Highway Code changes criticised in bizarre "I'm a cyclist, but..." Spectator article; Chris Froome channels his inner Steve Irwin; Atlético Madrid could host Vuelta stage...during a La Liga match; Count the cyclists + more on the live blog

ktache wrote:

Slightly tenuous cyclist/footballer story from the guardian, but hey...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/05/brazil-ronaldo-cycle-va...

450km. "Several dozen" kilometres a day. On an eMTB. It's not exactly the Fred Whitton is it?

Weirdly, it's 500 km at the top of the story, but 450 km further down.

Anyway, doing it in four days, apparently, so a little over 100 km a day. I suspect the 'several dozen' may be a lost in translation thing.

My mate Jerry knows a thing or two.

Love the fact that he 'rarely' has problems with other road users. A bit too subjective for me.
I think he might be putting to much faith in not being a prat to protect him.
I wonder, and I don't wish him any harm at all, if he gets knocked off by a dangerous driver he'll say he wasn't expecting it because he rarely has such incidents.

He probably cycles like he drives - oblivious to the carnage he is creating around himself.

That is weird. Does the Welsh Government control the big roads in Wales as I would have thought it would be a local council issue for most transport reasons. Or if a government officials vehicle was involved in an accident or something around an official gov building grounds?

They are saying, amongst other things, that the cyclist wishes to remain anonymous and giving any details would lead to their identification.

Wow - that's pretty close to the reported maximum I've seen.  (Yes - they do get more because not guilty pleas but the theoretical "maximum" is 14 years, no?)  I think sentencing in these cases - despite plenty guidelines - is a lottery.

It is very surprising and a huge positive step to see actual, real jail time for a driver needlessly and foreseeably killing another road user. It will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics the carphiles on twitter employ to blame the cyclist for their own death. 

I think it is because they could be identified as yobs with wheels rather than motorists like wot we are.

Bit like we don't like being lumped in with teenagers doing wheelies down dual carriageways the wrong way (but are).

Yep.  It's a war on the roads* and the vulnerable road users are losing it to those who don't know they're fighting.  It would be interesting to have some assessment of a "who causes the carnage".  "Wrong'uns cause a lot of crashes" seems a sensible assumption.  However all the motorists driving into bollards, bridges, houses points to it being a fact of life when most adults are given charge of motor vehicles **.  Hence me banging on about separation of modes.

We need better enforcement also for the variable fraction of people who know they're doing something wrong but think "no consequences".

* Massacre is more apt.

** NB: that's given the kind of infrastructure we've got now and the current rules.  So trusting the motorist to self-police, only testing once per lifetime, wide straight roads with gentle turns where we have to "sign the speed", allowing overtaking at all on fast single-carriageway roads especially with poor sight lines etc. (Unworkable crazy notion?  The Dutch have started blocking just this.)

Well it's something like 80% of motorists fall into the "know they are doing something wrong". Yet somehow the Government fell for the argument that catching people exceeding the speed limit was somehow unfair when there was an obvious solution to avoid being caught.

I can't go with that, it is a blame-riddled article which does not acknowledge any responsibility of a driver to share the road. It really is a Liddle/Littlejohn article.

I dont feel it is because its not a hit piece about cycling like theirs was, its this guy has never felt safe cycling on the roads and the highway code changes makes him feel other cyclists are putting themselves at more risk.

I dont have to agree with his views at all, but I can empathise with where he is coming from based on his experience

but as always with these social media arguments its either you are with us or against us. and it just decends into a rubbish shouting match and people scoring points whilst missing the actual topic under debate

The trouble is that the language he is using and the ideas he is purveying might be generated as you say, but the result is indistinguishable from yet another "cyclists are to blame for their own misfortune" hit piece.

There is an article to be written to express the confusion over advice because it does not make sense to some people, but that wasn't it.

I would add though, that I often say 80% of motorists are incompetent - clearly a considerable proportion of cyclists are too. Riding to the HWC is quite sophisticated and therefore beyond the competence of some (many?) cyclists. For example, I don't believe you can take the lane without using a mirror because you need to be able to assess the road behind continuously and anticipate. You can hear vehicles on quite roads before you see them, but in traffic, oncoming traffic will soon hide the sound of vehicles approaching from behind. How many cyclists use a mirror? I'd guess less than 20%, probably much less.

Similarly, I will also say that most driving mistakes can be ascribed to incompetence rather than malice, and that is true of cyclists too. I get very frustrated with certain members of my club who are incapable of responding to calls (doctors are the worst! Perhaps I need a receptionist on the ride?). The trouble is an incompetent driver inflicts damage, an incompetent rider gets damaged. Tolerance tends to be given to drivers in the media which is not given to cyclists.

IanMSpencer wrote:

I would add though, that I often say 80% of motorists are incompetent - clearly a considerable proportion of cyclists are too.

I'd go further - 100% of us (drivers and cyclists) are incompetent. The 20% (or whatever it is) are those who have a better awareness of the bounds of their competence, and manage their ambition accordingly.

.

Balanced, reasoned, nuanced comment.

.

Will NOT go down well on here!

.

At least not batshitcrazy unhinged like your comments FB...

Nope - he's writing it for "the common man" (as defined by the editor of the spectator) and as Clem Fandango has pointed out it's a collection of "bad cycling tropes" from first to last, even with some misquoting of the HC (which was "overhauled in favour of cyclists").  The only "content" is he says "I stay out of the way of cars" - presumably because "better safe than dead" but that's reframes as "not being obnoxious" or "releasing the pressure".

So basically "two tribes" and "cyclists - don't be idiots, get out of the way else people will get road rage".  Plus a quick mention that motorists sometimes kill and injure cyclists.

Nothing interesting here.  Hardly any advance on Liddle, I'm afraid.

I know we're all different ... But.

When I was hit by an elderly driver in 2018, had life-threatening injuries (including needing CPR at the scene), I spent 4 months not being able to walk or lift an empty teacup; I spent a further 8 months unable to work full time; I've been left with life-changing physical injuries that affect my mobility and a brain injury that affects my mental ability.

Do I ride in the gutter? Do I feck.
I ride like I drive; I own that piece of tarmac that my bike is on, and the X number of meters in front I'm moving in to.
I've not turned in to a timid shrew. I don't feel the need to victim blame.
If the author has been that affected, and is still that badly affected, then maybe being on the road - on any form of transport - isn't where they should be.

I'm not sorry if that's harsh . . But I've been there in the Lycra; I've had the air-evac, God knows how many hours in surgery.

I've been in two crashes with an errant/aggressive motorist this past year (close pass forced me off the road into a fence, t-boned when on a roundabout) and, yes, for a period of time after the crash I was on high alert. I don't think I performed a single maneuvre confidently, was highly anxious around junctions and roundabouts and didn't feel like I 'owned' the lane. As such, I have some empathy for the author's position.

I think his error is not in espousing such views, but in voicing them unfiltered and not couching it in the blanket of "I only feel like this because I am shaken by my crash, and I hope I can feel different someday, car drivers who do this to people suck and I hate that my enjoyment has been ruined etc etc." The assumption that riding in the gutter is being advocated as the norm and not merely an aftermath of his crash is problematic for sure.

I wonder if he does have an agenda, or was perhaps only an occasional or casual cyclist previously as it seems he lacks the roadcraft to realise how poor his advice really is.