The live blog is sometimes slow to load, so please be patient. Failing that, refreshing the page can often encourage it to show its face.
Live blog: Highlights of Tour de France team time trial + reaction, Wiggins defends Froome in Eurosport podcast, cyclist sets zebra crossing example + more
All the news from the site and beyond as we start a new week
Mon, Jul 09, 2018 14:25
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
14 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
chrisonabike 11 minutes ago
@Rendel Harris indeed, but giving this a sympathetic reading it *is* a bit harder to see cyclists especially in low light conditions. I think this usually means "I was a bit startled when I noticed cyclists where not expecting them / so late that if I had needed to I wouldn't have had time for evasive action". That might be when unlit non-reflective cyclists appear from a side road - or where people are salmoning against traffic flow / on and off the footway. We all have tons of experience looking for motor vehicles and are familiar with where they'll be and how they will move. Cyclists are significantly smaller, have more complicated shapes and may not be exactly "where we expect the motor vehicles". They may be moving at unexpected velocities. Plus even if cars don't have their lights on they tend to reflect. I put this one in the "follow the opposite philosophy to 'shared space' for better safety" category. That is: safety between road users is enhanced when a) people can clearly see other road users b) and have as much time as possible to deal with them c) and know exactly where to expect them / what to expect from those other road users. Most humans perform very poorly when faced with the unfamiliar and worse when startled...
chrisonabike 28 minutes ago
@ajuk.uk@gmail.com "There does seem to be evidence that 20 mph limits work on roads that already lend themselves to such low speeds, and I do think the lack of a 25 mph limit option is an issue for some roads." Again - not disagreeing that numbers alone are not the best way. But I ask: were people already doing 20mph or near that when those roads that "lend themselves" to that speed had a 30mph sign? I would expect in most cases the answer was "no, people saw thirty and that primed them for the 'expected' speed". Or perhaps "they hadn't noticed the signs at all but it seemed like e.g. a residential area and they recalled from all those years back 30mph probably made sense"? Since we've previously gone through the evidence * that merely changing a number on a sign *does* in fact change behaviour and lower average speeds, and AFAICS nobody has proposed a "a set amount" they hope it will constrain people to ... ... is it fair you're disputing the evidence because it doesn't fit with how you feel it *should* work / your local experience? Or do you believe that eventually everyone will revert back to the old speed or higher because 'freedom' or because nobody's actually getting nicked for ignoring the limit? (And if the latter - what's the point of proposing that the speed limits should help with policing, if there aren't the police?) While I can believe that the truly reckless and *some* less circumspect wrong'uns are more likely also to wildly speed, I think this assertion needs more scrutiny **. As for "forcing the police to target them" I think it's been amply illustrated on this site that many of the police don't feel forced into doing much if any enforcement on the roads (see wtjs etc.). Even where they are more active the level of enforcement isn't such to make many drivers worry about "what happens if I break the law *and* get caught?" I don't feel we need 25 or 32 or other intermediate speed limits. In practice where there's enforcement at all there *may* be the discretionary 10% + a few mph in play - so you might even be fine and not fined doing 35mph in a 30mph limit. But you're far more likely simply not to experience any enforcement. And even if you are detected it's still first chance, then maybe any number of 2nd, 3rd etc. with a reasonable lawyer / sympathetic magistrate. Although if you feel the most important thing is to identify indifferent drivers (and assuming we've got enough police / cameras / "spy in the car" black boxes from somewhere) then having lots of non-power-of-ten speed limit signs might be a way to spot who's paying attention or not. Or ... if we changed to km/h (imagine!) you get a finer-grained 10 / 20 / 30 etc. * The last time this topic came up, or the time before! ** I don't know if anyone has studied this, but I'm not sure of the relative amounts of harm caused by a) a small minority of reckless joyriders and "sod getting a licence" types (who *are* very likely to cause serious harm) and b) vastly more "average reasonable drivers" - who are human and thus cut corners and sometimes make unfathomable errors - who cause damage (up to killing people and destroying buildings) at a small but definitely non-zero rate overall. It wouldn't surprise me if the overall determinant of harm turned out to be simply proportional to the number of drivers times time driven for times some measure of speed. (Since speed reduces both time to do something about a situation and increases the harm, absent a lot of engineering to mitigate it - e.g. evidence shows motorways are statistically safe environments).
belugabob 32 minutes ago
Now the wands are gone, I look forward to the cycling lanes being cleaned regularly - and not parked in (thereby leaving plenty of room for the buses and emergency vehicles) (all to delivered before Coventry win the FA cup again)
chrisonabike 1 hour ago
@perce everyone should wear lights, full stop. And punctuate properly - that really gets up my colon! Anyway, must dash...
perce 1 hour ago
@Ojisan My old English teacher told me i had to work on my punctuation, so I started going to school half an hour earlier.
60somethingcyclist 2 hours ago
Arrogant obnoxious Tory.
Rendel Harris 2 hours ago
How do you see them then? Do you regularly drive into black cars?
eburtthebike 3 hours ago
@Blackthorne83 He'd love to, but some bastard's taken out the cycle lanes.
kil0ran 4 hours ago
I was a few bikes away from the fatal collision during Ride London a few years ago, I barely avoided the victim's dog which was running loose. Definitely one of those slo-mo adrenaline fuelled moments and I was only doing about 40kph. At lead out speeds it really doesn't bear thinking about.
14 thoughts on “Live blog: Highlights of Tour de France team time trial + reaction, Wiggins defends Froome in Eurosport podcast, cyclist sets zebra crossing example + more”
A few years ago I stopped
A few years ago I stopped next to another cyclist at a zebra when a parent and 2 kids wanted to cross.
Driver just piled through, when I caught up with him to tell him he wasn’t far off mowing a 5 year old over, all he could say was that I shouldn’t have stopped next to the other cyclist.
hirsute wrote:
So essentially “I was being a dick because of cyclists!”
I wonder if you managed to keep a straight face!
KendalRed wrote:
I didn’t get very far ,as I was still quite angry at what could have happened and I that I would have felt partly responsible if the kid had started to cross and been hit.
I usually expect at least a
I usually expect at least a car maybe 2 to pile on through when I stop for zebra crossings,but that’s ridiculous amount of not paying attention by the motorists there
Awavey wrote:
Difficult to know what’s going on in people’s heads or what they’re taking in from their surroundings but some wheeled users seem to expect pedestrians to step out before they’ll consider stopping. Probably something you’d be reluctant to do with a pram/pushchair…
Maybe it’s part of the thinking – subconscious perhaps – that other road users’ safety isn’t your responsibility too (especially if it might delay your all-important journey by a few seconds).
A lot of London cyclists are bad for this mindset too – fortunately they’re less lethal.
Duncann wrote:
I can confirm that many more London drivers are worse for this mindset.
Some zebra crossings seem
Some zebra crossings seem worse than others- there is one by our office which frequently gets ignored. I think its because it comes just after a mini roundabout.
There are a few red lights on
There are a few traffic lights on my commute where I do not wish to be anywhere near them as they change to red, understanding that cars will barrel through both myself and the stopping power of the red light. If I do have to stop (always for a red) it will be as close to the kerb as possible.
There is one where I will wait, at some distance, until the light has changed and watch 2-3 cars (sometimes mind) accelerate through the red and only then do I join the queue.
A few weeks back, I saw a driver, 3 cars back in the queue, upon the first car stopping for the red, pull out and pass the 2 cars that had stopped and then breeze through the red at speed. Oh for a helmet cam or a big artic coming the other way. Or both…
ktache wrote:
I do the opposite, I approach lights already central in the lane further right than primary, if it’s one of those two into one jobs I’ll ride pretty much as far right so a motor can’t undertake me, I don’t want a close overtake through a set of lights nor someone trying to barge in from the right as we saw a month or so back.
On approach to zebras and can see peds nearby I’ll be bang in the middle of the lane to control things, shoulder check and slow to antipate and then stop. Never had issues doing this in the 20 years I’ve been taking this approach and I even do it on a main through road when I can see peds waiting to cross when there’s no crossing. Being assertive and good road position makes a huge amount of difference and from the stats being mown down from behind is extremely rare, pschologically this is very very difficult for a driver to do it even if they are a total cockwomble, yes you can’t account for the Gail Purcell type driver but again that’s incredibly rare, I’d feel less safe doing what you’re doing, it makes you more vulnerable IMHO.
Not defending the drivers who
Not defending the drivers who didnt stop to let the woman and baby cross but legally you dont need to stop at a zebra crossing unless a person has stepped on to it
Its just good manners to stop and allow someone to cross rather than wait till they have stepped on to the crossing
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossings.html
kev-s wrote:
What a stupid rule.
kev-s wrote:
True, and it is also illegal to overtake a vehicle in the zig-zag line area.
#bloodycyclists
#bloodycyclists #bloodyredlightjumpingcyclists
The regulations for this
The regulations for this changed in 1997. Road users are required to afford priority to those who are actually on the crossing, not those waiting to cross. Stopping for the pedestrian in these circumstances would be a driving test fail.
Overtaking within zig-zags only applies to an overtake on a motor vehicle, not a cyclist. It’s not an opinion it’s the 1997 ped. crossing regs.