Please note that our live blog can sometimes be slow to load. If you’re having problems, please refresh your browser or, if you are on a mobile device, switch to the classic version of the site.
Live blog: Chris Boardman says “Too many in Westminster do not consider cycling important” as fallout continues from Conservative Party’s “dangerous cycling” tweet + more
All the news from the site and beyond as we start a new week
Mon, Aug 13, 2018 14:14
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.
25 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
60somethingcyclist 30 minutes ago
Arrogant obnoxious Tory.
Rendel Harris 38 minutes ago
How do you see them then? Do you regularly drive into black cars?
eburtthebike 56 minutes ago
@Blackthorne83 He'd love to, but some bastard's taken out the cycle lanes.
kil0ran 2 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.
open_roads 2 hours ago
@Xenophon2 "That’s a lot of batteries to keep track of, to the point that I have a dedicated charger with 3 m USB-C cable in my office, another one at home. Can’t imagine having to deal with another battery such as on the Flight Attendant." Top tip: In reality most of the SRAM stuff lasts a month or two even with pretty heavy usage. I just charge all the batteries on the last Sunday of every month and have yet to be caught out. The SRAM batteries are so cheap / small / light it's also worth keeping a spare in a saddle bag or similar.
ajuk.uk@gmail.com 3 hours ago
@chrisonabike 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. Speed limits should especially not be set very low in the hope that many or most drivers will only exceed them by a set amount because, not only is it not true that many people drive like that, the opposite can happen. Instead of targeting the drivers most likely to cause harm, you're putting the prohibition onto the behaviour of more sensible drivers and forcing the police to target them. The DfT guidance used to have a paragraph calling out this presumption. The extent to which road design and conditions at the time dictate traffic speeds is too stark to ignore. I've seen urban roads with signed 40 mph limits have lower average speeds than some roads with posted 20 mph limits. And yes, that road in Gloucester has signs openly inviting drivers to go faster, and almost none of them do: the non-compliance was about 2%. Compare that to over 99% non-compliance on some roads in Wales. What I'm mainly talking about is the increasing imposition of 20 mph limits on much higher-standard main roads. That's where you see extreme levels of non-compliance. In some cases, the average speed has even been known to go up after the limit has gone down. Showing such contempt just brings speed limits into disrepute and my contention is that drivers should take speed limits seriously.
ajuk.uk@gmail.com 3 hours ago
@chrisonabike 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. Speed limits should especially not be set very low in the hope that many or most drivers will only exceed them by a set amount because, not only is it not true that many people drive like that, the opposite can happen. Instead of targeting the drivers most likely to cause harm, you're putting the prohibition onto the behaviour of more sensible drivers and forcing the police to target them. The DfT guidance used to have a paragraph calling out this presumption. The extent to which road design and conditions at the time dictate traffic speeds is too stark to ignore. I've seen urban roads with signed 40 mph limits have lower average speeds than some roads with posted 20 mph limits. And yes, that road in Gloucester has signs openly inviting drivers to go faster, and almost none of them do: the non-compliance was about 2%. Compare that to over 99% non-compliance on some roads in Wales. So no, when speed limits match the road, compliance is much higher, but speeds are not. What I'm mainly talking about is the increasing imposition of 20 mph limits on much higher-standard main roads. That's where you see extreme levels of non-compliance. In some cases, the average speed has even been known to go up after the limit has gone down. Showing such contempt just brings speed limits into disrepute and my contention is that drivers should take speed limits seriously.
Rendel Harris 3 hours ago
@jaymack Yes...to an extent, and I'm happy at the moment with my twelve-year-old Dura Ace mechanical, but I must admit when I had Ultegra Di2 I did notice not so much the ease of shifting but the perfect trimming of the gears after every shift so that the chainline was always absolutely perfect and that did enhance the simple pleasure of being outside, for me anyway. At least until that day I forgot to charge the battery which died at the turnaround on an eighty-mile ride and had to ride a very lumpy forty miles home stuck in 50x14...
Rendel Harris 4 hours ago
@Daclu Trelub Well no, given that I object to the use of derogatory slurs against people with mental health issues I think I'll "bother" the person who's using derogatory slurs against people with mental health issues. Have a little think, if capable: if your mother or someone else close to you had dementia or mental health issues, would you be happy for people to be pointing at them mockingly saying, "Looks like she's a few chips short of a fish supper"? Stop it.
25 thoughts on “Live blog: Chris Boardman says “Too many in Westminster do not consider cycling important” as fallout continues from Conservative Party’s “dangerous cycling” tweet + more”
Who do they *think* are the
Who do they *think* are the most vulnerable road users?
(Perhaps its those delicate little HGVs – I mean, a crushed bike frame could leave a nasty scratch in the paintwork if it got caught under a wheel arch…).
I just hope they
I just hope they (Conservatives) put as much energy into introducing laws to protect people living in tower blocks run by unscrupulous landlords. But yeah, forget Grenfell and lets target cyclists.
Here’s a little ‘Ready
Here’s a little ‘Ready Reckoner’ to provide some comparisons of the kinetic energy of bikes & cars at a range of speeds.
The highlighted cells demonstrate that a cyclist needs to be traveling at 80mph to match a car trundling along at 20.
Close pass someone at 80 on a cycle path and they’d probably be outraged, perform the same pass in a car at 20 in a car park & they’d think it ‘normal’ – Odd!
p.s – I’m more than happy to be corrected on my ‘workings out’
pps – Have you heard of the constipated mathmagician? – She worked it out with a pencil….
HowardR wrote:
80/20 ok, though the ridder has gained an extra 10 kg (perhaps from a refuel!)
hirsute wrote:
Thats, ahem! based on my own chips & beer intake & judging by the 10 + 80 = 100 & “ridder” – too much of the beer…. (not two selv – choke details)
HowardR wrote:
I actually think 1600kg is pretty low considering the number of ‘crossovers’ (god I hate that term) and suv type vehicles around now, add in the number with 4 wheel drive and it could well be another 200-400kg more, and that’s just for the cars, before you even get to vans and HGVs etc.
The other point people seem to foget about when they complain about the speed of cyclists (no wonder the uk has had recent success in the sport as apparently we’re all riding around at over 30mph if a lot of the complaints are to be believed) is braking, a bike will decellerate quite quickly, and with it’s already reduced mass even slight reductions in speed will remove a considerable amount of kinetic energy. A car with great brakes and an alert driver may have a greater rate of retardation and will possibly out brake a cyclist, but the chances of them bringing the vehicle down to a speed where the kinetic energy is going to be less lethal is pretty remote.
But by all means, get those dangerous nonagenarians off the road, what menaces they must have been for the last 80 years…
So, in and around the village
So, in and around the village near Bristol in which I live(d) – just moved. Over the past two years, 3 pedestrians and a cyclist died on the roads.
2 of the pedestrians were killed by cars; one car didn’t stop at a junction and the other car went straight across a zebra crossing. The other pedestrian died after a lorry drove through a red light at a pedestrian crossing.
The cyclist was killed by a car that hit them from behind.
I regularly cycle(d) from where I live(d) to Bristol, cycling straight through the city centre. Many of the cyclists were appallingly behaved, as were many of the motorists and, in fact, pedestrians. In the few years I commute in and around Bristol, I saw a few pedestrians hit by vehicles, one was fatal. I also saw 2 cyclists hit by vehicles (one was entirely the cyclist’s fault for riding like a total idiot, literally road into a bus).
I also saw several collisions between pedestrians and bicycles, mostly caused by both parties being totally unaware of each other. I also hit 2 pedestrians, one was on their phone and stepped into traffic without looking, the other ran across the road at a pedestrian crossing (when the light was green for the road traffic & red for pedestrians) – neither pedestrian was hurt, the Iphone & coffee of the first pedestrian didn’t fare so well.
To protect vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists need adequate room from motor vehicles (and each other). The stats speak for themselves, motor vehicles are killing people. Despite this cyclists and pedestrians are causing some problems but in the order of 1% of total deaths (from the gov stats of road deaths).
The amount of untaxed, uninsured and un-MOT’d (is that even a word?) vehicles is horrendous. Drink, drug and phone driving are also big problems.
Cycling laws need updating to the 21st century, all road laws do – but it won’t do anything to protect vulnerable road users (which is sad because I prefer walking and cycling to driving).
And the shame is, the story
And the shame is, the story just before the Conservative one is about a 95 year old couple retiring their tandem because of bad drivers and near misses. I think this sums up the problems on our roads. I ought to say, there are a lot of courteous drivers out there but the few idiots make life miserable for everyone.
Well, as a Green, I know
Well, as a Green, I know which party to vote for, but for anyone in doubt, vote anyone except tory. They are interested in one thing, money, and the safety of cyclists and pedestrians doesn’t matter as long as their mates in car making and road building get to make even more.
BTW, Jeremy Vine was wrong:
“1. When I’m on a bike, I’m a vulnerable road user.
2. The people in this photo don’t look like criminals to me, they look like they’re following the govt and Mayor of London’s advice to cycle
3. In 2016 there were 1,700 road deaths; THREE were caused by cyclists.”
It isn’t clear that the three deaths were caused by the cyclists, but they were involved.
burtthebike wrote:
Chris refers to “Westminster” and he’s right to. “Anyone but Tory” is terrible advice if you’re serious about making the pols do anything for cycling. Don’t give your vote to the other 1.1 major parties who also don’t give a fuck about cyclists’ safety on the roads, just because they’re not the Tories. Their records are all lamentable.
srchar wrote:
2 likes
Not sure about that, and I think that this is the worst government in my life for cycling, if I may dignify this shower of s**t with that epithet. Full of promises and lots of words appreciating all the benefits of cycling, but no investment and lots more road building. Oh, and an investigation into dangerous cycling. The tories give hypocrites a bad name.
Just nipped on to the ‘daily
Just nipped on to the ‘daily heil’ to see some funny comments for the tory tweet story.. came away not laughing as expected, but actually really quite sad 🙁
peted76 wrote:
Why would you do that to yourself? No problem has ever been solved by anyone commenting below the line.
The fact that the tweet was
The fact that the tweet was published gives us real insight to the way cycling is viewed by some within Government, if not all. Jesse Norman can apologise all he likes but it’s a clear message.
Is whoever authorised the tweet losing their job over this?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
You might be right. A bit like the comments made by one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, is this a case of testing the political waters and seeing if they can get away with it..?
brooksby wrote:
Any news is better for the government than coverage of Brexit. Theresa May will get caught eating a baby next week, just to keep it off the front page.
vonhelmet wrote:
Yep. And it’s a good job Jezza went to a cemetery 4 years ago, cos that’s what the Heil reasoned should keep EVERYTHING off the front page today.
davel wrote:
Apparently there were nine, NINE! pages of it. This country has now drifted so far to the right, we might need a revolution to restore normality.
burtthebike wrote:
Revolution, you say?
vonhelmet wrote:
Wasnt it Johnson himself who talked about dead cats? Throw one on the table in the middle of a meeting and it becomes the thing that everyone talks about. We are that dead cat.
So sad that the 95 year old
So sad that the 95 year old couple have had to give up tandem riding because of bad drivers.
Reading their life story proves how much people can do and how much they can enjoy life using only sustainable transport.
Unfortunately the government’s current policy of demonising cyclists can only ensure that fewer people than ever feel safe enough to do so in future.
Very odd that the Tory tweet
Very odd that the Tory tweet shows very normal cycling on a cycle route in daylight but with additional hi viz and lights.
I’m launching a consultation
Norman! I’m launching a consultation between my boot and your ass!
An even remotely well
An even remotely well maintained car will outbrake a cyclist. A car will stop from 20mph much quicker than a bike. Official tables say there’s 6m thinking and 6m stopping distance in a car. The problem you have is that in a lot of cases the thinking distance ends up being about 400m because drivers are looking at their phones.
vonhelmet wrote:
This. A car has massively more rubber in contact with the road and is much more stable than a bicycle under braking.
Having said that, I reckon I could still manage to stop the bike within the distances quoted in the (rather outdated) braking distance tables.