Live blog: Keeping kids safe the American way, running coach causes collision on running track (on his bike), Pontiff blags a Giro VIP pass, Dave Brailsford on Strava + more

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Shouldn't ride a bike on an athletics track, 

I assume he is pacing the runners (not that means he shouldn't be keeping an eye out as well but at least he probably has a legitimate reason for cycling where he is - assuming pacing is an accepted training technique - I couldn't run for a bus)

rkemb wrote:

Quote:

the Government wants to know what you think will make our roads safer for cycling

And to follow up the other comments, what, again? How often does the government need to collect information on this issue before it does anything? This is at least the third call of this type I've come across in the last few years.

IIRC they still haven't done the review promised back in 2012...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You can tell government all you want but they won't/don't listen or action anything, ONE fucking over the top bias case involving a person on a bike and a 'poor' woman who was "mowed down" and they go into overdrive to get the knives out to punish, yet ignore the deaths of people on bikes every single week and the 7 serious injuries every day, most of which are at fault motorists.

In fact they go in to victim blaming mode with their cack about left turning LGVs and publish video's to increase the blame culture, add on plastic hat and hi-vis promotion and it's clear they're a bunch of scraggy c####s the lot of them.

Don't hold back, BTBS - tell us how you really feel!   

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You can tell government all you want but they won't/don't listen or action anything, ONE fucking over the top bias case involving a person on a bike and a 'poor' woman who was "mowed down" and they go into overdrive to get the knives out to punish, yet ignore the deaths of people on bikes every single week and the 7 serious injuries every day, most of which are at fault motorists.

In fact they go in to victim blaming mode with their cack about left turning LGVs and publish video's to increase the blame culture, add on plastic hat and hi-vis promotion and it's clear they're a bunch of scraggy c####s the lot of them.

You've missed out the 40,000 people dying each year due to poor air quality in the UK.

hawkinspeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You can tell government all you want but they won't/don't listen or action anything, ONE fucking over the top bias case involving a person on a bike and a 'poor' woman who was "mowed down" and they go into overdrive to get the knives out to punish, yet ignore the deaths of people on bikes every single week and the 7 serious injuries every day, most of which are at fault motorists.

In fact they go in to victim blaming mode with their cack about left turning LGVs and publish video's to increase the blame culture, add on plastic hat and hi-vis promotion and it's clear they're a bunch of scraggy c####s the lot of them.

You've missed out the 40,000 people dying each year due to poor air quality in the UK.

Aye but the report is about cycling safety, as in on the road, I know that knocking on the head motoring use and other aspects in our lives can reduce the deaths/ailments suffered but this is focussing solely on road safety, well allegedly.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Aye but the report is about cycling safety, as in on the road, I know that knocking on the head motoring use and other aspects in our lives can reduce the deaths/ailments suffered but this is focussing solely on road safety, well allegedly.

And that's the problem: the powers that be really (probably) couldn't care less about cycling safety - they want to restrict cycling (I believe) so as to smooth the passage for the introduction of self-driving cars.

brooksby wrote:

And that's the problem: the powers that be really (probably) couldn't care less about cycling safety - they want to restrict cycling (I believe) so as to smooth the passage for the introduction of self-driving cars.

What you say may well be true but I suspect that self-driving cars are MUCH further away than the hype would have you believe. They might - might - become a thing on easy roads like motorways with well marked and predictable lanes but on shared-use urban roads a self-driving vehicle will be a much more difficult proposition. Not only that, the necessary sensors and computing are going to be expensive and that will hinder mass uptake.

Miller wrote:

brooksby wrote:

And that's the problem: the powers that be really (probably) couldn't care less about cycling safety - they want to restrict cycling (I believe) so as to smooth the passage for the introduction of self-driving cars.

What you say may well be true but I suspect that self-driving cars are MUCH further away than the hype would have you believe. They might - might - become a thing on easy roads like motorways with well marked and predictable lanes but on shared-use urban roads a self-driving vehicle will be a much more difficult proposition. Not only that, the necessary sensors and computing are going to be expensive and that will hinder mass uptake.

Well yes... and so it would be much easier to convert urban roads into easy roads by banning bikes and introducing jaywalking laws.

I don't believe this is actually what the powers that be want, yet. I would be surprised if Google etc are admitting failure yet, even in behind-the-scenes lobbying.

But it's a risk to be aware of for the future, certainly. Indeed, if self-driving cars that can safely mix with bicycles continue to be elusive, I can imagine there being a referendum: would you rather have self-driving cars banned and bikes allowed as now, or vice versa? And I fear we would lose that.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You can tell government all you want but they won't/don't listen or action anything, ONE fucking over the top bias case involving a person on a bike and a 'poor' woman who was "mowed down" and they go into overdrive to get the knives out to punish, yet ignore the deaths of people on bikes every single week and the 7 serious injuries every day, most of which are at fault motorists.

In fact they go in to victim blaming mode with their cack about left turning LGVs and publish video's to increase the blame culture, add on plastic hat and hi-vis promotion and it's clear they're a bunch of scraggy c####s the lot of them.

You've missed out the 40,000 people dying each year due to poor air quality in the UK.

Aye but the report is about cycling safety, as in on the road, I know that knocking on the head motoring use and other aspects in our lives can reduce the deaths/ailments suffered but this is focussing solely on road safety, well allegedly.

In my mind, pollution caused by vehicles should be considered as part of road safety. If vehicles on the road are doing something that ends up shortening people's lives, then I'd consider it to be unsafe.

I get your point though - I just think that not enough people are up in arms about the government's failure to address the illegal pollutant levels.

hawkinspeter wrote:

In my mind, pollution caused by vehicles should be considered as part of road safety. If vehicles on the road are doing something that ends up shortening people's lives, then I'd consider it to be unsafe.

I get your point though - I just think that not enough people are up in arms about the government's failure to address the illegal pollutant levels.

At least the new MOT regulations coming in this weekend should make it stricter on diesel vehicles that churn out clouds of soot, now they just have to make sure that the tests are actually being enforced as there still seems to be far too many places people can get an MOT signed off by a slightly dodgy garage, or they just don't bother getting it tested at all.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You've missed out the 40,000 people dying each year due to poor air quality in the UK.

... except that it not actually true. 

I've read it's been described as  a "zombie fact" by a senior respiratory consultant. When such a 'fact' gets on the internet then it can never, ever be killed. It just keeps getting regurgitated by ill-informed folk like Sadik Khan (and yourself).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270

Joeinpoole wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You've missed out the 40,000 people dying each year due to poor air quality in the UK.

... except that it not actually true. 

I've read it's been described as  a "zombie fact" by a senior respiratory consultant. When such a 'fact' gets on the internet then it can never, ever be killed. It just keeps getting regurgitated by ill-informed folk like Sadik Khan (and yourself).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270

Thanks - I just googled for a figure and accepted the figure as it had been quoted on the BBC and Guardian websites amongst others.

So, the question remains, how many early deaths in the UK are caused by poor air quality? Does anyone know?

Joeinpoole wrote:

... except that it not actually true. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270

The article you link indicates that the figure is a statistical estimate, sure, but not that it's untrue.

rkemb wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

... except that it not actually true. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270

The article you link indicates that the figure is a statistical estimate, sure, but not that it's untrue.

Here's a GreenPeace article discussing the figures: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/03/06/air-pollution-cause-40000-de...

TLDR: no-one really agrees on a number.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Here's a GreenPeace article discussing the figures: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/03/06/air-pollution-cause-40000-de...

TLDR: no-one really agrees on a number.

THat says much the same thing: there's a statistical model covering the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution. The issue with the 40,000 number is that it's bad communication of what that statistical model tells us, which is about shortening of life, not that "air pollution isn't that bad".

hawkinspeter wrote:

TLDR: no-one really agrees on a number.

And... that doesn't mean that the number's wrong and can be airily dismissed either. It just needs caveats.

rkemb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

TLDR: no-one really agrees on a number.

And... that doesn't mean that the number's wrong and can be airily dismissed either. It just needs caveats.

Exactly... probably between 5,000 and 60,000.

Could be 20,000ish, could be 40,000ish.

It's in the ballpark, and a big number.

Does Joe's 'zombie fact' respiratory expert have some actual quotes or original research on this, or are they too busy sunning themselves in their Road Haulage Association-sponsored conservatory?

davel wrote:

rkemb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

TLDR: no-one really agrees on a number.

And... that doesn't mean that the number's wrong and can be airily dismissed either. It just needs caveats.

Exactly... probably between 5,000 and 60,000.

Could be 20,000ish, could be 40,000ish.

It's in the ballpark, and a big number.

Does Joe's 'zombie fact' respiratory expert have some actual quotes or original research on this, or are they too busy sunning themselves in their Road Haulage Association-sponsored conservatory?

Here's one article reporting the Physician's observations;

"Sadiq Khan's figure on pollution deaths is a "zombie statistic and it's simply not true," according to a respiratory physician.

Figures have been released claiming pollution causes almost 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK. Air pollution is also said to cause a total 340,000 years of lost life in the UK.

Figures originated from a Royal College of Physicians report and Mr Khan has cited the figures in announcing measures to cut pollution in London.

But Tony Frew, respiratory physician at the University of Brighton, told Julia Hartley-Brewer this is merely an example of a "zombie statistic", meaning "however much you try to kill it it comes back and it's simply not true."

He explained that the 340,000 life years figure doesn't equate to real life, and in reality each person loses only about three days from their lifespan as a result of pollution.

Frew also said that the 40,000 deaths a year figure is "a guess" using information about two pollutants which overlap.

He added that pollution levels are "illegal because we made it illegal, not because it's dangerous." 

http://talkradio.co.uk/news/sadiq-khans-40000-pollution-deaths-year-zomb...