Furious Mark Cavendish berates Tour of Britain motorbike rider; Toronto's horse poo bike lane problem; Was the double cleat horror set-up was real?; ITV's cheery ads; NYC cops remove "illegally" locked bikes; Pedal Me's round + more on the live blog

biker phil wrote:

Fast forward to this week and watching the tour of Britain on ITV4. Every ten mins there has been an ad break, all the same ads for funerals, cremations, life insurance every single ad break.

Or it could be that they've bought into the myth that riding a bike is so dangerous, it's equivalent to a death sentence.

Can any of them land a front flip though?

MattieKempy wrote:

I found the comments of the guy who saw the double-cleat nightmare a bit sniffy and cyclist-snobbish. Sure, it's a ridiculous set-up but surely gently pointing out the error rather than running off to colleagues, desperate to laugh at the expense of the shoes owner would be a better, kinder response and would encourage the shoes owner to keep riding.

I'm in agreement

I'm more than happy to have a snigger at this kind of thing, but I'm also a little conflicted about the fact that someone is being ridiculed and shamed. They cocked up, so what? It's not as if they threatened anyone with 40t of steel. They had a go at a bit of DIY, and learned how not to do it. They'll know next time, and no harm done.

Ned Boutling and David Millar did a bit on a similar theme on their pod recently - saying cycling twitter could be a bit vicious on people making innocent mistakes.  I tend to agree - though at least in this case the person hasn't been identified in any way.

The SUN ??!!

"The car is used sparingly for socialising and for shopping"

Get a taxi instead of having a car. Must be £700 to have a car before driving any miles so that would buy quite a few fares plus no doubt there are free bus fares.

hirsute wrote:

The SUN ??!!

"The car is used sparingly for socialising and for shopping"

Get a taxi instead of having a car. Must be £700 to have a car before driving any miles so that would buy quite a few fares plus no doubt there are free bus fares.

One of my elderly relatives got rid of her car, and I was worried that she would become isolated.

As she pointed out to me the start-up costs for a car were more than it would cost her in taxis per year (for the amount she uses her car - y'know, sparingly...), and she didn't have to worry about driving, or maintaining a vehicle. 

And as you say, she also uses the bus

Just had the MOT and a colleague asked how many miles we had done. When I checked it was about 4200 and 4500 for the last 2.

It's near the point where having a car isn't worth it. The benefits of carrying bikes and kayaks plus any youth work (risk assessments require someone to have a car) just about outweigh the costs.

4200/4500 in the last two years respectively or do you mean only 300 ?

I think in each of the last 3 years I've cycled more miles annually than I've driven, and I really dont cycle lots of miles compared to most.

4200 last year, 4500 year before.

Going to try out  a trailer now for the weekly shop !

hirsute wrote:

The SUN ??!!

The Grauniad is my main news go-to site.  But I look at the Sun and Metro as well as the various local news sites and the Slate (for US stuff).

I find most of the content on the Sun and Metro utterly detestable, but I think it's important to try and read stuff that's outside my bubble <shrug>.

As long as you don't read the Mail !

hirsute wrote:

As long as you don't read the Mail !

I have some standards!  Although I don't actually read the Standard

I never admit to reading the Guardian; don't want people thinking I'm a raving lefty..

Yep.. it's a common sight; someone clearly feeble from old age and/or infirmity, driving slowly to the shops and back, cops turning a blind eye, until one day, they accidentally hit the juice pedal instead of the brakes and launch through the scenery, whether that's people, building or another vehicle.

brooksby wrote:

.......

The boy, who has not been named, was “projected into the air” - but Jaap did not stop her car, reports The Daily Record.

......

Jesus H, how fast the fack was she going to do that??? The whole thing screams that she was going ridiculously fast, was not paying attention, did not stop to assist the person that she hit - which she must have known was likely to be seriously injured.

Unblemished record???

What, cos the rozzers had refused to action the numerous NMOTD vids that had been sent them????

Captain Badger wrote:

brooksby wrote:

.......

The boy, who has not been named, was “projected into the air” - but Jaap did not stop her car, reports The Daily Record.

......

Jesus H, how fast the fack was she going to do that??? 

brooksby wrote:

Jaap stopped her car to let an ambulance pass, but when she started driving again she hit the teen who had started to cross the road

Did she pull away like Lewis Hamilton in order to follow the ambulance on blue lights?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I understand people's complaints about the sentence, but it's important to note that for many old people their car is their only means of independence, and taking it away would isolate them and make them lonely, potentially condemning them to an early grave.

If you extended the same empathy to the whole of society that you show for any car driver accused of virtually any offence, you would be a lovely person, you really would. As it is…

Failing to stop at the scene of an accident is an incredibly serious offence and can (and has) cost lives due to the perpetrator failing to summon medical assistance in a timely manner. This woman not only did that (which could be attributable to panic) but failed to own up to what she had done until she was caught by CCTV. Leaving the scene of an accident ought to be a minimum year's ban no matter what the hardship defence. Sure, the situation of older people could be taken into account as mitigation in less serious cases, e.g., if she had four cases of being caught 5 mph over the speed limit I wouldn't complain if mitigation was considered, but not in this case. Would you argue for her being able to keep her licence if she had been drink-driving? Well leaving the scene of an accident without summoning assistance is just as bad as that.

Rendel Harris wrote:

[....... Would you argue for her being able to keep her licence if she had been drink-driving? Well leaving the scene of an accident without summoning assistance is just as bad as that.

Worse, because here there is an actual victim who needs help, whereas many people get away with drunk driving daily.

Indeed - and though I'm not suggesting it was a factor in this particular case (although it could've been) the lower penalties for driving away from the scene of an accident have been used by drink drivers to get away with their offence, in some cases (this happened with someone who nearly killed a cousin of mine) driving home then reporting themselves to the police, saying that they've had several large drinks once they got home because they were so shocked. I believe in some jurisdictions in America if you leave the scene of an accident you are given exactly the same penalty as you would receive for drink-driving (on top of any other penalty) on the basis that you have, de facto, refused to take an alcohol test by driving away.

How about:

...

Nope - I tried to edit it down for 'fair use' but if you strip it down it doesn't actually make any sense.  I suspect that the copywriters at the Sun already try and simplify stuff down for people who are not used to doing 'the long read'...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

it's important to note that for many old people their car is their only means of independence, and taking it away would isolate them and make them lonely, potentially condemning them to an early grave.

I'm only smiling at this because it's you writing - after all this is exactly what lots of people think (especially juries / judges...). No doubt if you live in Caithness there's a chance it could be inconvenient. However for the vast (suburban) majority of us it is not the case now and we can easily improve people's independence going forward. I call fallacies 5 and possibly 6:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/5/elderly-people-cant-cycle

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/6/people-with-physical-disabilities-can%E2%80%99t-cycle

What could things be like?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/safe-cycling-for-8-to-80-year-olds/

Ooh go on, do quibble about the hills, the weather, the cheese...

Some graphs? (apologies - this is from a decade ago but I suspect the numbers have gone up rather than down):

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands.html

Maybe you really do need your own mechanical assistance?  Try a microcar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0

https://expatinfoholland.nl/help-guides/transport-mobility/dutch-mini-micro-moped-cars/

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Strikes me that giant copy and paste might just stretch the definition of "fair dealing" a bit far! I understand people's complaints about the sentence, but it's important to note that for many old people their car is their only means of independence, and taking it away would isolate them and make them lonely, potentially condemning them to an early grave.

so we can't stop people who work from driving dangerously as it would impact their livelihood, but we can't stop retiured people from driving dangerously as it might leave them isolated.

Cost of using a car 'sparingly' is likely higher than taxis as and when required.

Also I note that while she had an unblemished record, she has clear form here for hit and run, so we do not know whether or not she had done this sort of thing before and simply not been caught.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Strikes me that giant copy and paste might just stretch the definition of "fair dealing" a bit far! I understand people's complaints about the sentence, but it's important to note that for many old people their car is their only means of independence, and taking it away would isolate them and make them lonely, potentially condemning them to an early grave.

...

Also I note that while she had an unblemished record, she has clear form here for hit and run, so we do not know whether or not she had done this sort of thing before and simply not been caught.

This for literally EVERY case where a solicitor/judge gives some bullshit about a driver in a serious incident who simply hasn't been caught before by our near non existent traffic police...

EddyBerckx wrote:

........ who simply hasn't been caught before by our near non existent traffic police...

SSSSSHHH...... you'll wake wtjs......