Please give the live blog a good few seconds to load. Try refreshing the page when your patience expires.
- News

Live blog: Netherlands to ban cyclists from using phones while riding; 12 hours, 100 miles, 12 years old! LEJOG in a recumbent bathtub + 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.
12 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@Blackthorne83 He'd love to, but some bastard's taken out the cycle lanes.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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...
@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.
@Rendel Harris Go and bother somebody else with your opinion.
I'm sure electronic gears, pedals, seat posts etc. are each a modern marvel but they all seem to solve a problem I've never encountered. However I have encountered others faffing while searching for batteries, cables and even a firmware update. All of which just gets in the way of cycling's simple pleasure - being outside
12 thoughts on “Live blog: Netherlands to ban cyclists from using phones while riding; 12 hours, 100 miles, 12 years old! LEJOG in a recumbent bathtub + more”
The Dutch already ban
The Dutch already ban cyclists from using headphones, why not ban motorists from having music and using phones, oh wait, they already do yet deaths increased again last year with 60+ deaths at junctions/crossways between cycling infra and roads. The Dutch are going backwards in their thinking if they believe this will do anything, a few anecdotal incidents and one death equals a ban. Why stop there, let’s ban pedestrians from walking and using a mobile phone, surely cycling is simply an extension of walking, well that’s what it’s supposed to be promoted as, a basic every day activity.
I bet more people on foot have died due to using mobile phones, oh and policing it, that will be hot compared to motorists no doubt, just like in Australia where helmetless or bell free cyclists are hauled over the coals for a fine the same as a speeding motorist.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Not a bad shout if we have got to the point where consideration is being given to pavements being installed with warnings!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/03/glue-road-signs-floor-zombie-pedestrians-phones-government-adviser/
Well Hector Rees-Davies , no
Well Hector Rees-Davies , no point having a helmet on if you don’t wear it properly.
hirsute wrote:
At least it’s buckled on. People riding round with them undone never cease to bewilder me.
Enjoy your freedom, cute
Enjoy your freedom, cute Morning Commute infant, in a year or two when you’re cycling to school the fun police will on your case and demanding you wear a helmet and have a number plate.
BTBS, just because cars cause
BTBS, just because cars cause more carnage than bicycles doesn’t give cyclists licence to do any old daft shit they want. Cyclists on mobiles are dicks. If you use the road, pay attention.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
But it does justify calls for proportionality; for the enforcement and punishment to correspond to the risk.
davel wrote:
BTBS, just because cars cause more carnage than bicycles doesn’t give cyclists licence to do any old daft shit they want. Cyclists on mobiles are dicks. If you use the road, pay attention.
— davel But it does justify calls for proportionality; for the enforcement and punishment to correspond to the risk.— Yorkshire wallet
I’ve not seen anything yet in this change to suggest a lack of proportionality in either – but i’ve also not seen the associated guidance for the legislation.
davel wrote:
The risk is you ride one hand on bars, not paying attention and die? Remember that drunk woman who died, not in full control?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
More people die because of head phone wearing phone using pedestrians than same on bikes, if we are to have a ban for one group then surely if the reasoning is to make that safer (for whom??) then we must apply that to all persons especially those that do the most harm to others and to themselves. people on bikes are the bottom of the list when it comes to harming oneself and others whilst doing their activity and indeed also whilst listening to music and/or using a phone or in some cases in the wilds of Kingston upon Hull, rolling a woodbine, whilst on the phone riding no handed and still avoding weverything.one.
More than any of the other groups cyclists are aware of their vulnerability (well the helmetless ones at least), thus even with these other ‘distractions’ they are still safer to themselves and others are without.
A ban is discriminatory, bias, illogical and without factual merit.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Where do you get that from?
I’d suggest motorcyclists are also pretty aware of their vulnerability based on comments I have seen them make.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Figures and statistics please.