…”
No there isn’t. Driverless vehicles will need less space because they will be following the lane, not weaving around like humans do, so they’ll need less space.
But please feel free to continue your scaremongering.
Telematics is interesting in
Telematics is interesting in how they incentivise good driver behaviour. A mate’s son has just passed his test, he gets extra mileage added to his allowance on a monthly basis if he scores well on speeding. Sounds great but then there’s the clause where they’ll cancel his insurance if he drives 30mph over the speed limit. Not sure if that’s a sliding scale at lower speeds but what sort of message does that send?
kil0ran wrote:
It sends the message not to speed.
rct wrote:
It sends the message not to speed.— kil0ran
It sends the message that driving 29mph over the speed limit is OK because all it means is he’ll lose mileage bonuses that he doesn’t currently need. That’s how my mate’s kid has interpreted it. Now if there was a market where he could sell earned miles that might work…
The only thing these black
The only thing these black boxes do is to control the top speed of drivers in known speed limit areas. If the speed limt has been changed temporarily (roadworks for example) it is not registered.
Also, it does not stop the ever increasing “I’ll ignore that red light because I won’t be caught” attitude!
So I don’t see how it will improve safety other than control the top speed of those who do speed and get caught. All other aspects of bad driving (aggression, middle lane hogging, jumping red lights, driving too close, parking on pavements etc etc) will simply continue to happen and get worse.
The solution is more cameras and / or more police on the roads
Marky Legs wrote:
Don’t they also use an accelerometer to measure heavy acceleration, braking, and cornering?
Perhaps they don’t solve every problem but a partial solution to any problem is usually better than no solution.
portec wrote:
I thought black boxes in cars just measured G forces. The phone apps use GPS tracking as well.
What if one circumvents this
What if one circumvents this blackbox by using a hire car? They can easily say they forgot to take the box with them when switching vehicles.
Hire companies should also up their standards and run checks on drivers
RoubaixCube wrote:
Many do, but also every check involves a charge from the DVLA and the appointed technology providors the DVLA saw fit to work with. If every customer was checked in full, that would require to pass the cost onto the customer, increasing your car rental costs, and right now the industry is being squeezed by price, so not a straight forward thing.
Technology is also going into cars that would enable a company to montior how the car is being driven, where and at what speed. it isn’t being used for those purposes but the potential is there, but you have GDPR, data protection and human rights regulations screaming out at you. It’s a much bigger topic. We can do all of this and more…..and what? End up like China where freedom & rights are a joke.
Be carefull what you wish for
Be carefull what you wish for. Only a hop skip and a jump to boxes being extended to bikes.
I am all for punishment for bad behaviour but I am also a beleaver in right to privacy.
jimt wrote:
When they fit effective black boxes to every car as a legal requirement I’ll be delighted to fit one on the road bike. By all means have privacy, but if you insist on driving a tonne or so of polluting monstrosity maybe you should have to make that sacrifice?
jimt wrote:
What’s a ‘beleaver’? Is it the opposite of a ‘remainer’ ?
Who are you going to get to
Who are you going to get to pay for the black boxes? Currently they are offered for free by insurance companies because insurance companies believe they will reduce claims or at least provide data that allows the insurer to better price insurance (i.e., insurers are willing to pay for them because they benefit the insurer). Can’t see insurers forking out for blanket installation for good of cyclists/other vulnerable road users. Good luck trying to convince the govt to add them to all vehicles (queue outrage from motorists about added cost of motoring in times of austerity). In August last year the FT reported that “[telematics boxes]can cost as little as £50 to buy now, and less than that to install” so maybe the solution will ultimately be that they get so cheap it stops being an issue. The other problem about blanket installation (before you get to privacy concerns) is that it will make some people economically uninsurable. There’s an argument these people shouldn’t be driving anyway. But tey probably will and they probably will continue to do so, just on an uninsured basis, which may not be a great outcome as they are more likely to have collisions.
surly_by_name wrote:
Many, if not most late model cars (post 2012?) have this installed already. Car makers install it as part of the airbag and crash prevention systems, it stores data for the last 2 minutes. The data from these has been used in a number of court cases here down under to establish the behaviour of the driver immediately prior to the accident. The technology is already there.
Arguably making on board
Arguably making on board camera’s a legal requirement. If you know you are on film it will have an impact on a lot of bad driving. it won’t stop the narsacistic idiots and illegal drivers who just don’t care but it could provide a cultural change
the down side is you need resource to review, laws to support, police to action and something to protect all those genuine mistakes and edge cases……and it is very 1984……so it won’t happen…maybe.
Simmo72 wrote:
Personally, I think this is a great idea, and make a non functioning camera an mot fail. In most cases I suspect evidence would be captured on 3rd party vehicles, rather than the offending vehicle, but that’s ok. I have always thought plod had a bias towards catching speeders as opposed to other traffic offences because it is easy, and conclusive, to read a number from a display, compared for example to arguing that somebody jumped the lights. Cameras would give plod the evidence they need. But as you say, there are too many PC people in the UK who would argue infringement of civil liberties. Presumably meaning spouses could check up on where cheating partners had been while supposedly working late!
1) This reinforces the common
1) This reinforces the common misconception that it is always safe to drive at the speed limit, rather than educating drivers to judge what is safe.
2) Speeding is only one form of dangerous driving, and a black box does nothing to stop tailgating, poor discipline at junctions, blind overtaking, and so on.