The live blog can be a little slow to load at times, so please be patient. Try refreshing the page if it’s really reluctant to appear.
Live blog: Edinburgh primary school bike bus; Peter Sagan in bizarre relay race; chauffeur in road rage incident says his manoeuvre “was perfectly safe” + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Oct 26, 2018 08:55
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.
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.
23 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Jakrayan 18 minutes ago
I'm criticising them for not riding in secondary position, not primary. At least 60cms (2 feet) from the edge of the road as the HC explicitly recommends. Leaving aside the small minority of riders who find mounting and dismounting a bike difficult - which sounds suspiciously similar to the motorists "but, but what about disabled drivers?" when talking about LTNs - what's wrong with able bodied riders walking the few metres over that narrow, Victorian bridge? Sure, if there's clearly no-one on it I wouldn't condemn anyone for riding it slowly, but if it's not clear forcing pedestrians to stop and squeeze to the side is, frankly, a rather entitled opinion. Plus it's easy to hold a road bike a little ahead of you and hold the saddle - normally no need to hold the bars if it's straight - so you're really not taking up much more room at all. There's a railway underpass near me that links to a shared then segregated path. It's narrow, and the path approaches at an angle so you can't see if it's clear, but many riders still choose to pedal through despite the clear 'no cycling' signage. Why?? Personally I don't go that way, except on foot, preferring the surrounding roads.
bensynnock 40 minutes ago
I think you're giving drivers too much credit. Many would not think twice about blocking the road if it makes their life easier, such as when turning right onto a busy road.
bensynnock 43 minutes ago
They might have to, but they won't. What they will do is pull out over the cycle path while they wait for a gap in motor traffic.
Safety 1 hour ago
"We have enough regulation." I agree with the exception being legally allowed to sell something which is virtually illegal to use. How many purchasers own a suitably large piece of private land?
Tradescant 5 hours ago
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
DS2025 5 hours ago
Chrisonabike There are a number of police forces in England and Wales that are using portable testing equipment already... How effective it is another matter, I haven't looked into the results of failing (I would hope they just seize and crush the motorbike without any faff but I am sure there are appeal processes, promises not to use them on public roads etc).
KiwiMike 5 hours ago
Woah there - a precision-engineered European-made product, with unparalleled adaptability, is somehow a ‘rip off’? Compared to what - Temu? As per the article, most quality through-axles go for £50-60+, but aren’t adaptable and don’t provide any stand or trailer capability. If you want to balance your £3-4-5k suspension or carbon bike, or bikepacking setup on a budget product subject to highly focused stresses, fair play. Cycling’s a broad church.
Dnnnnnn 6 hours ago
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
neilmck 7 hours ago
I agree, the study was made after cycle paths that had been introduced in Berlin during the 70’s and 80’s caused a big increase in cycling deaths. It is an interesting study for cyclists to read in order to know what dangers exist at badly designed junctions. Here in Paris we have very few bi-directional paths. The ones I have cycled on have no building entrances or courtyards (so no cars crossing the path) and every junction is traffic lights to prevent accidents.
thrawed 7 hours ago
We have enough regulation. They're running a motorbike without insurance/registration and possibly without a licence, and the punishment for being caught with all that is pretty severe already. The problem is lack of enforcement.
23 thoughts on “Live blog: Edinburgh primary school bike bus; Peter Sagan in bizarre relay race; chauffeur in road rage incident says his manoeuvre “was perfectly safe” + more”
Quote:
I’m going to go with, “Because it was signposted as a left-turn-only lane, so them’s the rules, innit?”
Sorry, based on this limited
Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I’m with the driver.
MarkiMark wrote:
So you think the rules don’t apply? Awesome.
”It was perfectly safe” is the driving equivalent of “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye”.
vonhelmet wrote:
In all fairness, it doesn’t say that the chauffeur said it was perfectly safe for the cyclist…
MarkiMark wrote:
If you watch the longer version of the vid, you can see the driver drifting left towards a parked white van, presumably cutting off the cyclist who he is still driving along next to having a chat.
MarkiMark wrote:
“limited evidence” is the problem.
The driver has released an edited video which only shows what happens after the traffic starts moving at the lights. The cyclist is clearly already annoyed – but we’re not allowed to see what the driver did to upset him.
Instead we get the driver going straight on in a left only lane then pulling alongside the cyclist and berating him before overtaking and pulling in to block him. Why? Up to the point the cyclist had done nothing wrong, yet the driver feels the need to drive alongside and lecture him and when that doesn’t work stop him to complete the lecture.
The driver knew he’s done something wrong, but he won’t let us see what it was.
“It was perfectly safe”,
“It was perfectly safe”, sorry matey, but It’s not your call.
don simon wrote:
Ah, but you are forgetting, he’s a professional driver….
As for the cyclist, I would have used the other side of the wheel, save damaging the rear mech.
Many comments on this and
Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he’s a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they’re all dangerous idiots. It’s a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
I think that driver was obviously wrong for driving straight on from a “left-only” lane and then using his vehicle to block in the cyclist. The cyclist didn’t react well, but it’s very easy to over-react when idiots are putting your life at risk with their idiotic driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
On the one hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by the incorrect and intimidating use of their car. On the other hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by throwing a bike against the car and through wagging their finger.
Stacking those threats up against each other, the cyclist under-reacted. The driver needs to grow a pair and be thankful he wasn’t twatted.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
In this case though… the driver has admitted to driving improperly… because he judged it was safe to do so. Rules are put in place because people are clearly incapable (by constant demonstration) of making effective judgements themselves.
The cyclist does indeed do himself no favours however… these situations never end well, so why bother engaging with these idiots? The only time to do so is when you are certain you can stay calm and rational… which is very rarely (never) in the hear of the moment.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
Get some T-Cut, I’m sure the scratch in the bonnet will buff out.
Well that’s a ridiculous
Well that’s a ridiculous first post.
There’s a couple of key points to me – rarely does a cyclists mistake lead to an innocent party losing their life. Secondly, it’s apparent who was in the wrong, the taxi driver was deliberately using the wrong lane to not sit behind a right turning lorry, he said so himself.
Well played on the “I’m a cyclist” bit though…
alansmurphy wrote:
Well, thanks – you’re clearly a nice, amiable chap.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
He has his moments.
I found the longer version
I found the longer version others have mentioned, which is misrepresented by the headline in the London Evening Standard.
The guy on the bike knows where the traffic is – all to his right – except that when the chauffeur goes straight on from a left turn lane, he’s got a vehicle (driven by an impatient driver) right behind him. I completely understand why he’s unhappy about that.
When the chauffeur acts like the police and pulls him over by blocking him into the kerb, and saying ‘you’re in trouble now’ several times, I suggest that’s a threat, not the behaviour of an innocent victim of road rage.
The main thing concerning the paper is how much did the car cost, which says everything you need to know about Britain in 2018.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Even before it gets that far it’s clear the driver wants an argument, he rolls down his window and starts shouting accusations at the cyclist. . . and on a par when everyone I’ve ever had a “discussion” with about their driving style, he KNOWS he was in the wrong, because he simply refuses to allow the cyclist to say more than 3 words before interrupting him again.
Ever had that discussion that starts with “Why don’t you use the cycle lane ?” (In this case a shared use, narrow, down a hill under a roundabout, pick an arm in the centre while trying to peer through the concrete walls, and back up the hill on the other side . . . followed by “you cause queues by not using that cycle lane” . . having pointed out I actually follow the road at the same speed as the other traffic (owing to the give way lines etc) I then get the “You ride through the roundabout too fast, doing 40-60km/h”
StuInNorway wrote:
never really a discussion though, is it? Which is why in my experience if you respond at all the only correct response is “why don’t you fuck off?”
If it was a “perfectly safe”
Watching the longer version quoted above, it sounds as if the driver pulls in front, alongside him and then pulls over – using his vehicle to block him in. I’ve had it tonnes of times before. In too much of a rush to wait, then pull over and stop to have a ding-dong with you.
“I didn’t pull in front of
“I didn’t pull in front of you”, “it’s on camera”!
Sorry mate but if I employed you as my chauffeur*, you would be looking for another job due to lack of integrity, honesty and for allowing my vehicle to be damaged to the tune of £1500 because of your idiocy.
I have seen the footage. You did not adhere to the traffic regulations at that junction and proceeded to engage in a totally avoidable altercation with someone who looked at you. You also then DID deliberatly pull directly in front of the cyclist who YOU antagonised and therefore YOU are reponsible for the outcome.
Here is your P45, now go and work for someone who is happy for you to put their family at risk whilst you are driving them around town.
*Assuming that this is a personal hired chauffuer
Pushing50 wrote:
Mini cab driver, in my experiance hardly professional and the majority fall far below the driving standards of black cab drivers in London. Although sometimes that is not a vey high bar.
As well as the paperwork and lanugage tests perhaps TFL should make them pass an advanced driving test?
Driver cant drive. Cyclist
Driver cant drive. Cyclist shouldnt have responded.
Did the cyclist smack the car or did the driver just pull in anyway ?
Not worth the hassle getting involved.