Please give the live blog a good few seconds to load. Try refreshing the page when your patience expires.
Live blog: Netherlands to ban cyclists from using phones while riding; 12 hours, 100 miles, 12 years old! LEJOG in a recumbent bathtub + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Sep 28, 2018 15:38
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.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
12 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
ktache 30 minutes ago
I liked his graphs.
Rendel Harris 46 minutes ago
And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.
hawkinspeter 1 hour 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 1 hour 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 2 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 2 hours ago
"They want us all locked in our homes...!" "Not all, only some..."
chrisonabike 2 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.
hawkinspeter 2 hours ago
@mdavidford - are those the new 0-minute cities that I've heard so much about?
hawkinspeter 2 hours ago
@Rendel Harris - yeah, I can't deal with that kind of thing when cycling is inherently an inclusive activity (not that all cyclists treat it as such).
Rendel Harris 2 hours ago
@hawkinspeter A fair bit of "antiwoke, anti DEI" racism crept in towards the end of his tenure as well, as I recall.
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.