What if cyclists paid ‘road tax’?; “Get on the rubbish cycle path!”; LNER upgrades bike storage, but is it good enough?; Tour of Britain host regions announced; Cav misses out; Don’t try this at home, bike maintenance edition + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“Get on the bike path!” “Eh, what bike path?”
We saw some particularly unconvincing examples of cycling infrastructure on the blog yesterday – one was a national cycling route that effectively turned out to be a bog, and another was a simple lick of paint flagrantly ignored by a certain Brad Wiggins. Who does he think he is, a Tour de France winner?
Well here’s another lamentable piece of UK cycling infra to shake your head at today (with a bonus near miss thrown in too). Yesterday, road.cc reader Phil told us about a recent encounter with a bus driver who, after giving Phil a scare with a close pass, told him to “get on the bloody cycle path”.
Eh… does he mean that bit of dirt by the hedge? I think I’ll take my chances on the road, mate.
“I recently had a run-in with a Stagecoach bus driver, who close passed me through a pinch point where there is a pedestrian crossing island in the centre at Red Scar, Preston,” Phil told us.
“He almost brushed my arm, he was that close. I caught up with him at the next bus stop. Before I could say anything he opened his window and told me to ‘get on the bloody cycle path’.
“Here is the cycle path. Great, isn’t it?”
LNER’s upgraded bike racks spotted… but many still aren’t happy
Nearly two-and-a-half years since London North Eastern Railway (LNER) vowed to upgrade cycle storage on some of its new trains – after Cycling UK said the system the company had in place was “downright dangerous” – the first newly upgraded bike rack has been spotted in the wild (well, on an LNER train, but you know what I mean).
The latest generation of high-speed trains rolled out by LNER and Great Western Railway (GWR) featured limited space for bikes (road.cc’s Jack Sexty even reviewed GWR’s offering on this very blog back in 2019 – let’s just say his critique was blunt…).
Due to the limited storage space on the new trains, it was also necessary to hang bikes vertically from hooks that were unsuitable for wheels wider than those of a typical road bike.
Cycling UK dismissed the system as “downright dangerous” and said: “Lifting a bike to reach an overhead hook, on a moving train and with other passengers around you, is simply not safe.”
Following this criticism, LNER accepted the need to go back to the drawing board and improve their bike storage.
Fast forward to 2022 – it feels like we have, I know – and the new upgrades are in on LNER services, which will finally accommodate wider wheels and contain new tracks to hold the bike in place.
Commuter Martin Cox was cautiously optimistic about the changes:
First upgraded bike rack I’ve seen on the @LNER trains. Deeper rims/tyres now fitting, nice tracks to hold in place. No joy for tandems (and not sure how to ⬛ that ⚫ but it’s a start! cc: @roadcc pic.twitter.com/Wla21im2dc
— Martin Cox (@themartincox) February 10, 2022
But others weren’t as impressed:
Looks impossible to fit two bikes in there despite two racks. The wheel tracks are so close together that handlebars etc. would clash. Not to mention the difficulty of getting the wall side bike out while the door side bike remains in place (if you did manage to fit two bikes)
— Ripio (@Ripio8) February 10, 2022
One with panniers would be fine, two would be problematic
— Martin Cox (@themartincox) February 10, 2022
Still rubbish for the many of us who can’t easily lift a bike to hang it. And still not enough spaces… not even close…
— middle-aged-mum-cyclist (@cyclinginyork) February 10, 2022
So what’s the solution?
Unfortunately this problem isn’t going to be fixed until they redesign a carriage and allocate more spaces to cycles so they can be stored horizontally. A sign saying staff are willing to help you put your bike vertically would be a helpful addition to the current situation
— Alex Swanson (@alswanson) February 10, 2022
Can’t get over the thought that this is more efficient, flexible and inclusive… https://t.co/wVJpGw7YjS pic.twitter.com/vgnq19vem6
— Ｓａｍ Ｓｈａｗ (@velosam) February 10, 2022
And, finally and most importantly, what was Jack Sexty’s view on the whole thing?
“They still need ripping out.” Blunt as ever, Jack.
Cambridge: the cycling capital of England
A recent survey carried out by cycling retailer Sigma Sports has found – rather unsurprisingly – that Cambridge is the most bike-friendly area in England (details weren’t available for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland – typical).
According to the figures, 51.2% of adults cycle at least once a month and 44.8% once a week in Cambridge, a number no doubt helped by all the students rushing about to their classes.
As if to illustrate that point, Oxford came in second with 43% of the city’s adults riding their bikes once a month.
Six of the top ten, however, belonged to London, with Hackney beating Lambeth to the final podium place behind the Oxbridge duo.
Here’s the top ten, including the breakdown of the numbers:
As the cycling capitals of England, it will again come as no surprise to readers that Cambridge and Oxford also sit on top of the pile of areas with the most bike thefts. They’re just used to striving for excellence, I suppose.
Oh man, Oman… Gaviria pips Cav to first sprint win of 2022 – not that you would have seen it…
It was going so well and then whoosh, surprise ending! https://t.co/K2emWtyDDw
— Mathew Mitchell (@MatMitchell30) February 10, 2022
Mark Cavendish missed out on the win on his first day of racing of 2022, as UAE-Team Emirates’ Fernando Gaviria held off the fast-finishing Manxman on stage one of the Tour of Oman.
Not that we could tell from the coverage, however. Watching the live feed on OmanSports TV, the helicopter pilot sped away right on the line, losing our footage, just as it looked like Cav was about to overtake the fading Colombian.
I couldn’t understand a word the commentators were saying, but their exasperated reaction spoke for all of us watching.
Hopefully the cameras will stay trained on the riders tomorrow when Quick Step’s Cavendish, who looked very sharp in the final kick, will seek to open his account for 2022 as he gears up for a probable/possible/impossible [delete as appropriate] tilt at that record-breaking win number 35 at the Tour de France.
Tour of Britain announces 2022 host regions – and shoots down complaints
Introducing the 2022 Tour of Britain 🇬🇧 host regions.
🔹 Return to North Yorkshire on stage four
🔹 First-ever Gloucestershire and Dorset stages
🔹 Stage starts in Aberdeen, Redcar and Ryde
🔹 Stage finish in Sunderland
🔹 Nottinghamshire hosts stage five#TourOfBritain 🔴🔵⚪— Tour of Britain 🇬🇧 (@TourofBritain) February 10, 2022
Bear with me here, but the Tour of Britain organisers must feel like rock stars sometimes.
And no, I’m not talking about the swathes of adoring fans on the roadside, nor am I referring to drugs (though the race in its current form has been running since the mid-2000s, so I’m sure there were some knocking about back then…).
No, I’m talking about how when every rock band announces a tour, no matter how big it is, there’s always some wise guy popping up in the comments to ask, “why aren’t you playing my town?”
It seems the ToB now has the same problem.
This morning, the organisers announced the host regions for the 2022 race. Starting in Aberdeen on Sunday 4 September, the race will travel through Scotland, before taking in the north-east of England, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, first ever full stages in Gloucestershire and Dorset, and finishing a week later on the Isle of Wight.
A few fans, however, weren’t happy with the route and took to Twitter to express their disappointment. “Play Cardiff!!!,” I hear them cry.
The organisers, who seem to be acutely aware of the neediness of some British cycling fans, promptly slapped down these complaints with a pre-prepared FAQs page and some excellent, withering responses:
We’d suggest you read this guide explaining how the route is put
together. https://t.co/jfRoLTs9WN— Tour of Britain 🇬🇧 (@TourofBritain) February 10, 2022
We’d suggest that you read this, Tim. We always get accusations of ignoring areas: given that our HQ is in the south east and our the majority of our staff live locally and regularly ride in the area shows that if we *could* host a stage there we *would*.https://t.co/jfRoLTs9WN
— Tour of Britain 🇬🇧 (@TourofBritain) February 10, 2022
Could that be a premature sigh, too? We’d suggest reading this. https://t.co/jfRoLTs9WN
— Tour of Britain 🇬🇧 (@TourofBritain) February 10, 2022
The race’s FAQs page, which outlines the financial and logistical factors that shape the Tour of Britain’s route, reads: “Hopefully, for many, many people, today’s announcement has whet the appetite for what promises to be eight unforgettable days of racing in September.
“We appreciate that our annual route reveal is an emotive day for cycling fans in the UK. Believe us when we say that we’re sorry for not visiting your hometown or the climb you’ve been riding up for years. However, this has nothing to do with us ignoring places: sadly it’s not possible to visit every part of Britain in just eight days.
“Putting together each year’s route is a logistically and strategically challenging task.
“Unfortunately we cannot cover every part of Britain during an eight-day bike race. It’s impossible and unfortunately the nature of the beast when it comes to organising events. Take this year’s Tour de France route, for example: look how much of the country that doesn’t cover in 21 days of racing!
“Under the rules set by the UCI, the sport’s governing body, we cannot have any stage above 240 kilometres in length. Also, the maximum average daily distance permitted is 180 kilometres, so from starting out in Aberdeen city cente, we’d have to take the most direct route to get riders to the Isle of Wight within the rules. Even then, that would be a push!”
Nevertheless, cycling journalist and author Ed Pickering did make one suggestion that I’m sure the organisers will happily take on board:
Once again, the Falkland Islands have been snubbed. https://t.co/SuPQxUp8Mm
— Edward Pickering (@EdwardPickering) February 10, 2022
Muc-Off launches new eBike drivetrain tool
Some tech news for you e-bikers this lunchtime: Muc-Off has launched its eBike Drivetrain Tool (£19.99) for easier lube application, with the bike care brand saying that not only does its solution make maintenance quicker, it’s safer on parts too.
The motor on an e-bike means the chain doesn’t spin backwards with the crank arms as it does on a regular bike and so Muc-Off’s new tool is designed to lock firmly into an e-bike sprocket bolt which allows the drivetrain spin backwards freely, Muc-Off explains. No more needing to flip your bike upside down or wheel it forwards to apply lube to the chain.
“Due to the force generated by the motor, an eBike drivetrain is subjected to significantly higher torque loads than that of a traditional bike, so chain lubrication becomes a vitally important part of the maintenance regime,” explains Muc-Off.
“An eBike drivetrain which is either not lubed, or that is lubed with a non eBike specific lubricant, can lead to snapped or stretched chains, as well as increased wear to expensive components such as cranks, cassettes, and derailleurs.“
The tool is said to be compatible with most e-bike chain rings (excluding spiderless), thanks to the supplied 5mm, 6mm Hex & T30 Torx bits which are designed to snap into place with a magnetised connection.
Is this the solution for all your e-bike chain-related woes?
Paris-Roubaix or a Scottish summer?
How your bike looks after every summer road ride in Scotland. #cycling https://t.co/gsuBgEPyJA
— Ｓａｍ Ｓｈａｗ (@velosam) February 10, 2022
As someone who spent a year riding his bike around the East Neuk of Fife, I can assure you he’s not wrong… (I’m joking! I’m joking!)
Bike maintenance: don’t try this at home?
On the subject of looking after your bike…
As I contemplate rebuilding a bike, which will require $100s in new tools, I wonder: as bikes have gotten more complex, how has that changed y’all’s roles as home mechanics? Do you still do all/most maintenance? Or do you rely on shops/pros more now? What don’t you do?
— joelindsey (@joelindsey) February 9, 2022
Replying to Joe’s tweet, ex-Cannondale rider Ted King says he works on his bike “now more than ever”, even as technology has evolved:
I work on my bike now more than ever. (Which has more to do with enjoying it than having a mechanic on call.) SRAM’s electric shifting is super simple, tubeless is worth it for the 💥 into place, and I love toying with disc brakes. Learning suspension is maybe my next endeavor.
— Ted King (@iamtedking) February 10, 2022
Meanwhile, former racing nomad, Strava bandit, and current Jukebox pro Phil Gaimon appears to have a very appealing golden rule when it comes to fixing his own bike:
I try everything myself and give up if it takes longer than one glass of whiskey
— Phil Gaimon (@philgaimon) February 9, 2022
What do you think?
Has new technology put you off tinkering with your machine, or did the pandemic turn you into an expert bike mechanic?
What if cyclists paid 'road tax'? A professional spreadsheet jockey crunches the numbers…
Fancy some more ammunition for when your cousin at Christmas or some faceless online troll next grumbles on about cyclists not paying the mythical beast that is ‘road tax’?
Well, look no further, as numbers nerd Matthew has gotten in touch, after he applied his spreadsheet skills to calculate how much ‘road tax’ cyclists would pay if the government decides to introduce a road user charging system in place of vehicle excise duty, as recommended by MPs on the Transport Committee this week.
If road pricing is introduced, which would charge motorists nationwide for using the roads, it will of course only add more weight to the oft-repeated cry of “cyclists should pay road tax” (despite cyclists being more likely than average to also own a car).
Basing his figures on curb weight and miles driven or ridden, Matthew worked out if a typical cyclist paid £10 a year under a new road pricing system, the average motorist would have to pay £5,250.
Using the same comparison, if a driver paid £180 a year, a cyclist would only have to 34p in ‘road tax’.
“Thought you might like to use this the next time someone says, ‘pay your road tax’”, Matthew told road.cc. Indeed…
Drafting Dumoulin
Tras lo ocurrido con Bernal, sorprende ver todavía estos vídeos de ciclistas profesionales.
Pegados al camión para aprovechar su ‘rebufo’, con nula visibilidad y a un frenazo de tener un buen susto.
Lo de Dumoulin es solo un ejemplo, por desgracia.pic.twitter.com/uPK0AOZxJ6
— Juan Clavijo (@Juan_Clavijo_) February 7, 2022
Yesterday on the blog, we shared a heart-warming video of a young cyclist training with Tom Dumoulin and Rigoberto Urán in Colombia.
The day after, however, the wrong sort of training video emerged when Dumoulin and a few of his Jumbo-Visma teammates were filmed racing onto the back of a lorry to draft behind it.
While that particular move is something most cyclists have done at least once, Dumoulin’s spot of drafting was sure to provoke the ire of some on Twitter, especially in the wake of Egan Bernal’s horror crash in Colombia two weeks ago.
Juan Clavijo, a commentator for Spanish Eurosport, wrote: “After what happened with Bernal, it is surprising to still see these videos of professional cyclists.
“Clinging to the truck to take advantage of its ‘slipstream’, with zero visibility and a sudden stop from having a good scare.
“Dumoulin is just one example, unfortunately.”
Peloton: We’re doing great actually, membership is booming…
just in: peloton reports it’s doing great actually, with a record 2,800 new membership signups in one day https://t.co/TyK1ibUVwz
— paris martineau (@parismartineau) February 8, 2022
Real mature...
When a potential road.cc user applies for an account, we ask them what they ride. Looks like a future comedian from Y7 happened across us during an IT class!
Updates from the Tour de la Provence: Filippo Ganna is still very, very good
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Filippo Ganna still good at time trialling.
More to follow.
— Robyn (@robynjournalist) February 10, 2022
Top Ganna’s Ineos Grenadiers teammate Ethan Hayter also put in a very strong performance to finish 12 seconds behind the Italian in the 7.1km prologue, becoming the second British rider to finish second today, after You Know Who in Oman…
Back in Black: Tour de la Provence leader’s jersey honours Bernard Tapie
The leaders’ jersey at this year’s Tour de la Provence is to honour of Bernard Tapie, The Boss, who passed away in October
His initials at the base, and an homage to the.#classic ‘La Vie Claire’ design#TDLP2022 pic.twitter.com/6TMUinyADP— Ashley House (@AshleyPresents) February 10, 2022
After winning today’s prologue of the Tour de la Provence in dominant fashion, Filippo Ganna will wear this slick looking leader’s jersey, designed to honour the memory of businessman and former cycling team owner Bernard Tapie, who died in October last year after a long battle with cancer.
Tapie, a businessman famed for rescuing bankrupt companies, made his first foray into the sport as the mercurial and controversial owner of La Vie Claire, the all-conquering squad led by Tour de France winners Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond.
Since 2019 the Tour de la Provence adopted a Piet Mondrian-inspired jersey as an homage to La Vie Claire and Tapie, one of the race’s co-organisers.
Tapie has been credited with bringing a sense of drama and flamboyance – along with astronomical wages – to cycling in the 1980s. At the 1984 Tour he famously attempted to persuade LeMond to join his new team by arranging a clandestine, Bond villain-esque meeting with the American at night, and subsequently declared his new signing cycling’s first ‘million dollar man’.
Tapie wasn’t just an enigmatic figure in cycling circles, of course. A former colleague of mine, a Glasgow Rangers fan, still hasn’t forgiven him for 1993 and all that…
In any case, this design has reminded me to restart my petition to bring back the white Paris-Nice leader’s jersey. Come on, ASO, sort it out…
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.
123 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
The defence may well have argued that, and the magistrate may have accepted it, but that's not what the law says. It says that you have only driven without reasonable consideration for others if someone is inconvenienced. But the offence is committed if you drive without due care and attention, OR without reasonable consideration for other person. You have done the first if the driving falls below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver, regardless of whether anyone was inconvenienced. And CPS guidance specifically cites driving too close to another vehicle as an example.
Some years ago (before there was a cycle lane) I used to commute on Sidmouth St. But only because I worked on the London Road campus, from anywhere else there are better alternatives. As a cycle route it runs from between two busy roads, neither of which are exactly cycle friendly. So it's hardly surprising that no cyclists use it.
The officer's comments unfortunately reflect the reality of UK law. While the Highway Code guidance indeed refers to 1.5m, that is not anywhere in the law. And the criteria in law for proving a charge of careless driving does in fact rest on whether the rider is being "inconvenienced", as the discovered several years ago when the Met prosecuted a taxi driver who nearly hit me when cutting into my lane from the left near Marylebone. The prosecution lawyer was a barely competent newbie who fumbled over his words. The court computer was barely capable of playing the video footage, which kept freezing and crashing. The cabbie had an highly assertive defence lawyer who immediately seized on this point, and argued to the magistraite that I clearly hadn't been "inconvenienced" because I had not stopped or swerved, and had carried on my journey. Never mind that didn't have time to do either of those things, or that I was centimetres from being hit - the magistraite acquitted him on those grounds. That is unfortunately the outrageous reality of actually prosecuting a close pass incident. I know it's popular to blame the police and the CPS for not prosecuting enough close passes ... but the fact is the law is inadequate, and if the driver has a good lawyer then they can likely get off most close pass prosecutions.
Let's not forget the protruding "side" mirror...
HTML rules are clearly only partially implemented
please can we have the ability to use bold and italics for emphasis back as well?
As a Reading resident and cyclist, I can say I cannot think of a single occasion when I have seen a cyclist using the Sidmouth St cycle lane, nor can I think of any reason I'd use it myself. It doesn't connect to any other useful cycle routes. I don't rejoice that some of it is going back to motor traffic but I can see why the council is proposing to do that. Reading could really do with a cycleway to cross the town centre west to east and east to west but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Giant are one of the most trustworthy brands out there when it comes to manufacturing components given that they actually own their own production facilities. None of that matters though when it comes to road hookless, I and most other people won't touch it with a barge pole. We're surely at a stage now where it's toxic amongst consumers and it's only a matter of time before the UCI ban it for racing.
Filling the road with one person per car is using the road space more efficiently, amazing, I never realised that.
I bought a Giant Defy recently and immediately sold off the hookless wheels at a pretty big loss and won't ever do that again. I'm not buying hookless for road ever. Giant in particular has very short list of what tires they test with their rims so it's way too restrictive even if I was going to ride hookless wheels. Which I won't. Very short sighted by Giant.
123 thoughts on “What if cyclists paid ‘road tax’?; “Get on the rubbish cycle path!”; LNER upgrades bike storage, but is it good enough?; Tour of Britain host regions announced; Cav misses out; Don’t try this at home, bike maintenance edition + more on the live blog”
Even if it had been a decent
Even if it had been a decent cycle lane and even if there was a requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes, how would endangering someone’s life be an appropriate response? In what other circumstance would someone causing you a minor inconvenience be seen as justifying endangering them in such a way?
Steve K wrote:
“I am trying to get past to look at the sandwiches! Damn you Take that! And THAT!”
Yeah – happens all the time…
How do you get a bike by hte
How do you get a bike by hte wall out where the is a second bike by the door ?
I did wonder if the hook is on a pivot but as the door is in the way that’s not going to help.
hirsute wrote:
I doubt that many people would manage to fit two bikes in there, but if they did, then I suspect you’d need to remove both to get the furthest one out.
That’s not a major problem though as it happens with the saner horizontal storage (i.e. floors) when there’s a lot of bikes. I’ve often been involved with the logistics of figuring out which cyclists are getting off first and trying to arrange bikes in a sane order, but that’s assuming you all get on at the same time. In Copenhagen, I saw the most ludicrously jam-packed carriage filled with bikes and people that I’ve ever seen and getting people and bikes off just involved a bit of working together.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No-one came here for a lecture on Communism.
mdavidford wrote:
If there’s a test afterwards, I’m hoping to get top Marx by answering questions from all the Engels.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Stop showing off your book-Lenin.
There’s not Molotov stuff to
There’s not Molotov stuff to see here, Trot on.
Das Kapital stuff dat is!!
Das Kapital stuff dat is!!
kinderje wrote:
Glad you mentioned that one – it’s a little read book!
Chapeau sir!
Chapeau sir!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Mao Tse Tung’s lawyers will be in touch.
If they must have those
If they must have those vertical bike racks in there, wouldn’t it make more sense to have them at right angles to the outside wall of the train? So the hooks are on the outside wall?
As it stands, it looks like you’d need to loosen and turn your handlebars to actually use the facility they’ve provided…
After the articles about
After the articles about police cracking down on cyclist RLJers, here’s a contrast with the Bristol Bridge road changes:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-bridge-bus-gate-raises-6623895
This means that, on average, more than 10,000 fines are being handed out a month as a result of the scheme – more than 300 a day.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I saw that – lots of BTL complaining about how people were supposed to know about it. I mean, they’ve only been enforcing it for over a year…
I’m with Jack on the train
I’m with Jack on the train cycle racks. Vertical bike storage is a stupid idea for public use as it creates problems for anyone with upper body mobility/strength issues and is putting the bike into an unstable position. There’s also the issues with mudguards getting broken and fitting non-standard size bikes into those cubby holes and that’s not even addressing how those hooks are unlikely to fit really deep rims or wide tyres.
Edit: looking at the actual picture, I think they’ve addressed the mudguard issue with the little ramps at the bottom.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m with the middle aged mum… being a middle aged mum. I like to think I’m pretty strong but my bikes are not the lightest and it’s hard work to put my bike in the GWR space, especially if there is already one in there.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I thought they’d adressed how these hooks were bigger and now fit deeper rims and wider tyres. Agree with all other points though
wycombewheeler wrote:
They’re slightly better, but I wouldn’t fancy trying to squeeze a 50mm rim into one of those hooks.
The problem is that they’re using a non flexible metal hook whereas they could have provided simple velcro fastening straps that would fit any wheel. Of course, one problem is that velcro may not be deemed secure enough which is a problem created by trying to store bikes vertically.
And as one of the comments
And as one of the comments makes clear, the hooks are too close together. You might just be able to get two roadbikes with slimline bars in there but you’d really struggle with MTBs or hybrids that have wider bars for instance. The design isn’t that safe when you consider the train will be moving and other people might want to get past and as you say, it’ll be difficult for anyone with mobility issues.
Is the one by the door
Is the one by the door supposed to have the rear wheel at the top ? Then the front wheel sticks out? I’m struggling to see how the short angled bit at the bottom comes in to play.
hirsute wrote:
I wouldn’t like to try putting the rear wheel at the top as the front wheel is likely to turn sideways and could cause you to lose control of it. And I’m saying that as someone with no strength/mobility issues and a relatively light bike.
Isn’t that just to flick the
Isn’t that just to flick the bottom wheel away when dropping it out of the rack, so as to aid the transition from vertical to horizontal?
I don’t think the angle and
I don’t think the angle and radius match so there would be no contact – the wheel would contact the floor first.
Discrimination! Doesn’t work
Discrimination! Doesn’t work for most categories of cycle. Inconvenient for many. I think one of mine would physically fit in the space (sorry tandem-riders…) but not sure the hooks would work.
Obvs. train companies are trying to maximise number of people per carriage. Even so I think the horizontal solution would be better (and indeed accessible). In Belgium they have fold-up seats for use if no bikes; yes, you do lose some seat capacity but not all.
Also see the Dutch situation where so many people ride bikes that you can’t take your bike on peak-time trains. In return though it’s super convenient to get a rental bike at almost every station for the last mile or so. Plus there’s enough good quality parking that if you were doing a regular commute you could store your own bike at your destination if you wanted.
Looking at those hooks makes
Looking at those hooks makes me think someone said to a metalworker “put some bicycle storage in the corner for 2 bicycles”. “Yes boss, er what’s a bicycle?” and the boss gave him a drawing of a bicycle viewed from the side, length approx. 6ft and no mention of the width.
It must be the dumbest design I’ve ever seen.
Dingaling wrote:
Yes, and the improvements remind me of the old saying about polishing a turd.
Oh the comments. Why it’s so
Oh the comments. Why it’s so horrid to ride in Bournemouth. It’s not just words, they use their cars to ram it home too
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19912145.tour-britain-coming-dorset-september-2022/
TBF for a local rag article
TBF for a local rag article the morons didn’t turn up til comment #5. Feels like progress
And it was only one major
And it was only one major moron that got progressively worse,with a couple of other idiots chipping in at the start. Still depressing reading though.
Let me fix that for you:
Let me fix that for you:
Sciliy Isles are small so
Sciliy Isles are small so bike make sense. Also nicer weather !
hirsute wrote:
Really? Nice as the Isles of Scilly are, only St Mary’s would be anywhere near suitable and even then I’m not sure.
Joe Nation wrote:
I really take issue with the
I really take issue with the reporting of this too – Cambridge may have the highest concentration of cyclists in the country, but it’s a stretch for someone to extrapolate these figures and declaring “Cambridge is the most bike-friendly area in England”.
It certainly is not. It is one of the worst places to cycle in the East of England due to its narrow roads, high traffic density and appalling infrastructure. I avoid it when planning my rides.
And we all know about London and cycling… hence why they all head off out of the place to go on a ride. If you’re not being bike-jacked, you’re being rammed off the road in London by motorists and other cyclists alike, what a complete and utter dump that place is.
Quote:
In Le Tour the whole caravan frequently makes transfers of between 50-100kms post-stage, in fact looking at this year’s route there are only four towns hosting both finishes and starts, why can’t the Tour of Britain do the same? We’re a pretty tiny island really, it shouldn’t be too difficult to get in much more coverage. The ToB website has a lot of defensive “don’t whinge because your town isn’t in it” stuff but it’s not my town that’s missing, it’s the whole of southeast and eastern England and London, an area that holds well over one third of the entire population of the UK.
Cycle races generally are
Cycle races generally are trying to move away from long transfers, not least for environmental reasons.
(Though quite how that squares with the trend for the Grand Tours to have starts in countries they don’t even share borders with is an awkward question.)
Fair enough, but it’s still
Fair enough, but it’s still quite a lot of nonsense from the ToB: “the maximum average daily distance permitted is 180 kilometres, so from starting out in Aberdeen city cente, we’d have to take the most direct route to get riders to the Isle of Wight within the rules. Even then, that would be a push!”
8 days x 180 kms = 1460 kms, according to the AA Route Planner app the most direct non-motorway route from Aberdeen to the IoW is 965 kms.
SE England and London is car
SE England and London is car central. We all know the whingeing that ensues any time cycling tries to take a bit of roadspace from CARS even for a few hours. I live in the SE and I am entirely sympathetic to the ToB organisers giving the whole SE area a swerve. As soon as I’m not a wage slave I will too.
Well we’ve hosted the depart
Well we’ve hosted the depart or finish in London 13 of the 17 times the race has been run in its present iteration since 2004, plus the Olympic road races, TTs etc and they’ve all been terrifically well supported – I’ve been at most of them. Though we are indeed far too car centric, we’re a) probably doing more about it than any other UK city and b) probably no worse than many other major UK cities.
It’s not visited Lancashire
It’s not visited Lancashire for years, some of the TOBs most iconic climbs have been in Lancashire: Nick ‘O Pendle, Waddy Fell, Boundary Hill & Trough of Bowland.We’ve got plenty more which have been completely missed though: Barley climb, Blacko, plenty of climbs out around Colne, Tatham & what about throwing in a gravel climb over Roeburndale?
“The motor on an e-bike means
“The motor on an e-bike means the chain doesn’t spin backwards with the crank arms”
I solved this problem by turning the chainwheel.
My chain moves backward when
My chain moves backward when I backpedal my Bosch ActiveLine Plus
Is it broke, or am I missing something here?
Yeah, I’ve noticed a distict
Yeah, I’ve noticed a distict tendency on my Orbea Gain not to lock up like a fixie when I backpedal, perhaps mine’s broken too?
Must depend on the make and
Must depend on the make and type of motor. My specialized doesnt move the chain when moving the cranks back. The only note I can find is not moving the drivechain backwards whilst charging, so I put a small luggage strap on the crank so that certain folk at home don’t try something daft.
A lot of crank drive motors
A lot of crank drive motors have a crank freewheel. Giant and Specialized. If you have a rear wheel motor, there is no need.
The big problem is if you ever get chain suck. Normally you would quickly feel it and back pedal – the motor feels it instead and tries harder and jams it.
The worst example was a Giant where you needed to take off the chain rings to free the chain – the fasteners being inaccessible due to the motor – and a special tool required to remove the crank instead. At least half an hour roadside repair and at least one missed out crank bolt afterwards.
I think there are a couple of
I think there are a couple of reasons for the crank freewheel on mid-drives. One is for those markets where you can have a throttle on your e-bike. The other is it allows for a smaller chainring, which reduces the torque demand on the motor. I think it is less common now as pedal-assist becomes the norm and motors have improved torque output.
Displaying the arrogance,
“Get on the bike path!” “Eh, what bike path?”
Displaying the arrogance, lack of knowledge, understanding and empathy of some drivers. Pathological?
A variation on “You made me
A variation on “You made me pass you dangerously”. These self-driving buses don’t seem to have been well treated.
“LNER’s upgraded bike racks
“LNER’s upgraded bike racks spotted… “
The definitive exercise in turd polishing.
As someone who’s spent
As someone who’s spent decades cycling round the glorious East Neuk of Fife in summer (and the rest of the year) I can assure the readers of road.cc he’s talking shite.
Fair! I was of course being
Fair! I was of course being facetious. Some stunning roads and scenery around there. We’ll not mention the wind though…
It’s character building stuff
It’s character building stuff. I’m typing this as it howls at 50mph outside the window…
Quote:
Ha’way the lads!
Why aye!
Why aye!
IanMSpencer wrote:
Why not?…
My new commute requires me to
My new commute requires me to take the train to Bath and then cycle the 5 miles to work from the station. One morning while hanging my bike in the subpar bike cupboard, the train guard said to me “I hate those racks. They’re unfit for purpose. I feel for you guys who have to use them.” It was nice for my feelings to be validated. It’s a shame GWR think they’re fit for purpose.
A town/city/borough
A town/city/borough/archipelago, having a higher percentage of people cycling dose not necessarily mean it is more “cycling friendly.” Oxford is a very good example of this.
Re: Bike maintenance
Re: Bike maintenance
I do everything myself, as I’ve always done, since I can’t wait for a bikeshop to get their act together.
And it stays very simple since I don’t go anywhere near stuff like discbrakes and BBwhatnot (also the reason why bikeshops tend to be clueless, trying to tell me all the time that spare parts for my bikes no longer exist).
Arriva bus drivers are a
Arriva bus drivers are a nightmare here in Kent, particularly the fast track service. One section is a dedicated bus lane and cyclists are supposed to use the shared pavement, which is impossible in rush hour due to the number of pedestrians walking to the train station. Common sense is to use the bus lane which is more than wide enough, but I’ve seen a driver intimidate a new/inexperienced cyclist who was clearly avoiding the pavement due to dog walkers. I’ve been dangerously passed more than once.
Not helped that Kent council seem hell bent in create conflict between road users and cyclist with inadequate infrastructure. I’ve commented on so many consultations, but they’ll probably just slap shared path signs everywhere and say job done.
What if cyclists paid road
What if cyclists paid road tax (according to their weight)? The person (Matthew), forgot that you have to include the cyclist in the weight of the bike + person combined.
However, I prefer a better approach to road tax, which would be according to the amount of pressure the vehicle exerts on the road. In this measure, I calculate that a road cyclist would have to pay approx £600 / year vs the average car tax of £180, which seems rather steep.
So perhaps we should keep quiet with our quips about 34p a year tax?
D minus
Must do better
D minus
Must do better
I didn’t forget to include
I didn’t forget to include the weight of the cyclist themselves, I deliberatly chose not to include it as all taxation (except for aviation) is done on the vehicle, not the number of passengers. Although, cycling is a bit odd in that the cyclist is both the engine, operator and passenger all at the same time.
If you start including the weight of passengers potentially a car with 5 people should be paying less per person than a car with 1 person, VED then becomes of Personal Mobility Excise Duty rather than a Vehicle Excise Duty.
I think that deserves as least a “C”
Clem’s D minus wasn’t aimed
Clem’s D minus wasn’t aimed at you, but at the local ‘controversialist’s’ dubious critique of your work.
SPELLED “KERB” IN THE UK.
SPELLED “KERB” IN THE UK.
curse those american spell
curse those American spell check settings in Excel!
Garage at Large wrote:
If we’re including the weight of the person, then presumably we’ll also have to tax pedestrians, who will have to pay nearly as much as cyclists.
mdavidford wrote:
Anyone wearing high heels will have to pay the most on the pressure argument.
I think even the most mentally deficient understands that wear on the roads is not proportional to tyre pressure, so this argument is clearly nonsense
I did actually do 2 versions,
I did actually do 2 versions, 1 including the weight of the rider (70kg), but then you could argue the weight of the car should also go up by 5*70kg as well. Results are below. Discounted as you said you’d have to start weighing pedestrains as well.
Road wear is proportional to
Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power. If anything, the spreadsheet is overestimating what the cyclist should pay.
Bike + rider: 90 kg
Smart car plus driver: 800 kg
(800/90)^4 = 6242. If a driver of a Smart car paid £180, the cyclist should pay just under 3p. If the cyclist paid £10, the Smart car driver should pay £62,420.
I’ll even include a link that has nothing to do with cycling so you can’t claim it’s biased.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads
andystow wrote:
I would very happily accede to the demands that cyclists pay tax and stump up my tenner a year if that was the deal!
Not quite, firstly a car has
Not quite, firstly a car has four wheels vs a bike’s two wheels, and secondly a car has a much wider and higher contact area of its tyres, which cause far less abrasion per mass of vehicle to the road surface. It’s about the amount of pressure being exerted on the ground, which is inversely proportional to the contact area.
If you cycle down the road with diamond-edged spikes on the bottom of your bike, you’ll create far more damage to the road than even an articulated lorry. A jumbo jet taking off at Heathrow airport would have a mass of 439,985 kg. How come the runway surface doesn’t need mending every time there is a takeoff?
So while these simplistic calculations might impress simple minds, they are completely incorrect.
I assume you’re interested –
I assume you’re interested – and if so the answers are just a Google away. However being as you’ve a complex mind and knowing you’re right you won’t be impressed.
I suspect if we made our roads out of concrete – like many runways – they would indeed last longer. Especially our cycle paths. I’ve no idea how the cost / time would pan out, nor whether tarmac replaced more frequently is held to be less energetic / environmentally damaging than concrete replaced less. Concrete certainly fairs better against the various lubricants and fluids used in cars – and aircraft.
I’ve not tested citrus
I’ve not tested citrus degreaser on it though. Or any of the latest round of “energy drinks”. So it’s still possible that cyclists could be the downfall of the built environment.
chrisonatrike wrote:
speak for yourself, I might have to cut back on the number of bikes I have.
Garage at Large wrote:
I’ll give you the factor of two, so the driver now only pays 3121 times as much.
What a funny assumption, that since airport runways sort of look like roads to you, they must be constructed like them. An airport runway serving large jets is 17-20 inches (half a metre!) of solid reinforced concrete thick! If motorways were built like runways the cost would be [even more] astronomical.
An asphalt motorway is more like 6″ (15 cm) of asphalt over various base layers of gravel and sand, which add up to a comparable thickness to a runway, but aren’t nearly as strong. A jumbo jet would indeed cause a lot of damage to it, else the clever engineers could save a lot of money building runways that way.
Edit: see the design section in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip
“The road will need a thicker-than-normal surface and a solid concrete base.”
Your pressure method is far more simplistic, backed by schoolboy maths instead of research. The damage is not material directly under the tyre being compressed. The entire road is deflected for quite a distance around. You can easily do the experiment by standing on the edge of a roadway as an HGV rolls past a metre away and feel the vertical movement through your shoes. Now see what you feel as the heaviest cyclist you know rolls past you. You seem to see a lot of them.
Due to this deflection, there’s a speed component to the rate of damage, too, with faster vehicles causing proportionally more damage. So I’m taking that factor of two I gave you back.
Yes but if cars were full of
Yes but if cars were full of helium and roads were made of marshmallows and bikes had diamond-edged spikes on their wheels and weighed 25 tonnes they would have to pay more tax than cars. Have you factored that into your simplistic calculations? Have you? And how come skyscapers sit on the ground but don’t sink into it, simpleton? That definitely proves some made-up old bollocks I’m desperately trying to defend without any intelligence or the most basic scientific or practical knowledge, doesn’t it?
Ah, so that’s why when I ride
Ah, so that’s why when I ride off into a gateway for a wazz I sink up to my ears and when a car drops off the side of the road in winter it definitely never destroys the verge and never sprays copious amounts of mud onto the road. Always wondered about that… NOT!
It must be why they can’t afford to build cycle paths, because to cope with the load it must need a far deeper concrete base than the bit of compacted gravel that their budgets can usually afford.
This was purely an excersise
This was purely an excersise in demonstrating the futily of “Road Tax” for cyclists
Garage at Large wrote:
— Garage at LargeYou’re talking to yourself again.
Either you’re being deliberately provocative and making stuff up for laughs or you are really, REALLY STUPID.
Or both.
I could ride up and down the main road by our estate endlessly for the rest of my life and never do even a fraction of the damage done to the surface by the motorised traffic over the last few years.
That’s on a straight road. On bends the sidewaysforces create additional wear. Then consider the damage done to utility trenches and patching, the incredibly rapid expansion of these and potholes in bad weather, the broken or sunken drain/inspection covers, smashed kerbs and a hundred other things that add up to “road wear”.
On top of that there is the frequent damage to roadside walls, bridges, hedges, signs and other infrastructure, such as the stone bridge repair on a normally busy back road that required a week-long road closure last month or the pulverised chevron sign I saw on a bend earlier this week.
That’s before we get to all the buildings damaged by vehicles, as shown in the long and ongoing topic in the road.cc forum, with 778 posts to date.
Then there are the 23,529 KSI and 115,584 casualties of all severities (316 people every single day) in 2020. [DfT]
And we haven’t even started on the initial cost of putting this stuff in place – the planning, the materials, logistics and labour required for bollards and raised kerbing, speed humps, refuges, crossings, traffic lights, new access roads, even roundabouts, flyovers and bypasses. Why should cyclists pay a specific additional fee above and beyond our general taxes for those when we don’t have need for them? Why do we subsidise car use so heavily?
“Road wear is proportional to
“Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power.”
Axe load, I believe.
Blimey, didn’t realise the
Blimey, didn’t realise the Vikings were so engineeringly advanced !
Buying an l…
Buying an l…
marmotte27 wrote:
Yeah, I wasn’t sure where to go with axle versus tyre, as the research lists axle load but it was all done comparing two track vehicles (counting tandem tyres as one track.) So do we double it for the bicycle? Count its two axles as two “half axles?” I figured a factor of two or four in there really doesn’t matter as I can afford either 3p or 12p without much changing to my lifestyle.
marmotte27 wrote:
This is a valid point, I think we need to introduce high road charges for cyclists and pedestrians carrying axes.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I don’t want to pay every time I take my Telecaster out!
wycombewheeler wrote:
This is a valid point, I think we need to introduce high road charges for cyclists and pedestrians carrying axes.— marmotte27
It doesn’t seem like anyone has a monopoly on causing problems with axes.
Being proportional to the
Being proportional to the single tyre load the annual fee should probably be 23p for a cyclist if the charge for a car is £180 😉
But that estimated £62,420 fee is for a smart car. Imagine the fees using the “generalised 4th power law” for “white van man”?
Weight based fees should be introduced as a matter of urgency 😉
Boom! Take that, fuckwit at
Boom! Take that, fuckwit at large!
There We Are Then.
There We Are Then.
I think you’ll find you’re
I think you’ll find you’re wrong.
Good laugh , but ignoring the
Good laugh , but ignoring the need to add forces generated by accelerating, braking and cornering. And the pollution totally .
Keeping the maths simple,
Keeping the maths simple, gets too complicated to quote the laws of physics back at the motorist after he shouts “pay your road tax” out of their car window.
The issue is not so much the
The issue is not so much the pressure exerted on the road by the vehicle. Roads are designed to withstand various pressures be they via skinny tyres are wide lorry tyres.
The issue is the traction created by the vehicle. This is when the surface of the road is flexed by the tyres of the vehicle which create microscopic cracks allowing water ingress which eventually leads to potholes etc. This combined with diesel and oil spillage from poorly maintained vehicles further exacerbates the issue.
If you need evidence that
If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Bus stops often have very visible wear on them too which also demonstrates that it’s the stopping and starting that causes the road to move.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That’s exactly my experience; someone here also pointed to fluid leakage (brake, lubricants) at these points softening the tarmac binding as an extra factor.
But now someone’s told us if you landed a passenger jet on the road it would suffer no damage we’re obviously all talking out of our axles.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This is more to do with spilt diesel which softens the tarmac. The movement of the vehicles then does the obvious damage.
giff77 wrote:
Would bus stops have more spilt diesel than other parts of the road? If not, then although the spilt diesel may allow greater damage, the point still stands that roads have greater damage at bus stops. (Also traffic lights where all kinds of vehicles stop and start).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think so; outside bus garages, yes, where they spill just after filling up (and yes the tarmac does show it), at stops it’s the weight of the buses, especially under braking. The steepest hill near me (7-8%) has massive ruts like a cart track going into the bus stop on the downhill lane due to the braking forces required.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There’s exactly the same thing just up the road from where I live
It would seem to be the case.
It would seem to be the case. A lot of stops my way have huge troughs. After some thinking I’ve put it down to a particular depot of that company as the damage seems to be on their route nos. The other depot doesn’t seem to have the same issues on their routes. It will be interesting to see what happens as they introduce more EVs to their fleet.
Junction opposite us leads to
Junction opposite us leads to an industrial estate where a haulage firm is based. With a new housing development they changed it forcing HGVs to make a much sharper turn. It is also at the bottom of a hill and liable to flood in heavy rain. Net result is a road surface that the mars rover would struggle with.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’d like to see haulage companies pay their bit towards the damage their vehicles do to roads, but that would also end up raising prices for almost everything as we rely so much on lorries in the UK and as roads are shared infrastructure, funding them out of general taxation does make sense.
What could be a good idea is to have an extra tax for heavy vehicles going into towns/cities to provide an incentive for out-of-town depots and cargo bikes to transport goods the last few miles. There’s also the issue with HGVs causing cyclist deaths (especially in London) so there’s another reason to consider extra taxes or limits on the times they can use commuter routes.
There’s a quarry my way which
There’s a quarry my way which contributes to the costs of resurfacing the main road as and when it happens.
I believe HGVs already pay an
I believe HGVs already pay an extra premium for this, don’t know for sure, I just seem to recall a haulier mentioning this somewhere.
Taxation may be the wrong way, as you point out that would just be passed to joe public as the costs get passed down the chain ultimately to the poor sod buying whatever was being transported. Maybe incentive to move to cleaner means at least for the last bit. As you say HGVs in cities and built up areas are an issue. Not least the pollution, like I say the haulier near us is at the bottom of a hill, and I am glad we live a good half mile back from the main road. I won’t walk or cycle the main the main road largely due to the pollution from HGVs having to rev hard to get up the hill.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Exactly. Yet there are individuals here would have us believe this damage is caused by cyclists.
giff77 wrote:
never noticed the ruts in the inside lane of the motorway?
That’s cyclists illegally praticising for team time trial in the dead of night, doing that.
Why is the inside really lane worse? heaver vehicles using it.
Damn. The secrets out!
Damn. The secrets out!
I actually did 2 versions, 1
I actually did 2 versions, 1 including the weight of the rider. For the sake of simplicity, say 70kg for the average rider so 80kg overall. But then you have to think that a family size car can seat 5 70kg adults, so the weight goes up to 1850kg. That would mean the car would pay £809 per year if the cyclist was paying £10, while if a Motorist paid £180 per year a cyclist would be paying £2.22.
Part of the reason for not including it you would have to start weighing pedestrians and charging them a pavement tax.
You also have to think that 2000 miles per year is a pretty achievable figure for a commuter or leisure cyclist, I’m sure the number of miles across all adults who cycle on public roads would actually be much lower.
I actually did 2 versions, 1
Except in aviation, all taxation is done on the vehicle, not the number of passengers. Cycling is unique in that the cyclist is both the engine, operator and passenger.
The whole point of this was to generate some “shock” numbers to slap down the next person going on about cyclists not paying “road tax”, not calculate proportional costs of road wear between road groups, although it’s been interesting reading the other comments.
Some drivers, Teslas for
Some drivers, Teslas for example pay zero vehicle tax. Some (many) cylists are drivers who pay vehicle tax on multiple vehicles, but understand cycling is also a valid form of transport for many journeys.
One day we might appreciate the person rather than the vehicle they are using at any given time.
That’s a valid point and one
That’s a valid point and one the reasons why I didn’t include the weight of the rider in my calculations. Except in aviation, all taxation is based on the vechicle, not the number of passengers. You could argue that a car with 5 passengers should pay more tax because it’s heavier, but then it could also pay less as it lowers the weight per person (thus penalising under utilised vechicles). Cycling is unique in that the rider is the engine, operator and passenger all at the same time. That all said the £5250 is a good “shock” figure to slap down the next luddite who think cyclists should pay road tax.
Cycling is also unique in
Cycling is also unique in that the weight of the vehicle is less than the weight of the driver.
Even a Honda CB125 is 130kg, which is more than the vast majority of bikers.
wycombewheeler wrote:
wycombewheeler wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
The average skateboard weighs around 11 pounds or 5 kilograms
a typical squirrel weighs 1-1.5lbs.
Does your reduced size skateboard weigh les than 1/8 a normal skateboard?
wycombewheeler wrote:
It’s titanium, obviously.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Yes it does
Some seem completely baffled
Some seem completely baffled to find that a cyclist can own a car, it is quite odd but then in some ways the same happens with those who are just cyclists towards car owning cyclists.
Something is going to have to change though, with the shift to EVs and less revenue. There is talk of road charging per mile etc. Whatever they do though it would be nice if they actually maintained the roads and engaged brains when designing new roads around new developments, rather than bodge repairs and think about cycling as an afterthought. I went for a gravel bike with tougher wheels and wider tyres mainly because the roads around here are so bad.
@velosam – yes, flexible bike
@velosam – yes, flexible bike areas are better, but they still have the issue that when some person randomly sits on the middle seat (even if other seats are available), you are still seen as the ‘intruder’ if you ask them to move to allow you to park your bike. And it’s often still insufficient for urban rail services, when 6-8 cyclists are trying to use the train.
Sounds like the train I got
Sounds like the train I got the other night. One bloke sat in the middle. I did get him to move down one by saying, would you mind moving as I don’t want to hit you with my wheel. Apart from that empty seat on a busy train there was nowhere to go to be fair, until the next station when everyone got off. Instead of moving to one of the dozen now empty seats, he just put his headphones on and stretched out ?
Quote:
All the way from America?