Our live blog can sometimes be slow to load so you may need to refresh your browser if it’s taking too long.
Live blog: Vuelta highlights, jobless Aqua Blue riders make best of it by going on epic bikepacking adventure + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Thu, Sep 06, 2018 14:41
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.
16 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
jackcycles 2 hours ago
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.
Xenophon2 5 hours ago
@HarrogateSpa : Exactly. Clickbait articles such as this to keep the advertisers happy.
chrisonabike 5 hours ago
@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...
ktache 6 hours ago
I liked his graphs.
Rendel Harris 6 hours ago
And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.
hawkinspeter 6 hours ago
@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)
jackcycles 7 hours ago
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*!
chrisonabike 7 hours ago
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.
mdavidford 7 hours ago
"They want us all locked in our homes...!" "Not all, only some..."
chrisonabike 7 hours ago
@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.
16 thoughts on “Live blog: Vuelta highlights, jobless Aqua Blue riders make best of it by going on epic bikepacking adventure + more”
So that’s where the sheffield
So that’s where the sheffield ofo bikes end up!
Well done Daniel, even if the
Well done Daniel, even if the perp seemed a rather sad person. I’m sure the police will learn the lesson and equip all officers with a decent bike to catch criminals on foot.
burtthebike wrote:
Yeah, felt a twinge of sympathy for him there.
Re. Tavistock Place. All that
Re. Tavistock Place. All that fuss (how long in consultation?!?) and looking at the map it’s about 50 inches long.
The taxi lobby in london have too much power.
StoopidUserName wrote:
it’s part of a very significant cycle corridor. It’s been a cycle lane for years, maybe 10 years – I’ve been using it for at least seven years. I use it a lot more now that they’ve replaced the previous kerbs separating the lanes. This is a good result.
What they need to do now is resurface Tottenham Court Road, which is pit-holed to fuck.
I love these professionals
I love these professionals doing their bike tour just for the hell of it. I wonder how many accountants lose their job but then go off and do some double-entry bookkeeping together for a couple weeks, just because.
So dark shoes aren’t even
So dark shoes aren’t even acceptable now. Get Sir Chris Boardman on the case.
Organon wrote:
They have form for bringing this shit up for motorcyclists on their FB page too, they never apply this to car drivers, bunch of victim blaming cretins. HC needs to be changed ASAP, lighting regs need changing too. Get rid of reflector requirements and static and/or british Standard lights because that’s so ridiculously out of date.
If you can’t see any person or vehicle on the road during the day or at night by your own headlights then you’re travelling too fast, driving distracted or not competent mentally or physically to be allowed on the road other than by foot
So, ignore your own rules to victim blame, wankpuffins
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
As you no longer drive a car, thought you might be interested to see this from a drivers point of view.
Please note that as a driver, I don’t want to see you at the range of my headlights, I want to see you at the greatest distance possible even if that is 1/2 a mile away so that I can adjust speed, take road position and generally plan well ahead for your presence. Even to the extent of protecting you from other traffic.
As for dark shoes? In this video, pretty much the only visibility of the peds is motion of their light coloured trainers.
Mungecrundle wrote:
You have so much to learn about safe driving and what the statement in the HC means. You can’t even grasp that driving faster because you can see stuff further means shortened thinking time, massively increased braking time and more incidents.
Congratulations on proving how much you know about safety, the sqaure root of nowt.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Who said anything about driving faster? I think I was explicit in stating that I want to see vulnerable road users at the earliest possible moment exactly so I can plan for their safety.
Probably best that you have given up the car. Not only are your driving skills rusty but your powers of critical thinking are also on the wane.
Anyway, winter is coming (in Sean Bean accent) so another season to test out your theory and maybe as the nights draw in you will be able to regale us with a few more anecdotes of incidents where drivers claim not to have seen you.
I’m finding that dog really
I’m finding that dog really annoying today. Look at its grin, and its puffed-up stance. Little git.
It’s gonna be a long Friday… roll on the weekend.
davel wrote:
Grumpy today, are we?
davel wrote:
Haters gonna hate.
Much better now. Chris bless
Looking at the vid, Munge has
Looking at the vid, Munge has a point. Once the light starts to fail why stack the odds outside your favour? You can make your point that drivers SHOULD see you in your ninja gear and maybe they should but the reality is they need a helping hand. God knows what sort of people are out there.
I had eye surgery the other day and whilst I was walking back to the car (wife drove!) with a patch on one eye and the other blurred to hell, I said to her “I bet there’s people out there with worse sight than me at the moment”. I bet there are. Don’t become a pair of shoes you see at the last moment. Maybe you can’t get Rapha in hi-viz but whatever.
Flashing xmas tree posse in tha house!