Tour de France director says the question of Pogačar doping is “not an illegitimate one”; Should people get tax relief for cycling to work?; Chloe Dygert drops out of stage race… after bumping into door and breaking her nose + more on the live blog
First Published: Oct 9, 2024
SUMMARY
Some gorgeous Tommasinis to commemorate the passing of Italian bike-building icon Irio Tommasini (ft. road.cc’s Stay Awesome stickers)
In case you missed it, bike-building maestro and just simply a legend in the annals of the cycling world, Irio Tommasini passed away yesterday, aged 91.
And what better way to celebrate the man’s work than road.cc reader and a Tommasini tifoso Mike Curtis’ cave of the beautiful, gorgeous Tommasini bikes. He wrote: “Goodnight, wonderful Signor Irio; sleep well. Thank you for all your wonderful work, and rest assured that your memory will live on forever thanks to your wonderful creations… It was an honour to have met you.”
PS. Thanks for keeping our Stay Awesome stickers in your workshop, Mike!
Video shows Tadej Pogačar take the lead in discussing with organisers to call off Italian classic Tre Valli Varesine amidst heavy thunderstorm and flooding
More about what went down in the horrific conditions in Lombardy yesterday (thankfully, no one was injured): “We couldn’t see where we were going”: Pogačar leads safety charge as Italian classic race cancelled mid-race due to excessive flooding, with “water as high as disc rotors” and “manhole covers getting lifted up off the floor”
Some totally out of context Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan cycling in rainy Moscow.
Make of this what you will now…
Some totally out of context Armenian President Pashinyan cycling in rainy Moscow. pic.twitter.com/1MfNeqbFEv
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) October 8, 2024
“There is a very good bicycle path along the Moskva River, and we rode our bikes today,” Pashinyanm who travelled to Moscow to participate in the meeting of the CIS Heads of State Council, said.
“A close call is when they miss you, not when they hit you”: Cyclists criticise judge for giving suspended prison sentence to drug driver who knocked cyclist 20 feet in the air
There’s been a lot of chatter around the suspended prison sentence story for the driver who was found with twice the legal limit for cannabis in his system hit a cyclist while overtaking a stalled car at a red light, sending the rider coming from the opposite direction flying 20 feet into the air and leaving him with serious injuries.
CCTV footage of the incident showed Danial Arshad cause a head-on collision with Nicholas Cooper, who suffered a collapsed lung, fractures to his ribs and spine, and even a risk of paralysis, with the judge himself saying “Mr Cooper was very fortunate not to have died.”
However, the judge also described the incident as a “close call” and said it was clear Arshad being “impatient” and “under the influence to some extent of cannabis” had caused it, ultimately handing him a 10 year suspended prison sentence. He was suspended for driving for three years and is required to undertake 15 days of rehabilitation activity and 300 hours of unpaid work as part of his sentence.
The sentence seems to have caught a lot of backlash from cyclists, who described the decision as “appalling” and “joke of a sentence”.
A cyclist who goes by the name of Orpington Cyclist on Twitter tagged the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and asked: “What does the below tell you about road safety in the UK?”
Another person replied saying that “the timing of that report coincides perfectly with Louise Haigh’s discussions on road safety” and that “without sentencing that reflects the severity, less people will want to cycle and bad or dangerous drivers will have little to deter them from endangering others in the future.”
Meanwhile, another person replied to road.cc’s tweet about the news criticising the judge describing the incident as a close call, saying: “A close call is when they miss you not when they hit you. What hope do you have with judges like this?”
There were several others who thought the judge’s sentence was too lenient, one even saying: “Judge needs sacking, not competent to take the evidence and create a sentence or needs to fine the driver 50k and ban for ten years.”
Another person wrote: “I know it’s not comparable but a woman was recently jailed for 12 weeks for missing a probation appointment 20 yrs ago, thereby losing her job & her children. What’s worse, missing an appointment, or drug-driving & hitting a cyclist? What’s gone wrong with our legal system?”
Again more compassion given to the offender (showed absolute contempt towards the law) rather than to the victim (received life altering injuries).
“Under the influence to some extent of cannabis” shows diminished view towards what is a serious offence.
— Dj_Caress (@dj_caress) October 8, 2024
On Facebook, Howard Crompton wrote: “That made my stomach turn. The cyclist in question has been let down so badly it’s untrue. I hope he puts in an extensive insurance claim too. How is there any tolerance for drink or drugs I don’t know. I know it won’t stop people doing it, but sentences like this are outrageous.”
Fairley Grist said: “I was initially angry about this and Having seen the video and read the comments from the judge almost excusing the driver and saying it was a “close call” I am absolutely fuming and disgusted at the sentencing.”
However, under the road.cc report, reader alexuk thought that the sentence was harsh on the cyclist but ultimately fair, writing: “May sound harsh, but seems appropriate given the evidence. He didn’t see the cyclist hauling ass towards him, if he did, it seems likely he wouldn’t have pulled out; clearly intention to do harm could not be proven.
“If he pulled out having seen the cyclist, then dangerous all-day. I’m glad the driver is off the road for the next 3yrs and has to spend the next two years on best behaviour with mandated rehab + 300hrs unpaid.
“Sometimes accidents happen. I hope the rider manages to find himself again and the driver makes a positive change to his life.”
New road.cc podcast episode klaxon: Is Tadej Pogačar the greatest cyclist who’s ever lived? Plus we ask: What’s going on with cycling media in 2024?
In the latest episode of the road.cc Podcast, we dive headfirst into the GOAT debate before going all meta with a chat about the current cycling media landscape, why it’s changed (and changing), and whether we should be worried about the future…
Amazon Prime Day cycling deals: Garmin Edge 530 down to £182, huge light savings including 43% off Cateye AMPP light set + 27% off Magicshine, big discounts on tools + more
What’s that? The sound of our capitalist overlords throwing us some scraps?! I guess we’ll take it!
As always, we’re only recommending things here that are genuinely the cheapest on the internet right now, and if you see it for less anywhere else (or in a physical bike shop) let us know and we’re happy to send people to the better deal instead. Try not to buy stuff you don’t need for obvious reasons, and be sure to sign up for an Amazon Prime accountto take advantage of the deals, free delivery etc.
Don’t tell the Bezos, but you can just sign up for a one-month trial and stick a reminder in your phone to cancel it when this latest bargain-fest is over and done with.
Big question of the day: Should people who cycle to work get a tax relief?
Oooh! Big questions coming in from the Twitter user CycleNotts, who’s made good use of the Norman Rockwell painting ‘Freedom of Speech’ meme trend, to say something so brave and so controversial…
I believe people who cycle to work should get Tax relief of 20p per mile. pic.twitter.com/mbVmL1UkCE
— CycleNotts² (@CycleNott) October 8, 2024
Lots of people had lots of different thoughts about this idea, with cyclist going by the username of ‘Real Gaz on a proper bike’ on social media, saying: “I applaud and agree with this. Cycling to work is a positive health intervention which should be rewarded and encouraged.”
Steve Hunt, meanwhile, seemed to be fixated on the feasibilities of how the whole tax relief thing would work: “I like the concept, but how could it be practically administered? How do you prove a distance cycled and not driven?”
CycleNotts, the instigator of this online conversation, noted that the policy does work in other countries. In the Netherlands, for almost two decades businesses have rewarded bike-riding commuters €0.19 per kilometre, a spend the government allows them to deduct from their tax bill.
This mileage allowance was previously only available to drivers who could claim it to cover the cost of fuel. Since bikes don’t require expensive petrol, cyclists can simply pocket the money — which can amount up to €450 a year if someone’s cycling 10 kilometres a day, five days a week!
Even Belgium and France have similar schemes in place. In fact, one in five employees of small and medium-sized Belgian enterprises received a bicycle allowance of €0.24 per cycled kilometre in the first half of 2022. And in France, commuters can claim up to €0.25 per kilometre they cycle to work, up to a yearly cap of around €200.
So back to the big question, do you think the UK should introduce a similar tax relief for those cycling to work — saving the planet and improving mental and physical health at the same time? Let us know in the comments!
"Banned" bike shop claims Shimano won't let it inspect Hollowtech cranks as part of its "inspection and replacement" programme due to failing 100% of them
One year on from Shimano announcing a voluntary inspection and replacement recall of Hollowtech cranks, a UK-based bike shop has claimed it has been “banned” from the inspection programme after the components giant took issue with its policy of sending all cranks back to the manufacturer due to safety concerns.
“Bad luck taking impressive proportions”: Chloe Dygert drops out of Simac Ladies Tour… after bumping into a door and breaking her nose
Ahead of the second stage of the Simac Ladies Tour, Team Canyon-SRAM has announced that it’s lost three of its riders in a day, with Maike van der Duin and Soraya Paladin suffering from illness, while former American road and time trial champion Chloe Dygert has withdrawn after she broke her nose… apparently after bumping into a door.
It’s as if you Tyche herself came to the earth and decided to curse the team bus of Canyon-SRAM…
#SLT2024
We start stage 2 with @Backstedt_Zoe and Alex Morrice only.@chloedygert30 broke her nose before stage 1 and will stop the tour for a better recovery, while @SorayaPaladin and Maike van der Duin are, unfortunately, unwell. pic.twitter.com/oJ3JCHOscX— CANYON//SRAM Racing & CANYON//SRAM Generation (@WMNcycling) October 9, 2024
Dygert’s situation has left cycling fans confused and baffled — with the 27-year-old not enjoying a lot of luck lately. She suffered a horror injury four years ago, suffering a severe laceration to her left leg. But while she has recovered from that setback, illnesses and other injuries have never really left her side — which Dygert claims has disallowed her from achieving her full potential.
She did manage to win two medals, one each in road and track cycling at the Paris Olympics earlier this year. However, at the individual time trial, she crashed on the wet Parisian roads, losing crucial time in her bid for gold and had to settle for bronze, and then at the road race was the architect of her own downfall when she divebombed her Canyon-SRAM teammate Elise Chabbey and caused a crash.
Canyon SRAM at the Simac Ladies Tour has gone from a pretty big high to a low…
Stage win yesterday and now down to 2 riders after illness hits and Chloe Dygert…*checks notes* bumps into a door #SLT2024 https://t.co/vKVAsOnSsx pic.twitter.com/3PLimgkwjX
— Mathew Mitchell (@MatMitchell30) October 9, 2024
Just weeks ago, Dygert — a self-proclaimed Conservative and ‘not-a-femisinist’ who was the focus of a controversy a few years ago when she liked transphobic and racist posts on Twitter — once again fell just short of claiming the road world championship title in Zürich, getting outsprinted by eventual winner and arguably one of the best sprinters in the peloton, Lotte Kopecky.
“It’s still hard to say that I’m happy… I just could not wait for Paris because I knew it was going to be a course for me. I knew it was going to be flat and I was so excited. So to not have a good day on race day was frustrating,” she told Olympics.com, after her third-place finish at the time trial, having missed silver by a few seconds.
> Chloe Dygert apology for social media conduct “not sufficient” says Rapha
All that aside, situation has gone from a euphoric high to a difficult low for Canyon-SRAM, leaving the team with just two riders for the six-day stage-race in the Netherlands, the British duo of Alex Morrice and Zoe Bäckstedt, who took her first pro win yesterday, winning the first stage, a 10.1km time trial in Gennep.
Driver drinking vodka from 7Up bottle in car crashes into cyclist on bike lane while six times over drink drive limit – and offers victim €2,500 as “token of remorse”
A motorist who was drinking vodka from a 7Up bottle at the wheel when she struck a cyclist from behind on a cycle lane, leaving the rider with concussion and ongoing pain and discomfort, offered him €2,500 as a “token of remorse” before pleading guilty to careless driving.
Tour de France director says the question of Pogačar doping is “not an illegitimate one”, but lauds him for bring a true champion like Merckx and Hinault with a “will to win everything” while still “having fun”
As the 2024 road cycling season approaches its conclusion, there’s one name who has been everywhere, done everything and won (almost) everything. First, it was the solo win in Strade Bianche, then he won the Volta a Catalunya with more stage wins than the rest of the peloton combined, and then, exorcising ghosts from past year, he won the Liège-Bastogne-Liège for a second time.
As the spring gave way to summer, and as the classics and monuments gave way to the two Grand Tours, Pogačar simply went and got what he wanted: the first Giro-Tour double since Marco Pantani in 1998. After deciding to skip the Paris Olympics, allowing himself a break and rejuvenation period of sorts, last month, he repeated what he had just done, ie. get what he wanted — it was the rainbow jersey this time — and with that, the hallowed ‘Triple Crown’ of cycling.
But as cycling fans would know, with wins and success comes intense scrutiny. In a sport which has made legends and seen them torn down by malpractices, it would make sense that admirers and regulators of the sport alike would pay extra attention, having been burnt not once, not twice, but many times.
It was Jonas Vingegaard and the Visma-Lease a Bike (Jumbo Visma back then) who was subject to the microscopic lens after his two consecutive Tour de France wins last year, and now the attention seems to have fallen back on Pogačar — this time, it’s the Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme himself who’s aired the questions.
In an interview with La Dépêche du Midi, Christian Prudhomme was asked to share his thoughts on the question of doping question in he sport, and if he’d be surprised to find out in future that Pogačar had, in fact, been using performance-enhancing drugs.
He replied: “Given the past of cycling and not so far, your question is not illegitimate. I do not have an answer. I note that it gives a boost to cycling competitions, by stages or one day, quite impressive. The controls exist, we fought with ASO to have independents, today it is the case with ITA [International Testing Agency]. There you go…”
He ended the question by giving Pogačar his roses still, saying: “We’re back to how it used to be, that is to say champions who are there from the beginning to the end of the season and with this will to win everything, which makes him similar to not only Eddy Merckx, but also to Bernard Hinault…
“For years, I heard Bernard say that these guys have to rediscover their sense of the game again, they have to have fun! That’s exactly what Pogacar is doing.”
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.
52 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
If you really want to see a bad cycling website have a look at the Singletrackworld one.................
Shame on you Lancaster Police, but then that is what others here have been saying for a long time Rather unfair! I doubt if Lancaster police are any worse than the great mass of the rest of Lancashire Constabulary
Apart from the ~200 spaces at the shopping centre at the end of the road. And a whole load more at the Morrisons about two minutes walk away. Other than that, nowhere at all...
DRIVERS OF HGVS
Would there have such uproar or would this be have made the news if it didn't involve a bike lane? Presumably the other road works would have happened anyway but seen as a minor inconvenience. But cyclists.
"Specialist Met Police units that investigate fatal collisions involving DRIVER OF HGV’s and London buses..."
It's well known that innocent bystanders, and the driver of the vehicle veering off the road and into them, have equal culpability.
This is interesting (that most reports come from cyclists) as I thought CyclingMikey said that the majority of dangerous driving reports are from other drivers. Not sure if he meant for the Met police (London) or country wide. So it would be good to get countrywide stats and breakdowns.
Right. And you're supposed to do what, exactly, when you spot someone driving straight at you?
It's not really even taxpayers money. Calling it that is part of the continued attempt by the right to frame public finances in the same way as personal finances in order to persuade people to support spending cuts.
52 thoughts on “Tour de France director says the question of Pogačar doping is “not an illegitimate one”; Should people get tax relief for cycling to work?; Chloe Dygert drops out of stage race… after bumping into door and breaking her nose + more on the live blog”
It’s your website of course
It’s your website of course so it’s up to you, but surprised to see you quoting alexuk’s comments here. If you have the facility to look at the entirety of their comments (something that would be a really useful feature to add for all users by the way, at the moment clicking on somebody’s name just gets a “No bikes allowed” page) you will see that they are a fairly notorious anti-cyclist, pro-motorist troll in the Nigel mould whose only purpose here is to cause annoyance and draw attention to themselves (and yes, I know I fall for it far too often).
“sometimes accidents happen”.
“sometimes accidents happen”.
Enough said.
Kendalred wrote:
Accidentally deciding to rage overtake a stalled car and using the oncoming lane despite it not being clear to do so.
It’s disgusting that some people (including our “justice” system) believe that not seeing a clearly visible road user is some kind of mitigation when it’s actually a very good reason to prevent that person from ever driving again. Whether or not they intended to main and injure is beside the point – if they can’t drive safely then why are they allowed to hold a driving license?
Kendalred wrote:
He went on to suggest that surely all road.cc had made mistakes – that will undoubtedly be true, but I doubt many of us have driven under the influence of cannabis.
Steve K wrote:
I’m not convinced that the cannabis influence is the main cause of his disastrous driving, but simply another reason why his license should be removed. It was his choice to perform that overtake in such a manner and I think focussing on whether he’d smoked or had a bad night’s sleep or was just generally irritable and impatient is missing the point that when driving you are responsible for checking that it is safe to perform a maneouvre. Obviously, drinking drastically affects decision making and reaction times, but habitual smokers will often have no measurable change in reaction times or ability to make quick decisions. There has even been some studies that show that a habitual smoker may drive better when medicated to their usual level rather than feeling withdrawal affects (e.g. yawning, aversion to bright lights).
Possibly quoted due to a need
Possibly quoted due to a need to present a balanced report of comments and public opinion.
I probably cycle more mileage than most people on this site. I’m just not a left-wing, ignorant young person. The case was sad, but you have to understand how law works. Thankfully courts work on facts, not feelings and the lynch-mob on this site aren’t working in the court. The guy in the car was a d**k, clearly, but the driver hasn’t exactly got off scott-free. Is jailing him the best thing for the public? probably not. Most of London is on one kind of drugs or another. Its amazing how much drugs you can smell when cycling through urban and rural towns these days, so its hard for the court to say it was the drugs that caused him to pull out, not see the cyclist and cause the crash. Sometimes people just make mistakes when driving and he made one. Should his life be forever-ruined as a result of one mistake? Justice is what the courts dish out, not lynching. Thankfully the cyclist survived, which is the most important.
alexuk wrote:
Should a cyclist’s life be forever-ruined as a result of one driver’s mistake? Is it justice to allow the driver to continue making driving mistakes and possibly ruin other people’s lives?
To give a bit of perspective to this issue, consider that Just Stop Oil had activists jailed for five years simply for planning on delaying drivers on the M25. Should their lives be ruined for a peaceful demonstration to attempt to get the then government to simply do what the current government has now done in terms of not opening new coal mines or drilling new oil fields?
Did those anarchits
Did those anarchits intentionally plan do something? Yes they did. Easy for a court to convict. Facts, not feelings. The driver did not intentionally set out to hurt the cyclist at any point and you cant prove he did. He did something that 90% of motorists would do, regardless of drugs, sadly. I don’t make the law. Just seems so little of you understand it.
Just Stop Oil are hyprochrits. They should protest in asia and stop preaching to the choir.
Quote “He did something that
Quote “He did something that 90% of motorists would do”
IS that a FACT?
alexuk wrote:
I didn’t know that they were anarchists? Citation, please.
Anyhoo – I think Peter’s complaint is that they were jailed for planning to do something that they didn’t actually do.
brooksby wrote:
I think there’s a distinction between anarchists who believe that there should not be an “authority” and activists who believe (and have very strong evidence for) that the authorities are controlled by oil corporations who aim to make profit from the destruction of our habitats i.e. authorities that serve the interests of the 1% rather than everyone else.
Some of the protests went ahead, but the jail terms were for the planning of the disruption.
More info available here: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/14/climate/uk-climate-protests-policing-laws-prison-intl/index.html
hawkinspeter wrote:
That was my point, Peter, but you’ve put it better 😀
brooksby wrote:
no you misread the post, they are anarchits who are against the writing of short notes!
alexuk wrote:
The facts of the matter are that violent protesters (e.g. the rabid right wing that were attacking police and aiming to kill asylum seekers) garner a shorter sentence than peaceful protesters. It’s also notable how the court prevented the JSO defendants from using our climate emergency as a defense – that is not justice at work, but money from Big Oil at work.
I think you’re confused about how the legal system works (or doesn’t as the case may be). Careless/dangerous driving is based upon the driver’s actions rather than intention i.e. that their driving falls far below the level of a careful and competent driver. Whether the driver intends their driving to be harmful to others or not is irrelevant to the offence.
Isn’t it funny how protestors are always protesting in the wrong place, or in the wrong fashion or not quite how observers wish that they’d protest? It’s almost as though oil apologists are pointing somewhere else and stating “well, they’re also to blame so why should we not profit from selling new off-shore drilling licenses?”
By the way, do you have an impediment that causes you to write in the way that you do?
Quote “Thankfully courts work
Quote “Thankfully courts work on facts” and “Most of London is on one kind of drugs or another”
Can you please point me to the FACT that 50%+ of the inhabitants of London are on these drugs?
Mr Anderson wrote:
He is, therefore everyone is: impeccable logic.
You dismissed it as an
You dismissed it as an accident.
You still don’t get it.
alexuk wrote:
I wasn’t aware our ages were displayed next to our comments. Nor is calling for tougher sentencing for criminals, especially drug users, a particularly left-wing trait. As for the other adjective, there’s only one person here so far making statements borne out of ignorance, and it’s the “I’m the voice of the silent majority” (aka I repeat third-hand Daily Mail talking points) kind which is most common among those of the right-wing persuasion.
alexuk wrote:
I cycled about 12,000 km last year, I’m definitely not young, I hope with a substantial amount of education up to postgraduate level and 30 years of experience as a volunteer, teacher, writer and editor (including substantial involvement in all those spheres with various aspects of the law and judiciary) I’m not entirely ignorant either. I am left-wing, it’s true. I don’t think any of the above should make my opinion on this case more valuable than anybody else’s, I’m not sure why you think your self-declared “more mileage than most people on this site” (how on earth would you know what mileage most people on this site do?), age and purported lack of ignorance would make your opinion more valuable.
I think it’s you who probably needs to understand how the law works. The Sentencing Council defines Category A culpability in cases of causing serious injury by careless driving as “just below threshold for dangerous driving and/or includes extreme example of a culpability B factor.” One of the culpability B factors is “Unsafe manoeuvre or positioning”; quite clearly overtaking straight into the face of an oncoming cyclist so that you hit them head on is an extreme example of an unsafe manoeuvre or positioning. So therefore the culpability in this case is clearly Category A. We then move onto the “Harm” category: the highest level of harm (1) is:
Clearly categories one and three apply to the injuries caused to the victim.
Therefore we have a case with the highest level of culpability (A) and the highest level of harm (1). The Sentencing Council recommends a starting point of one year’s custody for an A1 offence.
Oh [insert chosen deity/
Oh [insert chosen deity/ imaginary friend], someone’s set Rendel off with his facts and reasoned arguments again!
When will he learn that’s not how the internet works. ?
‘Thankfully courts work on
‘Thankfully courts work on facts, not feelings‘
Except when it comes down to the judge’s sentencing in this case and many others.
Maybe courtrooms could
Maybe courtrooms could actually make good use of Artificial Intelligence…take all the human emotional elements away from the jury and and sentencing.
Wouldn’t machine learning be
Wouldn’t machine learning be partially based on all the previous flawed court decisions, though?
If it based its sentencing
If it based its sentencing decisions on the recidivism rate of people with similar sentences it wouldn’t send anybody to prison.
NotNigel wrote:
You cannot (or at least should not) allow decision making by an entity that has no accountability.
Practically, there’s the huge issue that due to training sets, almost every A.I./LLM seems to have racism encoded.
(Only because they clearly
(Only because they clearly want the attention – so now they’ve had it can we ignore them again) – eyes down:
Taking on the room: check!
“Frothing”: check!
Cycles faster / further than most: check! (but simultaneously other Bad Cyclists are clearly “going to fast” even when likely below speed limit e.g. “cyclist hauling ass”…)
Everyone else (wrong) is left-wing*: check!
People just need to get on with each other (whether driving or cycling): check!
Being punished for a driving offense is “having your life ruined” and those who wish for decent penalties are a “lynch mob”: check!
Fool House! (Perhaps a new one though).
* TBF many (not all) posting here don’t favour the Tories and quite a few would not fit happily in (any electable version of) the Labour party either. And then there are the “red” squirrel-fanciers.
I wonder what his views are
I wonder what his views are on “established reds”?
On a lighter note, those
On a lighter note, those Tommasini frames are gorgeous ?
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Yes, but I’m not sure about the fork decals.
DOn’t get this threshold
DOn’t get this threshold between careless and dangerous driving. If you drive like an arse and someone gets hurt, whether careless or not, it was certainly dangerous to someone!
Bigfoz wrote:
As I understand it, the difference should be that careless driving is when someone is driving legally, but then causes a collision through their lack of attention etc. Dangerous driving is when the manner of driving itself is illegal, such as speeding or being under the influence.
However, courts/juries don’t seem to abide by that distinction and many cases of obviously illegally dangerous driving get prosecuted as careless.
I’m not sure that distinction
I’m not sure that distinction exists in law. The legal definitons are that careless driving is drving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver, whilst dangerous driving is driving that falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver and would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Breaking various other road traffic laws could therefore be indicative of dangerous driving, but I don’t think it is either sufficient nor strictly necessary in law.
OnYerBike wrote:
I don’t think the legal definitions are particularly helpful and certainly don’t seem to be used in driving cases. My definition at least allows for some kind of guideline to distinguish what should be considered dangerous versus careless.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Agree with you both. I think the current legalese is a nonsense with far too much subjectivity – “longer than a piece of string / far longer than a piece of string”. BUT I think it is currently as OnYerBike says. Albeit there is further guidance for these offenses (for sentencing certainly).
In practice there seem to be a whole different set of assumptions and rules in play (such as the use of suggestion that the defendant was an incompetent driver who was overwhelmed – ergo “they didn’t mean it” ergo they shouldn’t be punished!). CPS goes for the lesser offense often, partly a tool to persuade people to plead guilty.
Didn’t these offenses come out of an effort to “drain the drama” or “reduce the level of proof of evil intent” back when the charges were murder, manslaughter, assault / wounding / GBH etc. – as it was too hard to prove / juries would not convict drivers on other available charges e.g. murder, manslaughter etc.?
Apart from “change!” and “cost / available resources” (the latter might be a genuine show-stopper) does anyone know legal reason why we couldn’t bring in “would this fail a driving test” as a test of safe-enough driving? And/or with a driving examiner as expert witness?
Also is it possible to dual-charge e.g. dangerous and careless so e.g. the CPS would put this as a more serious charge without worrying that failure at that would see no conviction at all?
Wow, look at you all frothing
Wow, look at you all frothing at the mouth. Sad to see. This is why motorists hate us. Try to be more open-minded, understanding, tolerant and forgiving and we’ll all get along much better.
Here’s alex being open-minded
Here’s alex being open-minded, understanding, tolerant and forgiving…
I have a feeling we’ve been
I have a feeling we’ve been here before with this one.
Go back under your bridge,
Go back under your bridge, troll
I’m sure the cyclist with
I’m sure the cyclist with life changing injuries would agree with you.
We should be tolerant of drug drivers then. Any others – drink drivers, notrous oxide drivers, dangerous drivers, careless drivers ?
Regarding tax relief for
Regarding tax relief for employees who cycle to work…
I’m sure I red somewhere, years ago, that the BNEFIT to the economy of people cycling to work was in the order of 20-25p per mile.
And the COST to the economy of people driving was 50p per mile.
Given inflation it would be a fair bit more by now, but it makes cents to give back 20p per mile now and increase it as time goes on.
For the question “How do you prove a distance cycled and not driven?”…
Strava and other apps might have an answer…
(The apps can track max and average speed over a journey.
And given cyclists face less disruption to journey times during rush hour compared to drivers, this would also be a usefull data set to show drivers that we aren’t the primary cause of congestion/delays.
As seen in this video from CycleGaz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z57UgWLCfRg 😉
I’m wondering if there has been a study done for those who walk to work.
Thanks for mentioning the
Thanks for mentioning the walkers!! I walk to work every day, it’s just over a mile but the amount of people I pass that are getting in cars to go to the same workplace is ridiculous (or probably not!!!)
That is ridiculous.
That is ridiculous.
As is a 700 metre school run like this:
https://youtu.be/R-dp-G6W8Jk
And such apps data collection
And such apps data collection can easily be faked.
Drivers don’t have to prove
Drivers don’t have to prove their mileage normally, except possibly to their employers, if they have such. I’ve never been asked by HMRC to do so in 26 years as a freelancer. But you can’t rule out that you might one day be asked.
Cycling will be the same. I think that any form of tax relief for company cars ought to go right now though, it incentivises damaging behaviour.
There is an official 20p/mile
There is an official 20p/mile mileage allowance if using a bike for work :-
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-travel-mileage/rules-for-tax
I’d go a bit further though and add a ‘active travel surcharge’ of at least £100.00 to VED and also a surcharge on fossil fuel of 5p/litre at point of sale and 1p/kwh if electric charging.
This can be invested in cycling infrastructure, as well as active travel initiatives and public transport. Blue badge holders etc. could be exempted from this. Cyclists can also claim for their mileage if they are willing to have a ‘black box’ fitted to their bikes that tracks actual miles ridden (it would have to be connected to the pedals and the wheels and cut out at speeds over about 20mph to stop people trying to game the system by towing a wheel behind a car…)
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
However, I’m 99% sure that that does not include the normal journey to and from work.
Steve K wrote:
You’re right it doesn’t. Although back when I had a 60 mile round trip commute, it was remarkable the number of times I had cause to visit a client on the way to or from the office.
mark1a wrote:
Even then, I think you are only allowed to claim for the additional mileage.
But neatly demonstrates why
But neatly demonstrates why incentivising certain behaviours via the tax system is often a bad idea.
As regards the careless/
As regards the careless/ dangerous disinction:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8l5zjy39zo
The case above demonstrates the deployment of the police/ CPS dodge designed to get their beloved motorists off killing people deemed expendable (in this case not a cyclist, when it may have been an advice letter dodge, but a biker) by making a plea bargain deal with the shyster defence lawyer to plead guilty to the ‘not quite perfect driving causing an accidental death’ charge in return for a joke penalty. We’re told it could be a prison sentence, but I have my doubts that it will be many, if any, days behind bars.
Murderer who drove stolen car
Murderer who drove stolen car into cyclist jailed (BBC).
Google translate wrote:
If I might offer a translation of what Prudhomme said that actually makes sense: “Given cycling’s history, and not such distant history either, it’s a reasonable question. I can’t answer that. He’s certainly turning in pretty impressive performances in both stage races and one-dayers. The testing protocols are in place, we fought the ASO to have independent testing and now the ITA is doing the tests. So there we are.”