Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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...

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. 

 

Arriving at road.cc in 2017 via 220 Triathlon Magazine, Jack dipped his toe in most jobs on the site and over at eBikeTips before being named the new editor of road.cc in 2020, much to his surprise. His cycling life began during his students days, when he cobbled together a few hundred quid off the back of a hard winter selling hats (long story) and bought his first road bike - a Trek 1.1 that was quickly relegated to winter steed, before it was sadly pinched a few years later. Creatively replacing it with a Trek 1.2, Jack mostly rides this bike around local cycle paths nowadays, but when he wants to get the racer out and be competitive his preferred events are time trials, sportives, triathlons and pogo sticking - the latter being another long story.  

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
4 likes

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

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

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...).

Avatar
davel replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

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...).

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.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to davel | 5 years ago
3 likes

davel wrote:

brooksby wrote:

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...).

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 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.

Avatar
davel replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

brooksby wrote:

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...).

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 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.

...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-...

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.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to CygnusX1 | 5 years ago
3 likes

CygnusX1 wrote:

Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).

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.

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
1 like

ConcordeCX wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).

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.

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.

Avatar
john1967 | 5 years ago
1 like

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to john1967 | 5 years ago
5 likes

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Avatar
Simon E replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes

Brilliant to see club volunteer Dean Barnett getting to the last 3 of the Unsung Hero award. smiley

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Even if the media made a noise about it every driver would think "That's not an issue for me, I'm a competent driver".

Avatar
jaysa replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
6 likes

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

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 ...

Avatar
StuInNorway replied to jaysa | 5 years ago
1 like

jaysa wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Worth reading that Hansard article in full.

 

Absolutely worth a read.... Now we just need to keep reminding the politicians to actually get something done, just discussing it is not enough.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to jaysa | 5 years ago
2 likes

jaysa wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

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 ...

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.

Avatar
john1967 replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

 

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.:-)

Avatar
burtthebike replied to john1967 | 5 years ago
2 likes

john1967 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

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.:-)

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.

Avatar
john1967 replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

dup post

Avatar
john1967 replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

post.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to john1967 | 5 years ago
8 likes

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic.

<northern-comic>

That's no way to talk about t'missus!

</northern-comic>

 

Avatar
Awavey | 5 years ago
3 likes

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

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
3 likes

RE: Road rage cyclist literally loses his sh... - someone who's clearly a bit too in touch with their inner chimp?

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe - so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying... 

Avatar
StuInNorway replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe - so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying... 

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.... 

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe - so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying... 

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.

Avatar
BrianMcMahon | 5 years ago
7 likes

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!

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

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.

Was it the tandem position?

Avatar
kil0ran replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

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.

Was it the tandem position?

Suspect it depends on who's the stoker and who's the captain

Pages

Latest Comments