Our live blog can be slow to load. Try refreshing the page if your patience wears thin.
Live blog: The A-pillar killer; cycle gear breathability garage science; Mail redefines ‘serious injury’ to talk up threat of cyclists to pedestrians + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Nov 09, 2018 15:19
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.
33 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
mdavidford 29 seconds ago
They may have looked, but did they see?
jackcycles 32 minutes ago
Ds2025: where they are going wrong is that they are crushing the motorbike rather than the person sat on top of it. If they did the latter this issue would be solved in less than 24 hours.
Rod Marton 33 minutes ago
I came this way today with the car boot sale in operation. There was a marshal at the entrance, who stopped a car turning right across the cycleway as I was approaching. So that certainly works. I think it necessary for the marshal to be there, I couldn't say if the driver would have turned if he hadn't been there but you always have to suspect the worst. Unfortunately there is no marshal at the exit, and there was certainly a car stopped across the cycleway as I was approaching it. But he pulled onto the road before I reached it, and the following car stayed off the cycleway as I went through. Ideally there should have been a marshal there too. On the whole, though, it's a really high standard piece of infrastructure. Just a pity it doesn't extend a bit further.
eburtthebike 49 minutes ago
“absolute carnage” So right! Just look at the bodies piled up, blood running in the gutters and injured people limping away. It's a bit of a problem with a road, delaying some people for minutes at a time: it isn't carnage, let alone 'absolute carnage'. Anyone who exaggerates so ridiculously really shouldn't be allowed to comment in public, unless they want to demonstrate their idiocy to all and sundry.
Jakrayan 2 hours 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 2 hours 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 2 hours 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 3 hours 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 6 hours ago
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
DS2025 7 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).
33 thoughts on “Live blog: The A-pillar killer; cycle gear breathability garage science; Mail redefines ‘serious injury’ to talk up threat of cyclists to pedestrians + more”
Quote:
I keep trying to explain this to a friend of mine who has a thing about cyclists on pavements. Oddly, he’s the opposite of a Mail reader – more of a long-haired hippy.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I keep trying to explain this to a friend of mine who has a thing about cyclists on pavements. Oddly, he’s the opposite of a Mail reader – more of a long-haired hippy.
But without context this is irrelevant
You could easily say increasing the number of cyclist will resust in more injury and deaths
Mb747 wrote:
Huh?
Given that it’s the motorists that are causing lots more injuries and deaths than cyclists, I fail to see how that follows. Getting someone out of a car and onto a bike will surely increase safety.
hawkinspeter wrote:
As an example of extremes, if 1 million people drive and 1 person cycles then the drivers will statistically kill substantially more pedestrians. If 1 million people cycle and 1 person drives, then statistically the cyclists will kill almost as many pedestrians as the car driver. Or somat…
Mungecrundle wrote:
That’d be assuming that the cars and cyclists are equally dangerous, whereas I just don’t believe that to be the case.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There you go with your neuanced assessment of how different modes of transport contribute different risk factors for other road users. When will you learn?
The masses crave sensationalsm and easy answers, usually along the lines of “That other group’s to blame, not you!”
Seems to be the Mails MO anyway.
The only question about the
The only question about the Mail, and most British news media, is should it be redefined as entertainment, ‘cos it sure ain’t factual.
Funnily enough, the Mail features quite a lot in this list of EU myths https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/?fbclid=IwAR0qSpugYiQugxW9AMfpKgmm-ssM8iCs03hxivBSiYJmPbsyAwZ8T_gc2cA
I made the mistake of looking at the article, and it makes some of those EU stories pale in comparison. Just one quote “There have been 29 pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists and another 830 seriously injured in just eight years.” No mention of how many have been killed by cars in the same time, or the number tripping over pavements cracked by cars driving on them. No mention of who was to blame for the collision, and having to dodge pedestrians who are seemingly oblivious of their surroundings while looking at their mobile phones, I’m pretty sure any rise is due to the peds.
Once again I’m left fuming
Once again I’m left fuming.cycling used to be a truly pleasurable experience,but now I feel like public enemy number one.
Typical Daily Mail bullshit.
Typical Daily Mail bullshit. Article refers to the woman pedestrian who was hit by an e-bike recently. Forgets to mention that it was entirely her own fault as she walked out in front of the bike when the traffic lights were green. Also, the usual twats in the comments section – third post in mentions ‘Road tax’.
Eton Rifle wrote:
You must have a stronger constitution than me – not only reading the DM article but the comments section. Chapeau, sir.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Actually, it was surprisingly enlightening!
I was shocked to see only 5 comments (one of which seemed to be pro-cycling) on what should be, after all, a clarion call for the anti-cycling mob. And, none of them called for death to cyclists.
I’m feeling quite uplifted!
Jimbonic wrote:
Well, I’ve submitted two comments, but neither have appeared. Perhaps the number of comments from cyclists has crashed their moderating system.
burtthebike wrote:
Interesting. I too put a comment on this DM article pointing out the confusion between “serious” and “life threatening”. It didn’t appear either. Keep making your points in the DM & don’t let any abuse put off.
burtthebike wrote:
Or perhaps they are filtering the pro cycling comments! I might try posting an anti cycling rant and then edit it once it’s got through?!
HoarseMann wrote:
Or perhaps they are filtering the pro cycling comments! I might try posting an anti cycling rant and then edit it once it’s got through?![/quote]
Nope. Latest comment was 9 hours ago.
burtthebike wrote:
Nope. Latest comment was 9 hours ago.
[/quote]
Tardy moderators more likely then. Oh well, it’s the weekend I suppose…
HoarseMann wrote:
Tardy moderators more likely then. Oh well, it’s the weekend I suppose…[/quote]
I commented on something there a few weeks ago (takes that long for the horrible feeling to go away after reading an article to risk another one) and it took over 24 hrs for comments to appear . . even some “anti-anti-cycling comments” were posted…
The Daily Fail, where readers really do still believe they pay “Road Tax” 😉
Eton Rifle wrote:
There was another hit during an official race near London when she ignored the marshalls and walked in front of the competitor.
hirsute wrote:
Wasn’t that one, “Dammit I have to walk my dog over there and I have to do it NOW!”
Eton Rifle wrote:
I don’t think they forgot to mention it – they actively don’t mention it as it doesn’t fit their reactionary agenda. As normal.
We should just ignore anything that comes out of this right-wing pamphlet, don’t even give them the oxygen of publicity – that’s how fascists grow stronger (look at that pondlife Trump – he has a war with the media but couldn’t possibly thrive without them, and they play right into his tiny hands)
Quote:
Personally, I’d be criticizing her much more for cycling while wearing rubber flip-flops (or, ‘thongs’, to our Aussie readers
).
brooksby wrote:
Personally, I’d be criticizing her much more for cycling while wearing rubber flip-flops (or, ‘thongs’, to our Aussie readers
).
Give the girl a break, she’s riding a beach cruiser along Miami Beach- flip flops (thongs) seems appropriate.
But while on the subject of her clothing, anyone know what brand of tights she is wearing? I’ve watched the clip on repeat but haven’t made it out yet :drool:
yet again CUK fail to mention
yet again CUK fail to mention that not all collisions are cyclists at fault. The recent government review which tried to hide away the facts by sneakily leaving it to a small print afterthought, it proved that pedestrians are 50% more ‘at fault’ for their own deaths in collsions involving people on bikes, that’s even from the motorcentric, cycling hating police POV (thus the Alliston outcome amongst others) As per the link where the cyclist died, police would have charged him if he had not done so!
There’a a mssive disparity in responsibility yet actually the risk factor and risk posed is not that disimilar between pedestrians and cyclists. And yet on the other foot the responsibility for safety is pushed onto people on bikes when it comes to situations involving motorists and their killing weapon of choice, again, the police will use all sorts of bullshit victim blaming tactics to absolve motorists, basically perverting the course of justice.
We are fucked everywhich way and the powers that be don’t give a shit and are happy that the police, CPS, justice sysem/judges, media et al, collude to fuck us over time and time and time again which ends in more deaths, more injuries and more unjustified blame for outcomes that would not occur for other groups.
utterly fucking depressing!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I’m pretty sure Cycling UK would have mentioned that very pertinent fact, but as has been pointed out many times above, they don’t control what the Mail says. Just like the BBC, which has a blanket ban on mentioning the overwhelming benefits of mass cycling, despite daily reports on relevant subjects.
Interesting comment by Jeremy
Interesting comment by Jeremy Vine about the naming of the 5 pm-7.30 pm show – stop calling it/referring to it as Drivetime. Doesn’t just about every local station have a show so named? When I looked it up in the BBC radio 2 official schedules it’s simply Jo Whiley and Simon Mayo.
i browsed through the Twitter responses to Graham Simmons – he got his posting on the Daly Mail on-line. The Mail has had a change of editor this year, so you never know it might change its approach, although we’re still getting the litany of pedestrians injured by cyclists – it never ceases to amaze me just how inured we all are to “oh, he was killed by a car”.
Low sun and hi-viz my padded shorts! “Oh, the sun’s blasting down on the right, I can’t see properly – I know what I’ll do, I’ll drive on, that’ll work.”
StuInNorway wrote:
DF moderators? Censors more like.
I’ve posted on articles before where my comments were perfectly reasonable, just didn’t correspond to the DF world view never appeared, yet another post on the same article from a different computer using a different alias and more aligned to their agenda appeared within minutes.
Anecdata I know, but I’m convinced that the “moderators” only pass a few posts that disagree with them to give the illusion of balance.
CygnusX1] DF moderators?
I’m coming over to your point of view. Having failed to publish anything since Friday, the site now says “We are no longer accepting comments on this article.”
On Graham Simmons, If I
On Graham Simmons, If I honestly thought I was going to get killed on a particular piece of road…. I would change my route home, or change my approach to the roundabout – Just Sayin’. (as in get off, walk down the pavement and down the road to a safe point, cross there, walk past the roundabout, and then re-mount. However it does appear the local body should get on to the maintenance and design of the roundabout. Those min-roundabouts are a bloody hazard in lots of places.
madcarew wrote:
Surely as a helmet advocate and wearer it would save your life, ergo you would continue on the same route, after-all what harm can come to you given the plastic hat you’re wearing?
Other injuries, well as you would know if you’ve actually read pro helmet papers, they also prevent non head injuries too …
madcarew wrote:
I applaud what he’s doing. However remote the chances of the council or police actually doing something about it, using the roundabout, filming it and publicising it is more likely to attract some attention, and *maybe* get something done.
The vapour pressure test is
The vapour pressure test is un-likely to give a reasonable estimation of the performance of the clothing in real life situations (as a cotton tee-shirt is going to come out best, but provides no protection against wind or rain, which is the normal point of ‘breathable’ fabrics.)
I’m not sure where you get
I’m not sure where you get the idea I’m a helmet advocate. I’m absolutely against mandated helmet wearing, and believe that most helmet wearing is bad for the cyclist and general populations. However I do believe helmets help prevent some injuries. Like yourself, I use all the faculties I possess to ameliorate the risk to myself and other road users whilst out on my bike. This might include avoiding particularly risk laden road environments. I’m not a helmet advocate.
Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, plastic lids provide very little injury reduction if a car runs into you, so If I thought I was going to die one day walking down a dark alley because of the low lifes that live there, I would find ways to avoid walking down that alley. If I was sure I was going to die on a roundabout because of the behaviour of car drivers there you can be sure I would avoid that roundabout. I would also pester the police and local council to improve the environment in both the alleyway and the roundabout.
Just install the Firefox
Just install the Firefox extension “KittenBlock” and you’ll never have to visit the Daily HateMail or the Daily Express ever again. Saves you from yourself.