TdF Beefeaters win UCI Fans’ Award with THAT video; Hope in Lotus tie-up; British Cycling slams e-car ‘green’ number plate plans; 6 Day London – how to watch on BBC; Lookalike trophies; ‘Auction for Kennaugh’s Dogma F1 + more on live blog

44 thoughts on “TdF Beefeaters win UCI Fans’ Award with THAT video; Hope in Lotus tie-up; British Cycling slams e-car ‘green’ number plate plans; 6 Day London – how to watch on BBC; Lookalike trophies; ‘Auction for Kennaugh’s Dogma F1 + more on live blog”

1. Surely the American cyclist

   Surely the American cyclist should be given some sort of award.  When you attack somenone with a deadly weapon, don’t be surprised if they get upset.  Would anyone be criticising him if his attacker had used a knife or a gun?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     Surely the American cyclist should be given some sort of award.  When you attack somenone with a deadly weapon, don’t be surprised if they get upset.  Would anyone be criticising him if his attacker had used a knife or a gun?

     — burtthebike

     No, but I think I would have liked to see footage of a few minutes prior to that incident (did the cyclist do something that particularly rattled the motorist’s cage or was it ‘just’ unprovoked and/or incompetence?)

     Unfortunately, much as I agree with you, Burt, you have to remember that all the outside parties can only see the cyclist assaulting a blameless hard-pressed motorist; bad driving behaviour toward cyclists is so normalised that they probably wouldn’t notice anything ‘triggering’ the cyclist even if you put it up on a projection screen and used a laser pointer.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • brooksby wrote:

       Did the cyclist do something that particularly rattled the motorist’s cage or was it ‘just’ unprovoked and/or incompetence?

       — brooksby

       Well, evidently. They were cycling. Along a road.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Quote:

     We think this may have done the rounds before, but it’s once again making people question their moral compass on social media.

     Can this kind of violence ever be condoned? 

     Which bit of violence are you referring to?

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. brooksby, on the whole you’d

   brooksby, on the whole you’d have to argue that 99.9% of things a rider does shouldn’t provoke hitting them with a car!

    

   I had another shite attempted pass today, driver trying to pass me when I’m doing 25mph in a 30 zone then angling in to hit me. I thought when they remained behind me for a couple of hundred metres that they’d learnt but when a straight came they went again. Through the speed radar at 47mph approaching the school!!!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • alansmurphy wrote:

     brooksby, on the whole you’d have to argue that 99.9% of things a rider does shouldn’t provoke hitting them with a car!

     — alansmurphy

     I totally agree, alan: I was just curious what it was this time.

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. Would have been perfectly
   Would have been perfectly acceptable had the driver been black, the cyclist a Policeman and instead of a good kicking it was a fatal shooting.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. “Can this kind of violence

   “Can this kind of violence ever be condoned? “

   Do you mean by the driver or the cyclist?

   For the former – absolutely not.

   For the latter, well… the extent of that cyclist’s reaction would not be what I’d advise my kids to do; however, I wouldn’t be critical of them if they reacted strongly. I’d be glad that they showed that they would not tolerate that kind of bullying and aggressive behaviour.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Simon E wrote:

     “Can this kind of violence ever be condoned? “

     Do you mean by the driver or the cyclist?

     For the former – absolutely not.

     For the latter, well… the extent of that cyclist’s reaction would not be what I’d advise my kids to do; however, I wouldn’t be critical of them if they reacted strongly. I’d be glad that they showed that they would not tolerate that kind of bullying and aggressive behaviour.

     — Simon E

     I’d say that the cyclist was acting in self-defence. The driver was attempting to use their vehicle to hurt the cyclist and the cyclist had a choice to either try to cycle/run away from the quicker vehicle or to decapacitate the driver to prevent another attempt.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       “Can this kind of violence ever be condoned? “

       Do you mean by the driver or the cyclist?

       For the former – absolutely not.

       For the latter, well… the extent of that cyclist’s reaction would not be what I’d advise my kids to do; however, I wouldn’t be critical of them if they reacted strongly. I’d be glad that they showed that they would not tolerate that kind of bullying and aggressive behaviour.

       — hawkinspeter

       I’d say that the cyclist was acting in self-defence. The driver was attempting to use their vehicle to hurt the cyclist and the cyclist had a choice to either try to cycle/run away from the quicker vehicle or to decapacitate the driver to prevent another attempt.

       — Simon E

       “It’s the only way to be sure”

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       I’d say that the cyclist was acting in self-defence.

       — hawkinspeterI disagree. I’d say that even the kick to the rear wing was not really self-defence – there was no immediate risk of assault or that the vehicle was about to drive over him.

       I can’t see a justification for the subsequent use of the car door, it was just anger. I’d suggest that it is not a good way to educate the driver about the importance of respecting other road users (though a part of me feels he deserved it).

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Simon E wrote:

         I’d say that the cyclist was acting in self-defence.

         — Simon E

         I disagree. I’d say that even the kick to the rear wing was not really self-defence – there was no immediate risk of assault or that the vehicle was about to drive over him.

         I can’t see a justification for the subsequent use of the car door, it was just anger. I’d suggest that it is not a good way to educate the driver about the importance of respecting other road users (though a part of me feels he deserved it).

         — hawkinspeter

         Yeah, kicking the car is definitely not self-defence, but I’d argue that if the cyclist was fearful for his own safety, then it’s entirely reasonable to remove the weapon from the attacker (or in this case, the attacker from being able to use the weapon).

         However, if the cyclist wasn’t in fear of his own safety, then the subsequent attack cannot be condoned.

         Log In or Register to post comments

5. Quote:

   Today the Department for Transport has floated the idea of electric car drivers getting green number plates. Making them easily identifiable will make it possible for local authorities to allow e-car drivers to benefit from incentives such as cheaper parking, and even using bus lanes according to the DfT.

   Isn’t the aim that within a few years no new ICE vehicles will be sold, and after that the ultimate aim is for there to be no ICE vehicles on the roads at all?

   So, more and more vehicles will be ‘green’ vehicles attracting all these extra perks.

   So, at what point will the Govt have to turn around and say, “You know all those perks?  Sorry, but you can’t have them any more”?

   (Allowing them to use bus lanes?  Why?  Isn’t the point of bus lanes so that the buses aren’t held up by all the other traffic?).

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     Isn’t the aim that within a few years no new ICE vehicles will be sold, and after that the ultimate aim is for there to be no ICE vehicles on the roads at all?

     So, more and more vehicles will be ‘green’ vehicles attracting all these extra perks.

     So, at what point will the Govt have to turn around and say, “You know all those perks?  Sorry, but you can’t have them any more”?

     (Allowing them to use bus lanes?  Why?  Isn’t the point of bus lanes so that the buses aren’t held up by all the other traffic?).

     — brooksby

     What’s the quote that comes to mind here? Aah yes “You’re not stuck in traffic, you are the traffic”

      

     It all seems like a bit of an ego self-massaging excercise to me, like people who just have to tell you they’re vegan, or do crossfit, or ride a fixie.

     “Look, my car’s got a green plate so I’m better than you”

     Urgh! By all means do what you can to not kill the planet, but don’t be a dick about it. I won’t pat the backs of people who buy brand new electric cars, junking their 3-5 y/o motor in the process, untill they can tell me where the waste battery sludge is going. Hell, even nuclear power has a more thought-out end of life process (not a good one, but it’s been considered at least)

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. Green number plates an empty

   Green number plates an empty gesture?  Empty gesture would be a compliment; it is a sticking plaster on a broken leg.  It is a pathetic attempt by a government which thinks we’re all stupid to pretend that they are doing something about climate change, which e-cars won’t affect.

   Speaking of e-cars did anyone else see the last Panorama “Climate change: what can we do?”  Massive segment on e-cars, with the clear implication that they are zero carbon, but nothing, not so much as a flicker in the background about the real answer: cycling, not even e-bikes.  The transport bit starts at 14:00.  The BBC is possibly the most biased media in the country when it comes to bikes, and I’ve bunged in another complaint, and I expect a standard fatuous response in the next few weeks.

   https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0009drg/panorama-climate-change-what-can-we-do

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. The sooner Sir Chris of

   The sooner Sir Chris of Boardman is made supreme leader the better, he’s the only person in the public eye who ever seems to talk any sense.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. This incident did not happen

   This incident did not happen in the US, Mexico or Canada.  The license plates visible on several vehicles are not in the North American format.

   Secondly, clearly the driver of the SUV has either deliberately assaulted the cyclist, or they are driving in an impaired state.  They are also leaving the scene of the incident.  Their behavior needs to be called to task.

   At the very least, they should pay for any damage to the bicycle, and their driving license should be revoked.  And there should be some sanctions beyond that to create an disincentive to this kind of driving.

   But the cyclist serving as judge, jury, and executioner is not the best way to settle this matter.  Unfortunately, it is possible that the cyclist believed that there was no way to see justice done, leading to their kicking the motor vehicle as an act of frustration.

   But once the driver of the SUV begins to exit the vehicle, I would suggest that the cyclist should have a right to defend themself against an attack.  Not knowing what the motorist said when they were exiting the SUV, I don’t know if this was justified or not.

   I recently found myself being pickpocketed by a group using the “bump and grab” method.  Taken alone my response would be viewed as a violent attack on the actual wallet lifter.  In the context of stopping a crime being committed,  placing a choke hold on the pickpocket was a justified response.

   Same thing here.  Did the motorist threaten the cyclist as they exited their vehicle?  Then the cyclist’s action is justified.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Dangerous Dan wrote:

     This incident did not happen in the US, Mexico or Canada.  The license plates visible on several vehicles are not in the North American format.

     […]

     — Dangerous Dan

     it’s Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • ConcordeCX wrote:

       it’s Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

       — ConcordeCX

       In that case, totally justified…

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • ConcordeCX wrote:

       This incident did not happen in the US, Mexico or Canada.  The license plates visible on several vehicles are not in the North American format.

       […]

       — ConcordeCX

       it’s Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

       — Dangerous Dan

       Good old Russian road rage. Possibly the best Russian road rage attack ever;

       https://twitter.com/CamsRussian/status/1172638722174701568

       Log In or Register to post comments

9. If the driver had done that

   If the driver had done that to a police officer it would be classed as attempted murder (even in the UK) and the driver be lucky not to have a full clip unloaded through the windscreen.

   UK police use another vehicle, a baton and extreme physical force once they get their hands on the friver in same situation so why do they charge the victims of assault when defending themselves in a lesser way than the police do to stop being attacked?

   Frankly they got off lightly and might think twice about driving like a ####, next time the cyclist might be carrying a deadly weapon and use it in a similar fashion the attacker did here to repel their attempt to kill them!

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Slamming the car door on the

    Slamming the car door on the driver’s legs was a nice touch.

    Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Plasterer’s Radio wrote:

      Slamming the car door on the driver’s legs was a nice touch.

      Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

      — Plasterer's Radio

      I’ve often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you’ve also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • hawkinspeter wrote:

        Slamming the car door on the driver’s legs was a nice touch.

        Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

        — hawkinspeter

        I’ve often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you’ve also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

        — Plasterer's Radio

        i don’t wear cleats so I don’t know if this would work, but in WWII our brave boys were taught to fight very dirty indeed by one W E Fairbairn (well worth googlng), who recommends as follows in his book “All-in Fighting” (I haven’t tried any of this):

        No. 3. Boot (Side Kick)

        With a few exceptions, the kick with the boot should be made sideways. It will be noted that in this method you are able to put more force behind your blow and can, if necessary, reach farther.

        1. Turn sideways to your opponent, taking the weight of your body on your left foot. Bending your left leg slightly from your knee, raise your right foot two to four inches off the ground, as in Fig. 7. Shoot your right foot outwards to your right, aiming to strike your opponent’s leg just below the knee-cap.

        2. Follow the blow through, scraping your opponent’s shin with the edge of the boot from the knee to the instep, finishing up with all your weight on your right foot, and smash the small bones of the foot. If necessary, follow up with a chin jab with your left hand (Fig. 8).

        Note. Where the kick is to be made with the left foot, reverse the above.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • hawkinspeter wrote:

        Slamming the car door on the driver’s legs was a nice touch.

        Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

        — hawkinspeter

        I’ve often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you’ve also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

        — Plasterer's Radio

        Ah! At last, a sensible reason to settle the helmet debate forever! When attacked while on a bicycle, if you’re wearing a helmet just headbutt the f*%kers. They won’t forget that in a hurry…  🙂  (& if you’re not wearing a helmet, well, it was your choice to leave home unarmed.)

        Log In or Register to post comments

11. e-cars still cause congestion

    e-cars still cause congestion – and until we have a less carbon intensive source of electricity  e-cars contribute more to global warming than diesel.

    They only win out on the local air pollution – but then more stringent controls on liquid fuel cars can help with that as well.

    Fundamentally we need to reduce the number of cars on the road – I like the japanese approach – roads are free and open to use – you just can’t park on street overnight (towed and heavy fines enforced) and you need to prove you have off street parking before you can own a car.

    Yes that means in cities car ownership is a luxury for the better off due to the cost of parking space – but it doesn’t penalise rural communities where space is not at a premium and public transport is not as economical to provide.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. RE green plates – it’s an
    RE green plates – it’s an absolutely terrible idea, at least the part about using bus-lanes. That bit is profoundly stupid (or maybe they know full well what they are doing and are just hoping the rest of us are stupid?).

    Letting EVs (other than buses) in bus lanes, means taking space from an entirely non-polluting mode (cycling) and a per-passenger-relatively-less-polluting one (buses), and giving it to a polluting mode (electric cars still produce pollution, at the power plants and via tyre/brake pad particles). And it means stealing space from modes that take up little road-space-per-passenger and giving it to one that takes up a lot.

    And, at the same time, freeing up more space in the main highway to allow still more of the most polluting mode (diesel cars).

    It’s making things worse and calling it ‘environmentalism’.

    (Oh, and I bet such a system would get ‘gamed’ with bogus plates and other scams)

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

      RE green plates – it’s an absolutely terrible idea, at least the part about using bus-lanes. That bit is profoundly stupid (or maybe they know full well what they are doing and are just hoping the rest of us are stupid?)

      — FluffyKittenofTindalos

      This has been Government policy for most of the last decade hasn’t it? I can think of at least one prime example.

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. The other problem with the

    The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don’t really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as “affordable to all” now that you can pick up a second hand one for “less than £7,000”. 

    I don’t know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so … not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

    If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation’s leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Jetmans Dad wrote:

      The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don’t really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as “affordable to all” now that you can pick up a second hand one for “less than £7,000”. 

      I don’t know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so … not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

      If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation’s leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

      — Jetmans Dad

      You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV.

      There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated.

      If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it’s a win for everybody.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Rich_cb wrote:

        The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don’t really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as “affordable to all” now that you can pick up a second hand one for “less than £7,000”. 

        I don’t know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so … not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

        If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation’s leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

        — Rich_cb

        You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV.

        There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated.

        If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it’s a win for everybody.

        — Jetmans Dad

        But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn’t increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

        That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

        Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes ‘affordable’ for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that’s still not a good thing.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

          The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don’t really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as “affordable to all” now that you can pick up a second hand one for “less than £7,000”. 

          I don’t know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so … not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

          If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation’s leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

          — FluffyKittenofTindalos You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV. There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated. If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it’s a win for everybody.— Rich_cb But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn’t increase the total use of motorised vehicles. That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars. Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes ‘affordable’ for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that’s still not a good thing.— Jetmans Dad

          Fluffy Kitten baby, consider your head well and truly scratched.  A masterly summation of why the argument for e-cars is false.

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

          But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn’t increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

          That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

          Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes ‘affordable’ for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that’s still not a good thing.

          — FluffyKittenofTindalos

          The argument you’ve presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car.

          Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you’ll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear.

          If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear.

          In fact, by your own argument, EVs are the best alternative to ICEVs as they would free up the least amount of road space therefore leading to the smallest increase in car numbers.

          Clearly your argument is flawed.

          The most disadvantaged members of society tend to be exposed to the highest levels of pollution so while perks of EV ownership may benefit the wealthy disproportionately, the benefits of reduced local
          pollution will be felt mostly by the disadvantaged.

          Your point about decreasing safety for cyclists is valid.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Rich_cb wrote:

            But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn’t increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

            That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

            Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes ‘affordable’ for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that’s still not a good thing.

            — Rich_cb

            The argument you’ve presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car.

            Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you’ll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear.

            If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear.

            In fact, by your own argument, EVs are the best alternative to ICEVs as they would free up the least amount of road space therefore leading to the smallest increase in car numbers.

            Clearly your argument is flawed.

            The most disadvantaged members of society tend to be exposed to the highest levels of pollution so while perks of EV ownership may benefit the wealthy disproportionately, the benefits of reduced local
            pollution will be felt mostly by the disadvantaged.— FluffyKittenofTindalos

            I think it’s quite possible that my not driving leaves more space which is then taken up by others. Certainly the space it makes available for parking outside gets used by others. That’s why individual choices not to drive don’t necessarily achieve much, when what is needed is collective action enforced by the state.

            Same goes for your bus ‘argument’ – that’s why just providing buses isn’t enough, you also need bus lanes and other restrictions on car use (I hate buses, personally, always get horribly travel sick on them, especially in winter when they seem to recycle engine fumes as heating, plus I always find them, door-to-door, slower than walking, never mind cycling – but I guess they have their place as part of a solution)

            But what does any of that have to do with the point about EVs? My argument isn’t flawed, your counter-argument makes no sense! Probably because it was hastily cobbled together.

            As for the last point – how nice of the fortunate to deign to stop poisoning the less-fortunate. Maybe they could be obliged to do that via a stick rather than a carrot, though? Why should they have to be bribed to do that?

            Perks for EVs would be acceptable if, and only if, they came entirely at the cost of ICEVs. By all means ban ICEVs from some roads that are currently used by all, leaving them for cyclists and EVs only. Just don’t take space from buses or cyclists or pedestrians to do it. Same with parking.

            (Oh, though Jetmans_dad’s argument would still apply, though while I do take that point it’s not a fight I personally feel like getting into…it is similar, though, to why I don’t like excessively generous ‘feed in’ tariffs for micro solar and the like – it ends up as a means of redistributing wealth upward, with not much real environmental benefit)

          • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

            I think it’s quite possible that my not driving leaves more space which is then taken up by others. Certainly the space it makes available for parking outside gets used by others. That’s why individual choices not to drive don’t necessarily achieve much, when what is needed is collective action enforced by the state.

            Same goes for your bus ‘argument’ – that’s why just providing buses isn’t enough, you also need bus lanes and other restrictions on car use (I hate buses, personally, always get horribly travel sick on them, especially in winter when they seem to recycle engine fumes as heating, plus I always find them, door-to-door, slower than walking, never mind cycling – but I guess they have their place as part of a solution)

            But what does any of that have to do with the point about EVs? My argument isn’t flawed, your counter-argument makes no sense! Probably because it was hastily cobbled together.

            As for the last point – how nice of the fortunate to deign to stop poisoning the less-fortunate. Maybe they could be obliged to do that via a stick rather than a carrot, though? Why should they have to be bribed to do that?

            Perks for EVs would be acceptable if, and only if, they came entirely at the cost of ICEVs. By all means ban ICEVs from some roads that are currently used by all, leaving them for cyclists and EVs only. Just don’t take space from buses or cyclists or pedestrians to do it. Same with parking.

            (Oh, though Jetmans_dad’s argument would still apply, though while I do take that point it’s not a fight I personally feel like getting into…it is similar, though, to why I don’t like excessively generous ‘feed in’ tariffs for micro solar and the like – it ends up as a means of redistributing wealth upward, with not much real environmental benefit)

            — FluffyKittenofTindalos

            Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, all bus passengers, pedestrians and cyclists should get EVs. This would (apparently) reduce pollution…
            Car drivers however should not.

            The problem with the stick approach is that, inevitably, it is the poorest in society who can least easily adjust to new punitive regulations.

            Emission regulations merely punish the owners of older cars who tend to be poorer. Likewise road charging and any other financial penalty. The rich can simply pay it, the poor, less so.

            Perks for EVs can be viewed in the same way as subsidies for off shore wind. Initially expensive but once the subsidised infrastructure is in place and the technology established then the free market will rapidly increase take up benefiting everyone.

            I agree that home solar is/was an expensive farce.

          • Rich_cb wrote:

             The argument you’ve presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car. Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you’ll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear. If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear. d.

            — Rich_cb

            This does appear to be what happens in London as far as I can see, as the number of cars on the road doesn’t seem to decrease as the number of bikes increases. But that doesn’t mean that there are more cars on the road than there were before, it just means that there are different cars, presumably the ones whose drivers previously didn’t come into London because of congestion, or chose another method.

            And as the number of bikes grows so they take up more road space and, where they would use segregated space, including bus lanes, they also use more unsegregated space, which makes life more difficult for a lot of drivers, and could stop them from driving in, or make them come in at a less cyclist-heavy time.

          • ConcordeCX wrote:

            This does appear to be what happens in London as far as I can see, as the number of cars on the road doesn’t seem to decrease as the number of bikes increases. But that doesn’t mean that there are more cars on the road than there were before, it just means that there are different cars, presumably the ones whose drivers previously didn’t come into London because of congestion, or chose another method.

            And as the number of bikes grows so they take up more road space and, where they would use segregated space, including bus lanes, they also use more unsegregated space, which makes life more difficult for a lot of drivers, and could stop them from driving in, or make them come in at a less cyclist-heavy time.

            — ConcordeCX

            London traffic has declined hugely since 2000. Driven largely by a decrease in private cars.

14. There seems to be a trend
    There seems to be a trend towards smoked grey plates, seemingly designed to be difficult to read. Usually on tricked out Audis or BMWs. Police don’t seem to care, so presumably you could have any colour you want, here and now.

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. I often wonder how many bikes

    I often wonder how many bikes expros have kicking around. Well I am not on Twitter so that is me out of the running straight away. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

16. burtthebike wrote:

    Fluffy Kitten baby, consider your head well and truly scratched.  A masterly summation of why the argument for e-cars is false.

    — burtthebike

    yep, an extra scratch from me too.

    I’d like to know who is promoting the idea, because a traffic engineer worth their salt would never do it. The concept of induced demand is well understood. Commuters value time above all else. Allowing cars to use bus lanes is like making the road bigger, you increase its capacity and temporarily increase traffic flow. But if you make it faster for cars, more will use cars. And as you don’t increase flow at feeder roads or destinations the congestion will return worse than before.

    A bus rapid transit lane can move 22,000 people per hour. The same lane for cars just 2,000 per hour. If you can move 11x more people in the same amount of land with buses why handicap them by letting wealthy selfish virtue signallers in cars reduce throughput to their level? And of course doing so will impact traffic speed in adjacent lanes, because those drivers will not wait behind a stationary bus and will change lanes to get past them. They know all this. So why even suggest it?

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. Re Lotus, the 108 won the

    Re Lotus, the 108 won the Olympic pursuit and not the hour record, unless my memory is playing tricks with me. Boardman later rode the 110 on the road with Gan.

    Log In or Register to post comments

18. Well done pretty, Rich has

    Well done pretty, Rich has said you got one correct.

     

    And no, it’s your logic that is flawed Rich. If more people left their cars at home, increasing space and safety, then more people would realise the lack of the need for the car and more people would ride… In fact, driving would then be seen as a luxury, economies of scale would lessen, investment could move away from building more and more roads car parks and be placed instead into sustainable transport…

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • alansmurphy wrote:

      And no, it’s your logic that is flawed Rich. If more people left their cars at home, increasing space and safety, then more people would realise the lack of the need for the car and more people would ride… In fact, driving would then be seen as a luxury, economies of scale would lessen, investment could move away from building more and more roads car parks and be placed instead into sustainable transport…

       

      — alansmurphy

      That isn’t the argument that’s being made by FKoT. They argue that increased road space leads to more traffic. Ergo, anything that frees up road space creates pollution. If it’s true for EVs it will be even more true for cycling/walking.

      Personally I think cycling/walking etc are the best solution to pollution, followed by (electric) public transport, followed by EVs.

      EVs are a good short term solution to local pollution while we work on the huge cultural shift required to get more people cycling and walking.

      Log In or Register to post comments

19. The cyclist is only

    The cyclist is only attempting to disarm his attacker, in self defence. Once the attacker’s weapon is removed there is less chance of it being used to cause the cyclist more serious harm.

    Also, obviously agree with Chris Boardman. However hope that Goverrnment action to reduce polluting car usage is done via petrol/diesel tax rather than VED. As somoeone who uses their bike more than the car I cannot warrant the expense of an electric car but on the occasion I do need to transport more than myself great distances I use my car. Paying a fortune not to use it when my neighbour drives all day every day around town for only a £30 VED penalty seems unfair…

    Log In or Register to post comments