Live blog: Deaths caused by drink-drivers on the rise, introducing the Podbike, Robocap, 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.
7 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
The problem with roadcc's coverage of Nick Freeman is that it's focusing too much on his controversial hot takes, rather than the well-known work he's done road safety campaigning. For balance, Nick has been very vocal recently on the dangers posed by electric cars for cyclists and pedestrians, writing (on X): "Pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users often rely on hearing an approaching vehicle. That’s why I believe EVs should emit synthesised warning sounds at all speeds, not just low speeds. Road safety must always come first." I think we can all unite around that sentiment rather than the more divisive number plates argument which I disagree with. Nick thinks that "accountability" comes with identifiability. I agree to some extent, but you have to balance the risks posed by a form of transport with the loss of freedom and increase in state power resulting in having mandatory identity numbers. Cycling doesn't even come close.
@HarrogateSpa : Exactly. Clickbait articles such as this to keep the advertisers happy.
@hawkinspeter Hmm... while there is sensible stuff in there it's even better where the design and human nature carries more of the weight than rules or guidance. Speed limits being one; if it was just on the rules that would be a lesser way of ensuring safety than the road / space design. (Of course just changing a number on a sign *does* work to some extent, presumably in part via the "anchoring" effect and "when in Rome"). I'm thinking more of what we have in eg. UK motorway-design-level thought and applying that *. One example would be the Dutch taking the observation that a certain fraction of people will make dangerous overtake no matter the rules, paint or even considerations of their own safety and a muffed overtake can have very severe consequences ... and then simply banning overtaking on some classes of roads (and even bringing in physical barriers some places). Hey presto - a whole class of problems they don't have! (It's not perfect of course, lots of legacy roads there). * Only some classes of vehicles allowed, everyone going the same direction with no crossing traffic or stopping / parking, rumble strips at edges, energy absorbing crash barriers, curved layout to stop people falling asleep...
I liked his graphs.
And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.
@chrisonabike - the Highway Code is a good example of fool-tolerant rules. The emphasis is on how to minimise causing danger to others, but also avoiding collisions even if the other road users are being arseholes (e.g. not running over cyclists even if they're blatantly cycling on the wrong side of the road)
Bless you, I didn't realise you place your self-worth on the number of likes you receive on an internet forum. I've never yearned for the approval of others, I'm just satisfied in the knowledge that I've constructed a coherent and noteworthy post. The best one I've done so far was the one I gave with your pipe, ale and suggestion to move to my leafy cul de sac. I have to admit I cheekily read it back to myself a few times and chuckled *every single time*!
Yeah, I think you're right, it did get a bit more "oh yeah? Well what about this?!" latterly. There's a lot more polarising going on. I blame myself. And the unicyclists.
"They want us all locked in our homes...!" "Not all, only some..."
@hawkinspeter fool-tolerant design? Fool-foiling designs sound better but they tend to have unfortunate side-effects - at least when combined with human nature *. "Sustainable Safety" - design expecting mistakes and some rule-breaking eg. corner-cutting - but be *forgiving*. That means while *feedback* is provided (see adverse camber, slightly uneven driving surface etc) favour "everyone gets to their destination safely" over "the rules must be respected even at risk of collateral damage!" The penalty for failure shouldn't be serious injury or death. * Few want to be thought a fool and some may prove it if they believe that assumption was made.
7 thoughts on “Live blog: Deaths caused by drink-drivers on the rise, introducing the Podbike, Robocap, and more”
The very best that can be
The very best that can be said about helmet promotion is that it distracts from measures that really work to make cycling safer. As long as most people think that all you have to do is wear a helmet, nothing else will ever get done.
If helmets did work, perhaps they might have a point, but since all the long term, large scale, reliable data shows that they don’t, there is no point to promoting them. Let’s talk about the stuff that works, the stuff that the government won’t actually implement because they spend all the transport money on ego schemes like HS2 and new roads.
I’ve read the whole article
I’ve read the whole article from Applied Mobilities, and while it’s about the US experience there’s sadly much that resonates with policy here (starting with LAs who won’t let kids as much as climb on a bike in their Bikeability lessons without a crash helmet on, the teaching delivered by instructors who are often required to wear a crash helmet as a “good example”).
As well as persuading people that cycling is inevitably dangerous, the more time and energy we spend telling people that they should wear special safety gear to ride a bike, the more we tell anyone averse to wearing that stuff that they shouldn’t be riding a bike.
That Podbike could quite
That Podbike could quite easily become my new winter bike!
KendalRed wrote:
€4500 plus postage and very likely plus import duty+VAT, gonna be nearer £5k and that’s only for the base model. You do get 8% off retail if you pay €2700 up front however. Given the massive subsidies given to potential EV owners why can’t pedalecs like this get a big wedge off too as an incentive?
I’ve been looking for something that is pretty much gadget free, no fancy opening system or like the pod more mechanicals so you can stack it upright (which would blow over in a decent wind if parked up) I don’t want an internal computer just maybe a connection to a phone/device that can show you the charged state.
I just see these pods as being too over complicated, want wheels that can take tyres that you can buy from most bike shops and some space for a reasonable amount of luggage. It should also have a better range, 38 miles is really stingy/not that great given how aero the pod is meant to be.
The Schaffler is more like it but I’d want more low slung – it’s just too upright, it’s too heavy with 4 shock absorbers/4 disc brakes and there’s no space for luggage though I like how tight you can turn it.
As for the Iris E-trike, it’s doubtful there ever will be an end product, there are lots of negative murmerings about how he’s shafted people and other ugly stuff. I’d avoid it like a dose of the clap.
Somewhere, Clive Sinclair
Somewhere, Clive Sinclair spends every day ruing the fact that he was just thirty years ahead of his time. Still a genius.
Suprised that school kid hasn
Suprised that school kid hasn’t had his bike impounded by the school’s Principal (they never seem to be head-teachers at academies) for not wearing hi-vis & helmet and no school issued licence plates!
Good luck Kien.
That’s some bling levers,
That’s some bling levers, brakes and seat post clamp he has there
Good luck son, hats off to you for Jogle!
PP