Our live blog can sometimes be a bit slow to load, so give it a few seconds to boot up. If you’re having no joy, try refreshing the page.
Live blog: MP says yesterday’s Commons debate on road justice “absolutely not” about motorists vs cyclists, cyclist in Canada loses his sh*t literally (well, throws it at driver), “Cycling is better for your sex life” says government minister + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 15:06
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.
Jack is group editor across road.cc, off.road.cc and ebiketips, overseeing all three sites in the F-At Digital group to make sure everything’s up to scratch. He’s been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of road.cc including tech, news and video, and also contributed to ebiketips before being named editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town, and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master’s degree in print journalism, and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it’s a long story).
31 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
mctrials23 58 minutes ago
I'm honestly amazed that horse riders dare take to our country roads. I have no idea what the actual statistics on collisions are but they are very slow moving, often 2 abreast and generally on the little twisty turny country lanes. With the way far too many people drive on these tiny roads, I wouldn't dare be on a horse on them. On my weekend ride this week a pickup driver (shocker eh) nearly crashed into a poor lady head on because he simply couldn't wait until it was safe to overtake. Poor womans ABS kicked in and she had to go into the side of the road to avoid him as he barrelled on through and she still only missed him by inches I reckon. All because too many people don't care. If he hits her he will have a crash on his insurance but he almost certainly wouldn't be banned despite it being a fucking braindead overtake that he clearly does as a matter of course. He is a danger on our roads but we will never treat him as one until he kills or seriously hurts someone and we can prove he was completely at fault. Even then it will have been a "one off" according to his lawyer. A lapse. About 2 minutes after this near miss a BMW flies past me giving me plenty of space and gently drifts back over to our side of the road. He was going about 45 and was on the wrong side of the road going around a blind corner while he drifted back in. If someone else doing the same speed was coming around that bend he would have binned it into the hedge or hit them. The mind just boggles. Absolutely zero reason he didn't pull back in faster. Just didn't occur to him I assume. This is why it scares me on our country roads. Far too many drivers who are just fundamentally dangerous, bad drivers.
Smoggysteve 1 hour ago
There needs to be a change in the language used when reporting on things like this. If there is ever an incident involving a cyclist it is very much dehumanised. Cyclist = Inanimate object. Not a human being, with family and loved ones. its all so easy to make them look more like a statistic. The more people who understand that cyclists are real people just trying to live their lives and and not just an obstacle or inconvenience then we might have people treating them the way you would wish to be treated.
Paul J 1 hour ago
@OnYerBike Hmm, and when I click the links to "preferred partners" for a small sample of items, they are not found on the preferred partners sites. So... seems it is now defunct too, as you surmise.
Paul J 1 hour ago
If the riders want a parade lap, then let the organisers set an officially neutralised parade lap. If some of the riders just don't want to race, then that's between them. They don't get to badger the organisers to neutralise the end of the race. And anyway, if they take final GC times at X km to go, that just sets the race to end at X km to go. If a GC rider really wanted to, they could try attack before then (course, it would lack the course feature advantageous for getting away that the riders wanted excluded.. but still). The riders trying to bring in safety, when conditions were fine and the circuit was also fine, is just going to undermine their voice in the future when they try bring up safety the next time. Stupid.
mjvande@pacbell.net 1 hour ago
@james-o Yes. The mountain bikers are still breaking the law. I saw two more yesterday.
mjvande@pacbell.net 1 hour ago
@james-o Yes. The mountain bikers are still breaking the law. I saw two more yesterday.
Rendel Harris 1 hour ago
@panda I don't think there would be a problem with maintaining a GC truce, because it only has to be maintained until the times are taken. In the case of Paris, everyone could ride in fairly easy, couple of parade laps up and down the Champs, times taken, and then if after that Pogacar wants to tow Del Toro round three laps of Montmartre, or indeed go for the stage himself, no worries. I too am of the generation when the organisers held that sort of sway, nothing like as important now when 90% plus of the top riders' salaries come from the team rather than prize money, indeed I believe it's customary for the winner nowadays to give their prize money away to the rest of the team. This is, I believe, a good thing; although rider power can sometimes appear a bit excessive in its demands (the main reason for asking for neutralisation yesterday, as explained by the rider representative, seemed to be "we're all knackered", which was pretty ridiculous) at least organisers can no longer dictate that they must go on in dangerous circumstances. As they were saying on commentary yesterday, what they need to do is for the rider representatives and the organisers to get together as soon as, or even before, the route is announced and iron out any problems then instead of waiting until the eve of the stage or even, as in stage of the Giro this year, to complain about the parcours while it is in progress.
OnYerBike 1 hour ago
@Riggers No single option has really filled the void. For clothing, Sigma Sports probably has the best range, but tends to be higher end brands at RRP (or close to). They also have the Universal Colours brand, but my impression is that leans towards form over function (i.e. looks nice but isn't actually great quality). For steep discounts on brand name stuff, Merlin is probably the best bet. Beyond that, a lot of googling and shopping around - Tredz, bikeparts.co.uk, Condor, SJS Cycles etc. Van Rysel at Decathlon is probably the closest comparison to dhb for good quality "own brand" stuff at a sensible price.
OnYerBike 2 hours ago
@Paul J As I understand it, the sale did include the IP for the dhb brand, and I think Frasers/Evans claimed to have been planning to keep the brand going. That said, there's no reason to think that the brand has/will retain the quality or value credentials it was formerly known for - I don't believe any staff were retained, nor any obligation to retain or restore relationships with the suppliers that had previously manufactured dhb-branded kit. Far more likely dhb becomes another "brand" plastered across the cheap tat that is the hallmark of the Frasers empire. I note the dhb website you link to doesn't appear to have been updated since February 2024 (based on Wayback Machine archives).
panda 2 hours ago
@Rendel Harris I think it says a lot about the previous two days that not many guys chose to race for the sake of racing. If the win is prestigious (like Paris) and/or the previous stages haven’t been so brutal then more teams and riders will choose to race. It’s a shame because Paris the last couple of years has been great and I can see what they were thinking! Few minor tweaks and I think it works. I’m also from a generation where an organiser could just say “the course is safe, if you want your prize money, race. No tears” and it would have happened unless Hinault didn’t fancy it. Which he would’ve. I could also see a situation where a GC contender wants to work for one of their team-mates who has worked for them for three weeks so a GC cordially agreed truce wouldn’t be possible, but how big would the time gaps be, anyway?
31 thoughts on “Live blog: MP says yesterday’s Commons debate on road justice “absolutely not” about motorists vs cyclists, cyclist in Canada loses his sh*t literally (well, throws it at driver), “Cycling is better for your sex life” says government minister + more”
Well, at least he’s
Well, at least he’s referencing those stats.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46225696/rory-stewart-apologises-after-making-up-brexit-stat
I’m not so sure if cycling is
I’m not so sure if cycling is that great for my sex life, but it sure gets some strange looks from the drivers that we pass.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Was it the tandem position?
burtthebike wrote:
Suspect it depends on who’s the stoker and who’s the captain
I wouldn’t agree that cycling
I wouldn’t agree that cycling is good for my sex life, everytime i buy a new bike the wife seems to go off me for some reason!
RE: 10 ways drivers make
RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe – so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying…
brooksby wrote:
The fact that they had to close the comments section says something too… 8 of the first 10 comments were removed. People claiming the guy filming had a thing about saying “Woah” . . while a range rover is pretty close to turing him into a pizza. . . I think I might have said more that that….
brooksby wrote:
Normally I quite like the Guardian’s comments section; there are some really clever folk on there. However, the modération can get a bit odd at times. I made a perfectly reasonable response to some clown banging on about cyclists wearing headphones and it has been removed, along with a couple of other posts supporting my viewpoint. Annoying really.
RE: Road rage cyclist
RE: Road rage cyclist literally loses his sh… – someone who’s clearly a bit too in touch with their inner chimp?
Most of the Guardian vids are
Most of the Guardian vids are pretty tame compared to the close passes on this site, but at least they seem to have recognised that it is Road Safety week, unlike the vast majority of the msm.
Perhaps the cyclist’s reaction was extreme, but it was better than dragging the driver out and beating them to a pulp, and I’m pretty sure that driver and the drivers who’ve seen the vid will be a bit more careful as a result. Interesting that the police seemed only interested in the cyclist, not the driver who knocked him off.
I don’t agree the Guardian
I don’t agree the Guardian vids are tame as such,or that Road.cc are conversely extreme,the guardian vids are more simply demonstrating the regular ways cyclists are badly treated on the roads,I could count at least half of those instances as daily occurrences on my commute, and that’s the real issue,as it ultimately creates a massive learning curve for new cyclists to adopt behaviours to cope with this seeming onslaught of vehicles determined to shove you out of their way,as no one with the authority to do anything about it is bothering to stop or prevent it happening
Doesn’t do much for your sex
Doesn’t do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I’d prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.
john1967 wrote:
They did. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4F17-92AE-60DABD4137C6/RoadSafetyAndTheLegalFramework
Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.
Brilliant to see club
Brilliant to see club volunteer Dean Barnett getting to the last 3 of the Unsung Hero award.
They did. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4F17-92AE-60DABD4137C6/RoadSafetyAndTheLegalFramework
Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.
— john1967Even if the media made a noise about it every driver would think “That’s not an issue for me, I’m a competent driver”.
burtthebike wrote:
They did. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4F17-92AE-60DABD4137C6/RoadSafetyAndTheLegalFramework
Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.— john1967
Worth reading that Hansard article in full.
Rory Stewart also said, shortly after the sex life comment:
‘We have therefore concluded that we must now extend the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to a life sentence, and the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink—alcohol—to a life sentence as well. That has been a difficult decision because of the question of balancing the impact on the victim with the culpability of the individual. However, in the end, the conclusion must be that someone who commits an extremely dangerous act in a vehicle is driving a weapon and committing an unlawful act. Ultimately, if a death results, that is morally equivalent to unlawful act manslaughter. Individuals under the influence of drink or drugs who get into a vehicle knowingly propel an extremely dangerous weapon, having consciously made a decision to incapacitate themselves. That is in direct contravention of their duty of care towards other road users and is therefore equivalent to gross negligence manslaughter. They should therefore face the penalty of a life sentence as a maximum.’
That is excellent news …
jaysa wrote:
Absolutely worth a read…. Now we just need to keep reminding the politicians to actually get something done, just discussing it is not enough.
jaysa wrote:
No it isn’t. Excellent news would be that they had passed a law about it, hot air doesn’t count, especially when we’ve heard it all before. Excellent news would be that they were going to implement the promise they made in 2014 about an inquiry into road laws, but there is no sign of that.
Judge people by their actions, not their words.
burtthebike wrote:
They did. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4F17-92AE-60DABD4137C6/RoadSafetyAndTheLegalFramework
Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.— john1967
Thanks burtthebike, it all sounds quite promising.Some very level headed thinking going on there.There also seemed to be a general consensus that the cyclist being a danger to pedestrians is a white elephant.if only the debates on cycling forums could be as calm and respectfull as that one was.:-)
john1967 wrote:
As someone rather longer in the tooth than perhaps some others here, no, that isn’t promising and I’ve heard it all before too many times to count. This was a pr stunt to make it look as if the government was listening, nothing else. Sure there are some MPs who understand the problem, but the government drives cars, it make billions out of fuel tax and ved, and their mates make billions out of building more roads for more cars. We need to break the cycle, no pun intended.
burtthebike wrote:
post.
burtthebike wrote:
dup post
john1967 wrote:
<northern-comic>
That’s no way to talk about t’missus!
</northern-comic>
Glad to see things have moved
Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).
CygnusX1 wrote:
many thanks to all the cyclists who persisted over the years since then, often in the face not only of danger but of ridicule and ignorance, and cleared the way for us to reap the recent benefits.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Thank you. I can only wish that the progress was rather more than what was promised to us forty years ago. If they had done what I and others told them then, we wouldn’t have to be fighting now, but they ignored it then, and they are ignoring it now.
Thanks Jaysa, good words from
Thanks Jaysa, good words from Rory, kind of like him, in bits. His promise to resign over prisons if they don’t improve will cost him, and he does seem like one of those with honour.
Cannot see it being used much, jury of motorists even less likely to convict, and don’t forget – war on the motorist and all that.
BurtTB is right, it’s
BurtTB is right, it’s meaningless when it’s merely a discussion, a success is not just a changing of the law but to actually enforce the law by police and get them to understand that victim blaming bollocks and them applying equal responsibility between people with killing machines and those who don’t is not acceptable.
Also that the current thinking of reducing severity of charge because bias same acting peers of the accused will not condemn/find guilty because they themselves act in this criminal manner yhus can see little wrong is unwholly suitable as part of a civilised justice system. As mentioned before it’s akin to the white man going on trial for killing a black man in the deep south BITD.
Without enforcement and judges giving out penalties that reflect the severity of the act and the above change needed for judging guilty/not guilty it’s meaningless waffle. We need to remove motoring laws and when it’s a person suffering make them come under crimes against the person laws.
It needs widespread condemnation, repeated PIFs, education in schools and changing the whole focus of how we get people to move about in built up areas and beyond.
Things won’t change in any meaningful way because as BTB says, we’ve been here before and vested interests take priority not to mention pure unadulterated ignorance and bigotted viewpoints.
I’m not holding my breath. SNAFU
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Reading BTL on that Guardian article, and on one in the Bristol Post today (
), you so often see people writing that the police need to crack down on law breaking cyclists, who need insurance and registration so that they don’t get away with it… They completely fail to see/notice that many, MANY, motorists ‘get away with it’ despite (usually) having insurance and registration… 
The Grauniad had an op-ed recently about removing rape cases from juries, as juries can’t be trusted to deal with such cases open-mindedly/disinterestedly. They said they think that there’s an awful lot of “Do we really want to ruin this young man’s life just because of some youthful high jinks / sexual assault?” going on (both in juries, and even in the police).
I wonder whether something similar ought to be tried out for anything involving motoring/cycling? Remove juries from the equation, make sure such cases don’t just sit with low-level magistrates (whose range rovers are sitting outside in the car park…).
brooksby wrote:
Either that, or involve expert witnesses more.
Studies and surveys consistently show that people (ie. representative samples of society) overestimate their (particularly driving) abilities.
So if a jury is also a representative sample of society, it will be made up of people who overestimate their driving ability.
And in these cases, they are judging what is careless or dangerous against their version of ‘reasonable’. But we already know that their version of ‘reasonable’ is probably flawed – because they most likely overestimate their driving ability. They are not qualified to judge driving standards.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus could do with a lot more help these days – or being removed from judgement calls completely.
davel wrote:
The obvious answer is to use driving test examiners. If someone’s driving would fail a driving test, then it’s clearly below the required standard.
hawkinspeter wrote:
…as any collision with a cyclist, that was caused by the driver, would. Anyone can envisage that scenario failing a test: it’s substandard and that should be fairly straightforward to agree.
But the real problem the system currently seems to be having is with whether it falls into careless, dangerous, or neither. And my argument is that a jury is not qualified to answer that.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
This van driver waved a family (mum and daughter) across the road, then mounted the kerb and hit and killed the daughter (a four year-old girl). There was no doubt that he caused death by driving. A jury cleared him of causing death by dangerous driving, and death by careless driving. Somehow, 12 good men and true thought that this was a mistake that doesn’t fall into ‘dangerous’ or even ‘careless’.
‘Fucked up’ doesn’t begin to cover it.