Please note that our live blog can sometimes be slow to load and you may need to refresh your browser if it seems to be taking too long.
Live blog: Team Sunweb channel Mission Impossible, swerving cyclist intentionally blocking car infuriates social media (but is all as it seems?),+ more
All the news from the site and beyond as we start a new week (and month)
Mon, Oct 01, 2018 14:22
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 £1.99. 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.
12 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
mdavidford 20 minutes ago
@chrisonabike I think its defining features are that it has nothing to do with sport, and very little utility.
chrisonabike 40 minutes ago
@Sriracha I'm guilty of this because it's easier than going through the collision dynamics (which I'd no doubt get wrong). It's a proxy - I guess it's more fairly useful for explaining to the occupants of motor vehicles why less speed could be better (for them) eg. when crashing into an minimally yielding hard object? And for a gross "what damage does the vehicle do" in a collision - cyclists don't commonly bend or break street furniture, or buildings... As you say accelerations are more to the point. Of course as others note with larger heavier vehicles you could still suffer additional impacts (vehicle carries you on its front into an unyielding object, or you go under it / into a wheel arch). Plus potential crush if it ends on top of you.
oizukilemon 1 hour ago
I think you sort of miss the point. The idea of " pulling up whenever you fancy " just isn't possible with a roof tent as they overtly advertise your being there. You are limited to camp sites, themselves getting more and more expensive. A van remains the only viable choice for a true adventurer, as you can legitimately just pull up and go for a ride. Stealth... Stealth is the name of the game and a big orange triangle on your roof is only going to attract attention and end one way....
KDee 1 hour ago
Again, two photos of the tyre still banded up fresh out of its packaging. No photo of the tyre fitted and inflated clearly showing the tread and profile.
chrisonabike 2 hours ago
I don't think the research stands up to the highest levels of scrutiny but the long notjusbikes video about this issue ("these stupid trucks are literally killing us") references some things like companies effectively "marketing towards arseholes" and a version of the common "roadkill experiment" by Mark Rober which had "SUV" drivers as the biggest (fake) animal killers. Now that these things are everywhere * perhaps this effect would be smaller. But perhaps it's not shocking that "less pro-social types" might be more likely to get a big mean car (and drive aggressively) than a 2CV... * What exactly is an "SUV"? Is it more "bigger car" plus the "look"?
Paul J 2 hours ago
@ROOTminus1 Plus 1 from me. I'd also add "LibreWolf" - Firefox fork that is focused on privacy and security. It adds some things like letterboxing to defeat fingerprinting by screen size, deletes most cookies on close by default, has other privacy protection mechanisms.
mitsky 2 hours ago
We need to take different driving tests to be able to operate different (larger/more dangerous vehicles). Should we have a much longer learning period (including requiring cycling on roads so they become aware of the dangers) and tougher test for people who want to drive them?
Clem Fandango 3 hours ago
@MaxiMinimalist If it was to do with a new cycle lane or quiet way, we could easily point to the Evil Cyclist Lobby Inc. But as this is the sweet & innocent auto industry (with the shallowest of pockets & no vested interest) I've absolutely no idea how this could have come to pass..... One of life's great mysteries.
ichigo84 3 hours ago
There's an important factor missing, it seems. I suspect the drivers weren't swayed because they didn't believe that it could be them hitting the pedestrian/cyclist. I wonder whether the ad had an impact on whether 'bad' drivers shouldn't have SUVs. No-one believes they are a bad driver, so it's ok for them. Also, there is a factor about feeling safer in a big car - protecting them from those aforementioned bad drivers.
kinderje 4 hours ago
@Rendel Harris maybe we should stop referring to certain cars as SUVs and go back to 'W**kpanzers' and 'Chelsea Tractors' but then going back to your info that wouldn't include the Ford Ranger (although that's a pick-up truck not SUV)
12 thoughts on “Live blog: Team Sunweb channel Mission Impossible, swerving cyclist intentionally blocking car infuriates social media (but is all as it seems?),+ more”
Hmmmm….the swerving cyclist
Hmmmm….the swerving cyclist?
Any video we post to a police authority as evidence of dodgy driving needs to contain at least 5mins of video prior to the alledged incident? Unless the OP has this additional content that shows them driving along minding his own business and being viciously swerved infront of by this cyclist then I’d be healthily sceptical of the nature of this clip.
Riders rarely (I won’t say never!) go off on one at a vehicle putting themselves in very significant danger without due cause?
No sound on the video so can
No sound on the video so can’t tell if the car is beeping or not.
…additionally it’s no
…additionally it’s no longer accessible on Faceache #justsaying
boardmad wrote:
It’s still on FB, just went for a look.
The other day, I was watching The Purge TV series, and was discussing with the better half, as to whether we thought that if murder was legal for one night of the year, would we or anyone we know actually go out and kill. Given the comments on the FB post, I would suggest not riding on Purge night.
I’ve seen it so many times on forums, but it still worries me how many people think that its OK to suggest murdering someone, because they ride a bike.
My bad…I don’t use the
My bad…I don’t use the facebook so am probably doing it wrong.
I’ve given up being disappointed with heinous driving behaviours…I got yelled at, then swerved and brake-tested coming into town last week just because I filtered infront of stationary traffic at a light then had the temerity to be infront of a van who objected on principle to my existence.
If I’d got that wrong and come off infront of traffic behind me, that van driver would have killed someone…plain and simple.
Swerving cyclist – I’d says
Swerving cyclist – I’d says he’s being a bit of a dick.
I’d find it hard to defend
I’d find it hard to defend the cyclist – if the driver behind is being a dick then it is usually better to let them get ahead and away from you as soon as possible. Nothing good can come from swerving like that in front of a driver.
But there must have been a trigger to the behaviour – interesting that there is no sound and no earlier footage. It looks like the video was taken on a phone rather than a dashcam, so why was the passenger (I’m assuming) filming at that point unless there had been an earlier incident between the cyclist and the driver?
Any other comments on the internet about this? The facebook post only seems to have about 5 replies, which isn’t what I was expecting from the title which suggested social media was erupting over this.
There’s reference to an
There’s reference to an original video which shows more of the story, plus a comment about the driver *thinking* he had given them enough room. Has anyone seen it? The hate and the violence on that FB thread is too depressing to trawl through to see if anyone linked it.
The guy is a major cock, if
The guy is a major cock, if just for playing with his own life. I’m assuming he also wouldn’t have done that if 2, 16 stone rugby players were in the car.
If he’d ended up under the wheels I doubt the police would have prosecuted the driver based on that evidence.
The reason I can think of for doing it is it’s actually Mark Cavendish practicing his sprint finishes.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I think he must be a relatively new cyclist too. He’s clearly not done that much before as it wouldn’t take long before he meets a motorist who is as much of a nob as he is. And crunch.
Let the nobby driver go – at least they’re ahead of you and not about to mow you down.
fenix wrote:
Ditto the above.
Whatever the driver was doing, riding like this is nothing but stupid.
If someone is driving like an idiot, then it’s so much easier (and not to mention safer) to let them get by.
Someone cycling like that shouldn’t be on the road.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Not sure about that. I’m confident drivers aren’t allowed to run over cyclists for riding like dicks.
Surely, in the same way the safest thing for the cyclist is to let the mental driver to get past, isn’t the safest thing for the driver to let the mental cyclist get out of the way rather than continuing to try and force past in that situation?