“Victim blaming as policy”: Cyclists blast “one mistake could be fatal” cycling safety campaign; Should drivers pay road tax?; ‘Cycling and driving tribalism isn’t helping us’; Snake Pass: Return to (unsafe) normality + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
‘Cycling and driving tribalism isn’t helping us’, says Oxford cycling campaign group
Cycling and motoring ‘tribalism’, where groups of bike riders and drivers coalesce online to defend their ‘camp’ and demonise the ‘other’, is only hindering progress when it comes to road safety, says Oxford cycling campaign group Cyclox.
Cyclox has been one of the driving forces behind the campaign to increase road safety in the city by calling for the installation of protected cycle lanes and a reduction in speed limits and traffic. Five women have been killed cycling in and around Oxford since 2017, including two – Ellen Moilanen and Ling Felce – who were killed after being struck by lorries while riding their bikes in the past two months.
One of Cyclox’s trustees, Jake Backus, has published a piece in the Oxford Mail over the weekend, arguing that the apparent tribal conflict between motorists and cyclists is a barrier to securing immediate changes on our roads.
> MP urges the government to help make Oxford’s roads safer for cyclists
Like the tribes that formed in the wake of dramatic political events such as Brexit, sparking prolonged waves of often anonymous online vitriol, Backus writes that “people who prefer to cycle and people who prefer to drive have formed their tribes.”
Those tribes, he says, are based on stereotyping the ‘other’: “Cyclists are annoying and don’t obey the rules, and drivers are dangerous, take up a lot of space and cause pollution. Consequently, “cyclists” go through red lights (although not all cyclists go through red lights), and cycle without lights and a helmet. “Vehicle drivers” speed, use their mobile phones (although, again, not all drivers speed or use their phones).
“But the reality is that many people both cycle and drive, and ultimately, some people are just badly behaved (let’s call them idiots).
“You get idiot cyclists and idiot drivers (although idiot drivers tend to be more dangerous to others, while idiot cyclists are most often a danger to themselves).
“So, the debate goes around in circles with little compassion or empathy for each other. Ultimately, we share the same space, and we need to be considerate of one another.
“At the basic level, do we believe in “survival of the fittest” or “survival of the friendliest through cooperation”?”
> Campaigners call for “immediate changes” after cyclist was killed in Oxfordshire
He continues: “Where is the debate about what is best for society, best for the health and safety of our children and old people, and what is socially equitable and inclusive?
“Ultimately, if we want things to get better, we will need to make changes, since by definition, something needs to change to get better (unless of course you think that others should do all the changing).
“How flexible to change are we? How adaptable are we to alternative futures?
“Whilst it may generate engagement and conflict online, tribalism isn’t helping us to make any progress.
“Maybe one day cyclists and drivers can have their own segregated space, and if more people cycle, then vehicle drivers will also benefit with less congestion. A win-win. Meanwhile, the eighth woman has been killed in Oxford in recent years whilst cycling.
“Let’s make the health and safety of everyone the key priority, share the road considerately, and discuss things in a moderate and empathetic way so that we can agree how best to move forwards – literally.”
What do you think? Is online tribalism one of the main barriers to securing safer roads for everyone?
‘Nobody who has used a bike could have designed this’
Nobody who has used a bike could have designed this. pic.twitter.com/8Mc9XxgXZc
— Neil Flanagan (@jg_bollard) April 11, 2022
Worse from the other side. pic.twitter.com/qUlK0NWOjh
— Neil Flanagan (@jg_bollard) April 11, 2022
Maybe they had some of our favourite cycling action sequences in mind during the design process?
Snake Pass: Return to (unsafe) normality
Ah, just as the seasons change, friendships come and go, taxes are paid and Manchester United lose, one of life’s inevitabilities is that cars would one day return to Snake Pass, restoring the A57 to its former status as a scene of white-knuckle, motoring mayhem:
To those seen doing insane speeds and overtaking 4-5 cars at once on the A57 Snake Pass I say this, if you crash on that road doing 60, 65, 70mph your almost certain to die and could potentially kill others by your actions – your not invincible, your car will not protect you ⚠️
— The Snake Pass Road A57 ❄️💧💨 (@SnakePassRoad) April 9, 2022
All is unsafe with the world again…
“Victim blaming as policy”: Cyclists blast Bedfordshire Police’s “one mistake could be fatal” cycling safety campaign
After last week’s questionable and low-res cycling safety tweet from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it’s now Bedfordshire Police’s turn to come up with a dubious take on the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s ‘2 Wheels’ campaign.
The NPCC’s 2 Wheels campaign focuses on ensuring the safety of cyclists and motorcyclists on our roads, by raising motorists’ awareness about the dangers of close passes and carless driving, as well as educating riders on their own safety.
However, local police forces have been slammed for ‘victim-blaming’ during the campaign, by focusing solely on the ways in which cyclists can keep themselves safe, such as wearing a helmet and hi-viz clothing.
Even if you’re an experienced cyclist, there are things everyone needs to remember when setting off on their journey. There were 33 cyclists killed or seriously injured on Bedfordshire roads last year. One mistake could be fatal. To stay safe, remember these key things. #2wheels pic.twitter.com/wx00Gzbdhv
— Bedfordshire Police (@bedspolice) April 7, 2022
Promoting the 2 Wheels initiative, Bedfordshire Police tweeted: “Even if you’re an experienced cyclist, there are things everyone needs to remember when setting off on their journey. There were 33 cyclists killed or seriously injured on Bedfordshire roads last year. One mistake could be fatal.”
Unsurprisingly, the link between cycling fatalities and ‘mistakes’ made by cyclists was heavily criticised online:
Also…
The 33 KSI cyclists…
What mistakes did they make? Do share your insights.
Or is your post simply victim-blaming nonsense?
— Greg Collins 💙 (@ibikeheathfield) April 11, 2022
Still waiting for that “here’s how to not kill someone with your car” tweet #victimblaming https://t.co/mDBavOA4bz
— Jack Keevill (@jackkeevill) April 11, 2022
Hi-vis ✔️
Daytime light ✔️
Helmet ✔️
Bicycle maintained ✔️ pic.twitter.com/JpV37qoFZm— Julie-Anna Margison (@jmargison75) April 11, 2022
Focus on driver behaviour first.
This study shows the focus should always be on drivers and their responsibilities while in charge of a ton of fast moving, dangerous machinery, rather than putting the onus on the people they kill, such as cyclists. https://t.co/XoVLXtTbX7 pic.twitter.com/UI714r0SAy
— 🦧Scowlin Munkeh (@scowlingmonkey) April 11, 2022
“One mistake [by a driver] could be fatal [to a cyclist]”
Nice victim blaming post by the 🤬 police 😡
— Kris (@climb8b) April 11, 2022
Then your intention is completely wrong. Protective clothing is not an important factor in cyclist KSIs. why are we having to tell you this? you’re the actual police
— Cycling Folkie 🌳 (@VeganCyclist4) April 11, 2022
1998 policy in a 2022 tweet https://t.co/KzbOt4QfJh
— Harry Gray (@HarryHamishGray) April 11, 2022
From Alpe d’Huez to Aintree
My Sunday was entirely funded by Santini 👍
As a cycling journalist, for transparency I should say I don’t mean the Italian cycle clothing brand, but the horse that I had each-way in Grand National.
Which I only backed because it shares name with Italian cycle clothing brand 🤣— Simon MacMichael (@simonmacmichael) April 10, 2022
Anybody else place a cheeky cycling-related bet on Santini?
It’s just a pity Alaphilippe (the horse that is) wasn’t racing on Saturday…
Photo-finish drama and oversized beers at Amstel Gold
Amstel Gold Race rarely fails to disappoint these days, does it? Ever since the organisers started tinkering with the route almost a decade ago – in a bid to end the procession-like ride to the final ascent of the Cauberg which the characterised the race – the Netherlands’ only major classic has little by little become a fascinating, open affair, where Flanders’ finest overlap with the puncheurs of the Ardennes.
And it’s led to some pretty spectacular racing. While the 2019 race witnessed the emergence of Mathieu van der Poel as a global superstar with what remains his most impressive physical feat on the road, the last two editions have been characterised by finish-line drama.
After last year’s debacle which saw Tom Pidcock controversially beaten (insert your own inverted commas if you wish) by Wout van Aert after a dubious appraisal of the photo finish, yesterday’s race witnessed the kind of twist-laden plot normally reserved for M. Night Shyamalan films.
🚴🇳🇱 | Maandag… 🥵🥵 #AGR22 pic.twitter.com/tRjTgXnZss
— Eurosport Nederland (@Eurosport_NL) April 11, 2022
Benoit Cosnefroy Amstel Gold Race 2022 pic.twitter.com/lYUEJ1a1a7
— Portuguese Cycling Magazine (@PCMPTMag) April 10, 2022
Poor Benoît Cosnefroy – told that he’s won the biggest race of his career, only for the photo finish judge to finally make his mind up and award the victory to Michał Kwiatkowski. As the drama unfolded on our screens, it was also taking place in real time on Cosnefroy’s teammate Oliver Naesen’s Twitter page:
NOOOOOOO
— Oliver naesen (@OliverNaesen) April 10, 2022
To be fair to the AG2R Citroën rider, he took that bitter blow surprisingly well, later telling the media: “If I’m going to cry about a podium at Amstel, I should stop cycling.”
He continued: “For sure I’d have preferred to win. But when you step on the podium it’s still a big moment in a career. There were 175 riders on the start line and only three on the podium. Mathieu Van der Poel was here as one of the big favourites but not on the podium. I don’t know what I have to cry about.”
Fair play.
It seems as if Cosnefroy’s runners-up spot was written in the stars (or at least in the race’s hashtag), according to this remarkably prescient tweet posted with well over 100 kilometres to go:
The hashtag of Amstel Gold #AGR22 is an anagram of “AG2R 2”, does this mean we’re going to see a 2nd place of beloved french puncheur Benoît Cosnefroy?
— Clément Shampoossin (@killow_) April 10, 2022
Apart from Kwiato, Cosnefroy and the impressive and tactically flawless winner of the women’s race Marta Cavalli, the other real stars of Amstel Gold were the ridiculous oversized beers awarded on the podium by, predictably, the race’s eponymous sponsors:
#Amstel Gold #
Cheers 🚴🤠✅ pic.twitter.com/fwcZhmmleK— Rene Dormans (@redormans) April 11, 2022
I really want to know what happens to these massive beers after the podium ceremonies.
Also, how are they poured. Does it come from a tap or is it lots of bottles/cans?
These are the key race details I need to know. https://t.co/6ivFOdhTxz
— Sadhbh O’Shea (@SadhbhOS) April 11, 2022
Every time I see those massive glasses I picture Jez from Peep Show ordering two yards of ale at Mark’s stag do…
Speaking of beer, while Cosnefroy and Kwiatkowski downed their half pints as if there were a photo finish camera in sight, third-place Tiesj Benoot didn’t look too impressed with what was on offer.
If Simon Gerrans is any indication, watch for Benoot at Liege. pic.twitter.com/LyxBm6iNYW
— How The Race Was Won® (@Cyclocosm) April 10, 2022
Or perhaps he’s attempting to emulate Simon Gerrans, who in a very un-Aussie-like manner refused to finish his beer while standing on the lower steps of the podium at the 2014 Amstel Gold, only to win Liège–Bastogne–Liège a week later…
“Time and a place, mate…”
Paris-Roubaix: Let the countdown commence…
With those pesky French presidential elections delaying our cobblestone gratification for a whole week (though we did have to wait over two years for last October’s edition, and over a century for the women’s race, just to add some perspective), the countdown to the Hell of the North can now well and truly begin:
Special week. pic.twitter.com/jOZnoUdHuL
— Les Amis de Paris-Roubaix (@A_ParisRoubaix) April 11, 2022
Only five more sleeps!
Cycling Colemanballs, part 245
Adam Blythe, with the finest piece of cycling commentary we’re likely to hear in 2022…
… which he immediately followed up with: “Oh, that sounds wrong”. Never change, Adam.
Reckon you could be a UCI commissaire?
For those shaking their heads at the TV yesterday and claiming they would have called Michał Kwiatkowski as the winner of Amstel Gold straight away, here’s a fun test to see if you would make the grade as a UCI finish-line judge:
Fun fact: UCI Finish Judges need to undergo a test to call every single one of these riders in the correct order.
IN 20 SECONDS! 😳 I barely got halfway?!
How far can you get within 20 seconds? ⬇️ #AGR22
(Credits to fewfiet of r/peloton.) pic.twitter.com/lsHWPH3CqK
— Benji Naesen (@BenjiNaesen) April 10, 2022
There’s a definite Van Aert-Pidcock situation going on between 78 and 54…
Stay safe, be short: Bedfordshire Police’s new bike safety slogan?
I remember when I rider I knew was hit by a truck wing-mirror, @bedspolice asked him how tall he was “because that’s clearly a factor.” https://t.co/37c4xIpY7T
— Michael Hutchinson (@Doctor_Hutch) April 11, 2022
‘Ah, so you were wearing a helmet, you had a hi-viz jacket on, front and back lights, and your bike was well-maintained… You are six foot two though. Just be shorter next time, okay?’
Should drivers pay road tax?
Ah, road tax. That old mythical favourite seemingly rolled out on an almost daily basis by those seeking to delegitimise the place of cyclists on the roads, based on a tax which hasn’t existed in the UK since 1937.
But what if we flipped the question, satiating some drivers’ nostalgic desires to see road tax return as well as filling an ever widening hole in the Treasury?
Should motorists then pay a reintroduced form of road tax alongside the existing Vehicle Excise Duty?
Road.cc reader Cycloid thinks so. In a tongue-in-cheek forum post over the weekend, they wrote:
With the move away from hydrocarbon to electric powered vehicles fewer drivers are paying VED and the Chancellor is reaping a smaller revenue from the motoring population. The first criticism of motorists towards cyclists is the Free Rider Charge: ‘They don’t pay for using the roads’. We now have the same situation with motorists – an increasing proportion of drivers are not contributing fairly towards the roads which they use.
The solution could be simple – bring back Road Tax.
All drivers will pay VED on a sliding down to zero, along with Road Tax. Clearly, reading the road.cc blog, there is a lot of nostalgia amongst motorists for this much-loved tax, and it would be welcomed with open arms as a fair solution to the problem.
The Road Tax component could be earmarked for road improvements, as the recent hike in NICs is earmarked for NHS catchup. Remember not to talk about “Road Maintenance” in this context; our roads are not fit for purpose and getting worse. Maintenance implies keeping the status quo.
When drivers receive a Road Tax bill they will be reminded that it does not give them any special rights to use the roads and that they must respect the vulnerable road user hierarchy.
Job done – Simples!
What do you think? Would bringing back road tax represent a fair solution to the changing character of our roads?
Here were some of the replies to Cycloid’s, let’s say, interesting suggestion:
I’m not a fan of “road tax” as it just feeds the stupid with ideas that they have more rights on the roads.
However, if we’re going to need a replacement for VED (which would be great as I’m fed up with all the fumes put out by entitled car drivers) then it should be charged proportionate to axle weight (possibly even to the 4th power of axle weight) and possibly described as a road repair tax.
I have similar feelings about ‘road tax’, it was stopped in 1937 for very good reasons. If we pursue this idea we could end up with things like ‘school tax’, from which childless adults are exempt, and so on…
Although axle weight would be a good principle, it does allow some to bleat how their claimed need for a big vehicle is unfairly penalised. And don’t forget that VED evasion has got worse since tax discs were abolished.
Reversing Rishi Sunak’s latest stunt and raising the duty on fossil fuel would be an up-front, honest way of dealing with some of the problems. That way we tax the usage (consumption), rather than vehicle ownership. It may even allow us to seriously discuss important issues such as road danger, pollution – NOx, CO, particulates, noise etc – and the other serious issues created by current traffic levels. However, it doesn’t address the issue of EVs which, as most now acknowledge, exist to save the car industry, not the planet.
How about a separate annual tax for anyone with a current driving license that has at least six points? There would be a higher tax band for the bastards with 12 points or more, since it seems that many (all?) of them plead “exceptional hardship” and get treated almost like victims by magistrates when they should be pariahs and get ASBOs like yobs. It could be paid by Direct Debit like Council Tax, which should mean less admin cost involved in collecting it.
I’d start by making all on-road parking charged, and (so that that doesn’t unfairly penalise those who can’t afford it) adding an element in to the council tax calculation for off-road parking provision.
Definitely needs to be a traffic jam tax…
Shocking Tour of Turkey crash caused by man walking on road with back to race
A shocking one here from today’s stage of the Tour of Turkey, where a man walking along the road – seemingly oblivious that a peloton of some of the world’s best riders was approaching behind him – caused a massive crash.
Y claro. Ya el colmo. La caída de Bouhanni y Peñalver pic.twitter.com/04PxWSjgYi
— Eddy Nieto (@EdgarNohales) April 11, 2022
Arkéa-Samsic sprinter Nacer Bouhanni was one of the riders brought down in the crash, and was later forced to abandon the race after feeling ill.
Fair play to the spectator in the hi-viz, who put himself in harm’s way to try to prevent an incident, only to be struck by a rider himself in the process. Hopefully everyone is okay.
After a tense finale, BikeExchange-Jayco’s Kaden Groves won the stage from a bunch finish ahead of Jasper Philipsen and Sam Bennett, who looks to finally have a bit of zip in his legs after a slow start to the season.
It was bad news, however, for Arkéa-Samsic, as not only did they lose Bouhanni, but the team’s GC leader Nairo Quintana also crashed in the closing stages and shipped almost two minutes, effectively ending his hopes for the overall title.
11 April 2022, 08:36
11 April 2022, 08:36
11 April 2022, 08:36
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.
78 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Correct. The Guardian is not a source of scientific data. It is a newspaper that REPORTS on the findings of scientists. And scientists are almost unanimous that anthropocentric global warming is real and represents a thereat to humanity. Anyway, this article isn't from the Guardian, so I don't know why you're wanging on about it.
Have the people complaining actually tried the ChatGPT for Komoot app? It doesn't sound like it to me. Because if they had, they would have much more specific complaints about how crap it is. (I'm going to confess I'm a bit of a hypocrite - I haven't tried it myself, as I don't have a ChatGPT account (I do have a Komoot account). But plenty of examples on the internet of people trying it and getting routes that have seemingly little relationship to the prompt supplied).
“planning the race for the morning hours and avoiding the afternoons could substantially increase rider and spectator safety” but it would reduce the appeal to sponsors and TV broadcasters, who pay the bills and so are far more important than the riders and spectators. It's therefore not going to happen. Even making a last-minute switch in extreme situations probably won't work because of the amount of logistics and people involved - the TdF is SO much bigger than the Tour Down Under.
Ah, the scientific rigour of the climate-change-denying right, a blank assertion with no evidence offered coupled with an insult. Pathetic.
Or, in higher temperatures, use ice jackets and ice bundles which can be replenished from the support car.
A cooling sleeve cools you down for maybe 30 minutes and then it becomes a hassle, it also prevents heat leaving the body as an "empty" sleeve now becomes an extra layer. It does make some sense for a time, but in the long run it's just problematic to use. It's just much easier to just pour water over your body.
This kind of journalism makes me laugh. As climate change brings ecological breakdown and migration on a biblical scale and international food security puts the price of food out of most people's pockets then there isn't going to be any bike racing in the morning or any other time. Get an allotment and learn how to protect it. Good luck everyone.
I often wonder why they don't wear cooling arm sleeves and cooling hats under their helmets. At a guess it's probably something to do with 'the rules', as this is road racing. Headsweats caps and similar make a big difference to how hot you get and you avoid getting your head sunburnt through the gaps in your helmet.
It's good going to keep the Vanquish price at £485, especially if you can still get a discount through Cycling UK or British Cycling, or maybe a cashback site (I've seen 10% via Complete Savings before). Shame Halfords didn't change the cassette as road.cc suggested in their review last year though.
Plenty of distinguishing features to identify the place including "Dubai, UAE" right at the top of that Insta post. And using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in Dubai and across the UAE.
78 thoughts on ““Victim blaming as policy”: Cyclists blast “one mistake could be fatal” cycling safety campaign; Should drivers pay road tax?; ‘Cycling and driving tribalism isn’t helping us’; Snake Pass: Return to (unsafe) normality + more on the live blog”
Is it only the female
Is it only the female cyclists that are being killed in Oxford, eight women and no men?
Car Delenda Est wrote:
One of the journalists on the Oxford Mail recently visited all the sites where cyclists have been killed in the city over the past couple of decades* and yes, it is striking how many are women (and especially in the fatal crashes involving larger vehicles – something that has also been observed in eg London).
As to why that should be … potential explanations I’ve seen include that women are more likely than men to eg comply with cycle lanes ahead of junctions, thereby putting them in blind spot of lorry drivers looking to turn left, as welll as that women are less likely to jump red traffic lights.
There’s an interesting article from a few years ago here.
https://road.cc/content/news/160781-no-evidence-lack-assertiveness-factor-female-cycling-lorry-fatalities
* ps I am aware of at least two others, both male, with no other vehicle involved and in both cases, flooding was a factor – a teenage boy riding along the banks of the Thames (covered by floodwater) who drowned after losing the path, and a man at Godstow who came off his bike when the road was flooded and subsequently died in hospital (although it was never reported what the actual cause of death was).
Interesting that the trolls
Interesting that the trolls arguments are normally the female cyclists see a reckless move from a male cyclist and then try to follow but don’t have the skillset.
He continues: “Where is the
He continues: “Where is the debate about what is best for society, best for the health and safety of our children and old people, and what is socially equitable and inclusive?
—
the argument that cyclists often try to make, which gets shot down as tribalism. Accusations of anti driving cyclist tribe are strange since most cyclists drive as well. Any push for a more equitable division of space away from 95% for motor vehicles is met with wailing and howling about a war on the motorist.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Sadly this is what many people have been taught to believe – that roads are for cars and everyone else is an inconvenience. Beep beep, Mr Toad is coming through.
It seems that high fuel prices don’t seem to have put people off making lots of unnecessary journeys. Many news outlets are running this headline:
Drivers braced for busiest Easter on record with 21.5m journeys planned
Why are drivers “braced”? They are the very ones causing the f**king problem!
The articles quote the RAC, who expect that “An estimated 21.5 million leisure trips will be made by car between Good Friday and Easter Monday” (my emphasis).
Although I say ‘they’, I may well take the family out to the countryside over the weekend but it will be very near home.
Bike shed at my place of
Bike shed at my place of employment is more full than I have ever seen it, even at the height of great weather.
Bicycles that I have never seen before.
Another “you know you are a “cyclist” when…” you spend more time looking at locked up bicycles than you’d expect a bicycle thief to.
Quote:
To be fair, drivers do take up a lot of space and cause pollution. Not all drivers are dangerous although there’s always the potential (e.g. momentary lapse of concentration).
Focussing on “tribes” is ignoring the actual facts of the matter – we all know that there are major societal problems caused by over-reliance on motor vehicles and it’s imperative that we get as many people as possible to use active travel instead. Continuing to build everything around cars is not a solution to anything (except maybe keeping oil companies as rich as possible).
This is the point. Those
This is the point. Those pushing back against the idea that we need to change to preserve life on this planet will inevitably see evidence that cycling is part of that strategy will want to see it fail, even if that’s not why a particular cyclist is actually cycling. Hence, the idea that cycling can somehow be removed from the culture war that is engulfing global societies is nonsense.
IanMK wrote:
There are certainly haters – alas I think it’s less conspiracy, more that people don’t cycle because other people don’t cycle. That ultimately comes down to it not being a “desirable” because it’s seen as inconvenient, dangerous and something that will lower your social status / respect. And currently there’s some truth to all those negatives. By contrast if something’s new heavily promoted in public consciousness – “What smart {insert category of people} are all secretly doing…” – people will seek it out even if it’s expensive, unavailable, unhealthy, unpleasant or even illegal!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Haha, I reread my post and it does sound a bit conspiratorial, it wasn’t my intention.
However, to play devil’s advocate, last week Antonio Guterres said “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying” doesn’t that sound a bit conspiratorial?
Look at the French elections. There is simply no green agenda from either of the two candidates.
The msm continue to attack and blame climate protestors but don’t challenge the “business as usual” thinking.
So I think there is a conspiracy of sorts. A conspiracy to lie, a conspiracy of silence, a conspiracy to do nothing, a laissez faire conspiracy. If you’re out there attacking cycling for any reason then you are part of that conspiracy.
IanMK wrote:
There most certainly are a large number of organisations and people conspiring with oil companies: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/05/ipcc-report-scientists-climate-crisis-fossil-fuels
I think Cyclox are trying to
I think Cyclox are trying to speak in language that others will understand. However though the message as a whole goes in the right direction it’s really weak. “Maybe one day …” – this is not good enough, don’t ask for “gradual change, in due course” – or you get no change, ever.
You have to meet people where they are but you have to say it how it is. Otherwise you just tell people “what they already know”. So the “stereotype” examples are problematic. They sounds like they’re giving the nod to exactly the kind of whataboutery which equates two incomparable things in search of “balance”. “cyclists are annoying” – does that merit local vigilantes in motor vehicles threatening them or dispensing physical punishment? “they don’t obey the rules” – causing inconvenience to and endangering whom? (Yes – I know that in fact cyclists do injure and very occasionally kill people – indeed there’s an infographic showing that toll here).
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s been discussions about climate problems for decades now – it’s too late to continue trying to reason with people who want to continue destroying our habitat.
You’re right, we should have
You’re right – we should have a consultation to find out what people think about climate change…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Also, let’s find the slowest way to implement any change.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Put a bike lane next to it.
What and encourage thieves
What and encourage thieves and drug dealers ?
Ah, the old ‘why can’t we all
Ah, the old ‘why can’t we all just get along’. The simple solution to the problems of the world that has an astonishingly poor success rate.
Tolerant societies don’t do
Tolerant societies don’t do well. Just ask the Cathars. Oh, wait a minute, you can’t.
I get it but pedantically I’m
I get it but pedantically I’m not sure the Cathars themselves were particularly tolerant – and the local govenors (e.g. Raymond) may have been more pragmatic about their own degree of control than necessarily tolerant of the local religious situation. However the pope certainly thought Raymond had ordered one of his legates assassinated which seems to have been the (declared) reason for the start of the events leading to the crusade.
So perhaps “moderately tolerant” societies? In terms of external threats luck is likely a major factor but “armed neutrals” e.g. Switzerland may be able to survive for some time. “Si vis pacem, para bellum“?
That’s an interesting
That’s an interesting argument. Raymond obviously tolerated the cathars out of pragmatism. I don’t believe that the church would have continued to tolerate heretics in France, especially if their philosophy took a hold. I think that’s catch 22.
I think there’s plenty of evidence that the Cathars themselves were tolerant other religions living in the L’occitane and not overly evangelical, conversion was done on soft “gnostic” basis. Unfortunately we can’t ask them
Anyway – back to cycling
(Nothing about bikes) Don’t
(Nothing about bikes) Don’t forget though that others notably told a pope to do one and survived. Certain kings (and queen) of England being examples. I’m no expert but I think the Cathars (and the local govenors) failed for a suite of reasons – the sect was intensely focussed on the hereafter to the detriment of the present. Although their terrain certainly favoured defense they had powerful and acquisitive neighbors. It seems to have been one of those periods where lots of armed folks upped and went invading (crusades all over the place). Probably all kinds of details to do with geopolitics / the psychological fall-out from the rise of Islam on the church also.
Anyway it’s a beautiful – if pretty hilly – region which I must revisit!
So what you’re saying is
So what you’re saying is there was a lot of tension around, and so it was inevitable that there’d be some sort of catharsis?
HoarseMann wrote:
At this time of year I always remember the great quote from the start of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: “…one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change…”
HoarseMann wrote:
That isn’t really what they’re saying, though. They’re saying we need to shift the terms of the debate, to move away from the idea that it’s a zero-sum game, where any change is seen as ‘for’ one group or another, and automatically therefore a loss for the other.
Quote:
Sums up the difference neatly.
But 85% of drivers do in 20mph residential zones.
I don’t believe “online tribalism” has worsened the situation, social media simply provides an outlet for the expression of attitudes that were always present – if anything, as with Brexit and Trumpism, at least it offers one an opportunity to see what attitudes really are like out there.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Partly – but that would suggest that ISIS would have had much less success in terrorism in Europe (thinking especially “lone wolf” attacks) than they did. Obviously allowing for both perpetrators and said terrorist group just “tagging” particular attacks.
Came across this at the
Came across this at the weekend
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/people/gosport-drivers-dash-cam-catches-hair-rising-near-miss-between-car-and-child-on-bike-3647528
Lad does daft thing shocker.
Something like 70/30 on the lad but when the driver says
‘I see this kid on the bike and I thought he could do something’
The answer is yes, – slow down, stop, sound your horn !
Although interested in what others think.
hirsute wrote:
I think the boy on the bike carries a bit more of the blame than 70/30, in my opinion closer to 90/10.
But it’s like a lot of dash cammers they don’t want to do anything to avoid risk they just want their dash cam clip. As a driver I would have been slowing down after spotting the lad on the road aiming to give them as much space as I would overtaking a cyclist who was moving.
The GPS speed on their sat nav shows them more or less maintains a constan speed on the approach to the boy…… which I just can’t understand.
I was thinking that if the
I was thinking that if the lad had not moved, it would have been a bad close pass, so I gave more weight to the driver.
.
.
But, but, but ….
.
… it’s only a few weeks ago that Road.cc commenters were up in arms over Ashley Neal’s sounding of his horn for cyclists.
.
You can’t have it both ways, bud!
.
So you don’t agree that the
So you don’t agree that the driver should have slowed down ensure a safe pass even before the lad decided to launch himself across the road. Looks to me it would have been unsafe even then.
There’s a difference between
There’s a difference between using the horn to alert someone to danger and using the horn to startle an unsuspecting cyclist who was otherwise holding a straight line when you perform a routine overtake on an empty road.
In the above clip, the boy on the bike turned suddenly across the path of the car without looking, and is likely unaware that the car was there. The driver’s questionable hazard-perception aside, horn use in this situaion is appropriate.
The horn use in Ashley’s clip was not appropriate, added nothing of value, could have caused an accident, and was likely interpreted by the cyclists as an agressive rebuke (because that’s how it’s used 99.99% of the time).
You do realise that there is
You do realise that there is an appropriate time to use the horn. Yet you come up with some blank and white nonsense.
A couple of cycling related
A couple of cycling related ones from UK Dash Cams last night.
Awful looking left hook in this one which the cyclist seemed very lucky on. Note the three other vehicles who stopped to help the cyclist (my take here that the world is caring).
And then this one where the dashcammer actually films himself being an arsehole and the majority of the people in the comments called him out for it (as of last night). Only one person seemed to think there were two lanes all the way through and the cyclist “encroached” on the car lane.
I saw that too – the wheel
I saw that too – the wheel looked mangled from the left hook.
Second one was white lines means it’s ok to be mm away from you.
It was the comments
It was the comments suggesting the cyclist should have indicated right…at a straight ahead junction… yikes
The false equivalence in Jake
The false equivalence in Jake Backus’ argument is unhelpful.
The clue is in the fact that since 2017 drivers have killed 5 women who were riding bikes in Oxford. No one in a car has been killed by a cyclist.
67 people a day are killed or
67 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads. By drivers. I routinely have to put up with office “banter” about being a lyrca warrior that deserves to be run over/pushed into a hedge/pissed all over. Drivers see other drivers being arseholes, and think they themselves are not like that. They see one cyclist go through red light and instantly that’s how they see all cyclists. Forever.
When I was sorting out the
When I was sorting out the links for the UK Dashcam video, I was being pushed a channel called London Dash Cams. It appeared to be the Evil Ogmios with him calling out mostly cyclists whilst ignoring the two times he close passed some. Of course the comments were along the lines of various physical abuse against cycling, licenses, tax and lots of other bingo phrases.
I thought at first it was a taxi driver but not sure if not just a black car.
“Victim blaming as policy”:
“Victim blaming as policy”: Cyclists blast Bedfordshire Police’s “one mistake could be fatal” cycling safety campaign”
I was interested in what the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s ‘2 Wheels’ campaign actually said, so googled it, and was quite surprised at the results, the oldest being 2019; one might have hoped that they’d learned not to blame the victims by now.
Most of the language used was the same, so obviously just cut and pasted from the NPCC, and all of it mentioned that it was aimed at drivers as well as motor-cyclists and cyclists. Almost all of the stories said that that particular police force was going to take some action on advising cyclists, but only one mentioned doing anything about dangerous drivers, by running a close pass operation.
It seems to me that the fault isn’t Bedforshire Police; it’s the NPCC, which isn’t giving sufficient direction to individual forces to tackle the cause of the problem, not the symptoms.
You could do all of those
You could do all of those things that Beds Police are recommending, and it won;’t help you one little bit when a driver runs their flatbed lorry into the back of you because “The Sun Was In Their Eyes”…
Espcially when heading north
Espcially when heading north and not having a roadworthy vehicle.
brooksby wrote:
<BBC neutrality> Other newspapers may also be spread across the steering wheel </BBC neutrality>
Adam Blythe is a nightmare at
Adam Blythe is a nightmare at commentating, the number of times he’s forgotten who a rider is or what team he rides for is unbelievable
As both a cyclist and a
As both a cyclist and a driver I totally agree with tribalsm is not helping. Let’s start with Jeremy Vine shut the f##* up with the constant whinging and whining. Does not help.
Classic of the genre.
Classic of the genre.
As a cyclist myself…..
Clem Fandango wrote:
Yes, and about as obviously a lie. Another low number poster being blatantly provocative, but so blatantly that responding is futile.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, when someone is so blatent as to actual use a troll as their avatar. Just believe them.
jackojackson05 wrote:
The quickest way to get him to shut up would be to stop drivers from cutting him up and close passing him. There’s nothing that cyclists can really do to stop him feeling aggrieved.
By the way, you can just ignore him if you don’t like what he’s saying – I don’t follow his tweets etc. so my only exposure is from the occasional live-blog mentions here which are easy to skip over.
With Beds polive deleting
With Beds police deleting their tweet, does that mean they’ve taken it on board, or that they just didn’t like being called out for it?
Still on facebook though
It’ll bounce up again I’m
It’ll bounce up again I’m sure. They don’t learn.
More evidence that racing
More evidence that racing bikes must be equipped with bells.
/s?
First inhaled bug of the year
First inhaled bug of the year today.
Summer is on it’s way!
It’s when you get one up the
It’s when you get one up the nostril that you know Summer has really arrived.
Lukas wrote:
it woud need breathing apparatus to deal with the mucus
I think the best way to
I think the best way to ensure our roads are safer is to identify what the exact cause of any accident is and legislate on that. If somebody is injured or killed you can’t just not blame them if the accident is their fault. This idea that because a certain road user is at most risk so everyone else besides them should be responsible for them is a joke.
If only there were a
If only there were a government department that kept stats on accidents, road users involved and KSIs, but alas.
Your last sentence is false but I’m sure you are fully aware of that.
I think you have perfectly
I think you have perfectly described the existing system. We have legislation which exactly captures these issues for not just one offense but several. Certain MPs / Lords are always keen to add ones to address the scourge of cycles and scooters. Driving which “falls below the minimum stanadard expected of a competent and careful driver” and “falls far the minimum stanadard expected of a competent and careful driver”. That’s the universe covered and in two different flavours, no?
Also coroners have a system to feed back where they feel that something should be done to prevent future harm.
Phew! That’s everything!
Unfortunately that little word – “fault” – is most of the problem and the reason I’m critical of all the parts of our existing system described above. If you’re really interested you can even search old road.cc as this has been covered extensively before. What I personally think would be required is multiple things, all at once: a radical change in focus to consider safety above “traffic flow”. Start following the “sustainable safety” principles. Eliminate the hazard – roll out a network of separated infrastructure (where needed) with a focus on junctions. More training for road users – specifically some form of re-tests / refreshers for motorists. Better enforcement – for most existing offenses you’re very likely to get away with it. Reform of the process of prosecuting theses – currently it’s quite likely your case won’t come to court, conviction can be difficult and penalties if convicted are small.
Rockhopper229 wrote:
That is in fact not a joke but a principle, in several other parts of the law. Can I interest you in some torts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull (to be fair that’s the unexpected frailty of someone else).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
(Sure there’re plenty more but I am not a lawyer).
To clarify – I’m not responsible for your safety on a bike sitting here behind my keyboard. I do have some responsibility when I choose (I wasn’t forced – I had to get training, get lisenced, insured etc.) to get into a car and drive it.
So Mr “not anti-cycling”, who
So Mr “not anti-cycling”, who is at fault if a cyclist is ran over by a flat bed truck, the driver stated they didn’t see the cyclist because the sun was in their eyes. But then it turned out the cyclists didn’t have any lights on at the time. Or their chain was a bit rusty. But hold on, before you blame the cyclist, he was wearing a helmet.
By the way, I hope you didn’t blame Sarah Everard because a Policeman told her to get in a car?
Rockhopper229 wrote:
it’s normally the driver that was the cause. It’s very rarely the cyclist
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the people creating the danger to be responsible for that. Might as well say everyone else should take responsibility for others wanting to own and use guns in public spaces.
Kinetic energy of 1.5t car at
Kinetic energy of 1.5 t car at the typical speed of 30 mph: 147000 J
Kinetic energy of 85 kg cyclist and bike at typical speed of 13 mph: 2666 J
Which means that all other things being equal the driver is 55 times more repsonsible for any accident. But then you have to add stuff like reaction times, braking distance etc. So on the whole I’d say a driver is at least 100 times more responsible.
Rockhopper229 wrote:
How ridiculous that people who choose to operate a machine that can kill or maim should have to take responsibility for that choice if it does. Madness.
Well done on reaching twenty posts without a single positive thing to say about cyclists or cycling by the way, your proud 100% record of victim-blaming pro-car trolling remains intact.
Re Bedfordshire Police –
Re Bedfordshire Police – perhaps a FoI request to find out in how many of the KSIs involving cyclists the items in their victim-blaming advice were actually a factor?
“One mistake can be fatal”
“One mistake can be fatal” should be on a permanent heads up display of every car, bus and HGV.
The roads are littered with the debris of driver mistakes – just about every junction has the evidence of past collisions in the gutter.
So right slogan, wrong target.
Good point. Turning it
Good point. Turning it around to make a positive: our public spaces should forgive mistakes people make. Translation – we know people make mistakes, we know what kinds of mistakes, so how do we design so the harmful consequences of those mistakes on the author and also others are minimised? We already do this for motor vehicles in many ways but almost only for their occupants.
Going further: as an improvement to “police it better” / make everyone an “advanced driver” – our vehicles and infrastructure should be self-explanatory and guide you in doing what you need to.
https://www.pps.org/article/what-can-we-learn-from-the-dutch-self-explaining-roads
Nobody else seems to have
Nobody else seems to have said anything, so… WTF is going on with those stair-climbing wheel gutter things??
I assume they are supposed to
I assume they are supposed to make it easier to walk bike up or down the stairs.
But regardless of their lack of utility for a cyclist, they also seem to make it impossible for someone who needs to use the handrail to reach it.
Steve K wrote:
I’d like to see a wheelchair user go up or down them.
A good idea on the drawing
A good idea on the drawing paper but designed in by someone who hasn’t got a bike and didn’t think to cross check it with someone who has.
hirsute wrote:
I reckon it was designed by a
I reckon it was designed by a one legged roller-blader
Well, it’s quite obvious you
Well, it’s quite obvious you’ve never roller-bladed up a wheel gutter on one foot!
It’s a death-trap!
(I was legless at the time, mind. The whole thing is loaded with paradoxes and will never be safe)
GMBasix wrote:
Bold of you to assume so
You have quite clearly
You have quite clearly photoshopped your right skate onto that image! you were never there! Shocking fake news!
Incidentally, why does the background tree on the right seem to provide shade in 90° clockwise rotation to everything else?
GMBasix wrote:
Pffft! That’s not the tree’s shadow, there’s a curb there which is throwing some shade.
Pic was lifted from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/14/all-those-90s-rollerblades-ended-up-in-nairobi-where-its-more-than-a-fad in case you want to nit pick anymore.
Noticed that Cambridgeshire
Noticed that Cambridgeshire seemed to be monitoring the post. S o I asked how many motorists had received warning letters etc for close passes after being sent videos by cyclists. So far no response received.