Government publish official updated guidelines; Box Hill bike shop claims telephoto lens antics forced closure; Brighton gets cycle lane on major A road; Will latest lockdown regs change our riding?; Uttrup Ludwig has a sh*t day + more on the live blog

48 thoughts on “Government publish official updated guidelines; Box Hill bike shop claims telephoto lens antics forced closure; Brighton gets cycle lane on major A road; Will latest lockdown regs change our riding?; Uttrup Ludwig has a sh*t day + more on the live blog”

1. The big baby sums it up

   The big baby sums it up perfectly. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. The survey, from Wednesday.

   The survey, from Wednesday.

   Unless of course “clarifications” emerge…

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. Quote:

   Boris Johnson was accused by some of lacking clarity in last night’s address

   So, like pretty much every other time he’s spoken to the public.  Or to Parliament.  Or to the media…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     So, like pretty much every other time he’s spoken to the public.  Or to Parliament.  Or to the media…

     — brooksby

     And of course, there was the inevitable lie about doing hundreds of thousands of tests a day when they haven’t even got to 100,000; unless you count the ones they’ve posted that is.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • eburtthebike wrote:

       So, like pretty much every other time he’s spoken to the public.  Or to Parliament.  Or to the media…

       — eburtthebike

       And of course, there was the inevitable lie about doing hundreds of thousands of tests a day when they haven’t even got to 100,000; unless you count the ones they’ve posted that is.

       — brooksby

       Turns out there were a lot more lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGyPIj0JvnA&fbclid=IwAR3vQt45C5TcxPcVpNeHbQO6IckaJGIE6PBWmPPEZEPEeC4NqKTob-_iKss

       Log In or Register to post comments

4. Unlimited outdoor exercise
    

   “Unlimited outdoor exercise!”

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Quote:

   Cycling: the world’s biggest tax avoidance scheme

   Hardly true, I pay £0 tax on my car… 1.8 turbo diesel.
   I used to pay £140 when I had my 1.2L petrol!

   Given everything, the government is currently saying about using cycling to get around (thereby avoiding people on public transport), scrapping VAT on bikes could encourage many more people to cycle, getting people out of cars (less pollution, less congestion) and making people healthier (less NHS strain).

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. “Boris Johnson was accused by

   “Boris Johnson was accused by some of lacking clarity in last night’s address….”

   I do so love the English understatement.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. This sums up the ‘confusion’
   This sums up the ‘confusion’ some are experiencing nicely.

   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/11/lefts-hysterical-confusion-no-10s-plan-utterly-transparent/

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Ah, yes! Fine words from a

     Ah, yes! Fine words from a saintly pillar of political independence!  

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Name a mass circulation
       Name a mass circulation politically neutral newspaper.

       I’ll wait.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • That used to be The

         That used to be The Independent, sadly no longer

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         Name a mass circulation politically neutral newspaper.

         I’ll wait.

         — Rich_cb

         Probably closest is The Independent (though leaning leftwards a bit) or The Times (leaning rightwards).

         From: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • That did used to be true of
           That did used to be true of the independent but their new business model has seen them chasing millennial clicks and getting far more left wing as a result.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           That did used to be true of the independent but their new business model has seen them chasing millennial clicks and getting far more left wing as a result.

           — Rich_cb

           Yeah, I’m not a fan of their opinion pieces (nor the Guardian’s either) even when I broadly agree with the sentiments therein. I’d rather reporting stuck to facts and events that happen.

           I had a brief read of that Telegraph article (I usually avoid reading it due to the paywall as well as not usually agreeing with the politics) but it didn’t really contain anything of interest. I’d expect political parties to break solidarity when the govt puts out a garbled message. How, precisely, am I supposed to Stay Alert to an invisible virus?

           Another point is that unlimited exercise is now allowed though it was previously allowed anyway (exercise being one of the valid reasons to go outside and no limit specified).

         • I think the exercise thing is
           I think the exercise thing is a changing of guidance rather than legislation. The guidance before was for a bicycle ride of around an hour’s duration.

           The huge publicity is a bit out of keeping with a relatively minor change but the publicity massively benefits cyclists so I’m not complaining!

           You can’t stay alert to the virus itself but you can stay alert to situations were you might be at higher risk of contracting it. I don’t think that’s too difficult to interpret.

           That was pretty much the point of the article, people are feigning confusion and that ‘confusion’ appears to be heavily split along partisan lines.

           Indicating it’s not real confusion but merely opportunism.

           From Labour’s pont of view they are being politically savvy in criticising the communication. It saves them from committing to a strategy and leaves them free to claim they would have done things better regardless of the outcome.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I think the exercise thing is a changing of guidance rather than legislation. The guidance before was for a bicycle ride of around an hour’s duration.

           — Rich_cb

           It wasn’t. It said nothing at all about duration.

         • I think back stabbing Gove

           I think back stabbing Gove mentioned timings in some throw away remark.

         • hirsute wrote:

           I think back stabbing Gove mentioned timings in some throw away remark.

           — hirsute

           The back-stabbing thing was entirely false, and the whole thing of Gove letting Boris down by standing for the leadership himself was a con.  Neither Boris nor Gove wanted to face the shit storm that was Brexit, despite the fact they’d caused it, and needed a way for them to avoid being elected, so Gove initially supported Boris for the leadership, then announced his own candidacy, knowing very well that he didn’t have a chance, and allowing Boris to bow out claiming wounded pride.

           If Gove really had done it, would he be in the cabinet today, and best buddies with, guess who, Boris the Liar?

         • I’ve obviously spent too much

           I’ve obviously spent too much time listening to Dead Ringers

         • I think Gove said that did he
           I think Gove said that did he not?

         • Gove made an off-the-cuff

           Gove made an off-the-cuff comment when pressed in an interview – it wasn’t part of the guidance and didn’t have any official standing.

           Even so, he didn’t exactly say that anyway. He said it would depend on people’s fitness, and he would imagine for most people a cycle ride would be about an hour. So he was speculating about what the majority of people might be capable of, but not stating that it was the case, or laying down any limits.

         • “Lawyer and policy expert
           “Lawyer and policy expert David Allen Green” refers to it in the tweet embedded in the live blog as a “change in guidance”.

           If it bothers you that much go and argue it out with him.

           I honestly don’t care.

         • The official guidance

           The official guidance (slightly weirdly) said that it should only be ‘one form’ of exercise a day. Subsequently, in the daily briefings (which could reasonably be considered part of official guidance), mention was made of ‘exercise once a day’.

           It’s these constraints that have been removed from the guidance, not any restriction on the amount of time you could exercise for, which, as DAG says in the tweet above, was never limited in the first place.

         • There wasnt a change in
           There wasnt a change in guidance but the media reported it as though there were one,presumably on basis that any utterance from a cabinet member is immediately government policy, but that is why we should care about it because that media interpretation resulted in a stack of anti cycling rubbish directed at cyclists who werent doing anything wrong.

         • “claim they would have done

           “claim they would have done things better regardless of the outcome”

           Nobody could have done things worse.

           There was negligence in not taking measures soon enough at the start, and this is negligence in opening up before you’ve got test, track and trace in place.

         • Your post makes it clear you
           Your post makes it clear you have literally no clue what you’re talking about.

           This will go on for 18 months minimum.

           Pretending that you know which approach is right or wrong a few months in just exposes your ignorance/arrogance (delete as appropriate).

         • That Telegraph piece does
           That Telegraph piece does bang on about the criticism being partisan but it looks like the criticism goes wider afield and maybe the more accurate view is that the Tories are instead showing unity over this (which is possibly a good thing).

           I disagree about “Stay Alert” not being vague though. What does staying alert to situations actually mean? A message such as “Cover your face” or “Take precautions” or even “Keep apart” would be simpler and much more precise.

           Even Tory MPs seem to be getting confused: https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1259766541794582528
           (Sorry – features Piers Morgan who is a nasty piece of work)

           Ultimately, I think the “Stay alert” message is partly designed to be mocked whilst hiding the lack of following scientific evidence (e.g. the message wasn’t run past the usual medical advisors) and the lack of testing.

           From: https://twitter.com/ESpringW11/status/1259548288556109826

         • Of course people on the right

           Of course people on the right understand the current right-wing government’s messages. Because they’re all part of that “silent majority” which loudmouthed anti-elitists (with opinion columns in newspapers owned by billionaires) claim to represent (without a trace of irony). So they don’t have to even stop of think about whether they understand it because, by definition, whatever they imagine to be the situation is what everyone (except a few work-shy lefties who somehow rule the world) also have in their minds. That is until, say, they go to Dover to film some propaganda video and get in a hissy fit when the police have a quiet word with them. The same groupthink can occur on the far left, in Soviet Russia for example, which shows just how far to the right some have swung that they resemble each other so closely.

         • It’s always going to be
           It’s always going to be difficult to convey a raft of instructions into a short and easily memorised slogan.

           It has to be broad enough to cover most guidance so will always be open to criticism that it’s too vague.

           I think ‘stay alert’ is about as good as you can probably get. Interestingly France have gone for a similar slogan.

           Messages don’t need to be run past medical advisors. They produce the advice the communications specialists produce the slogans.

           It’s not as if ‘stay alert’ contradicts any of the advice given.

           That’s just another media red herring.

   • Rich_cb wrote:

     This sums up the ‘confusion’ some are experiencing nicely. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/11/lefts-hysterical-confusion-no-10s-plan-utterly-transparent/

     — Rich_cb

     For those, like me, who have ideological, trust and honesty issues with clicking on a link for the Torygraph, the headline reads “The Left’s hysterical ‘confusion’ over No 10’s plan is utterly transparent”

     That’s as far as I read.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Translation:
       Translation:

       I refuse to challenge my predetermined views by reading anything outside my echo chamber.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         Translation: I refuse to challenge my predetermined views by reading anything outside my echo chamber.

         — Rich_cb

         That may be true but every time I click a link to a vaguely right wing media source it’s either made up of utter drivel, complete bollocks or bare-face lies… or a combination of all three. No-one is really surprised if the Sun and its counterpoint the Mirror are like that, they are aimed at people with little intellect and no interest in facts, but the views expressed in the more ‘serious’ papers is a genuinely serious problem for democracy.

         The headline referred to above is a fair example. I know the Torygraph has long been referred to the Conservative party’s in-house newsletter but it stopped being even remotely even-handed in reporting news and current affairs some time ago.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Simon E wrote:

           Translation: I refuse to challenge my predetermined views by reading anything outside my echo chamber.

           — Simon E

           That may be true but every time I click a link to a vaguely right wing media source it’s either made up of utter drivel, complete bollocks or bare-face lies… or a combination of all three. No-one is really surprised if the Sun and its counterpoint the Mirror are like that, they are aimed at people with little intellect and no interest in facts, but the views expressed in the more ‘serious’ papers is a geuinely serious problem for democracy.

           The headline referred to above is a fair example. I know the Torygraph has long been referred to the Conservative party’s in-house newsletter but it stopped being even remotely even-handed in reporting news and current affairs some time ago.

           — Rich_cbThanks for saving me the trouble of writing that.  Was it only last week that there was a report about how the British media is the least trusted in Europe?  Strangely not reported by the msm.

         • Bear in mind that the
           Bear in mind that the headline is written by the sub editors and designed to create interest.

           The author has nothing to do with it.

           I’m not claiming that the Telegraph is unbiased, far from it, but it is an important counterweight to the bias of the Guardian.

           If you read them both you can get a reasonable idea if what is actually happening in the world.

           If you just stick to one you’re basically blinkering yourself to a huge amount of information that is routinely omitted because it doesn’t fit the narrative that the editors are promoting.

           The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

           Both have their fair share of drivel, bollocks and lies. The challenge is recognising it in your own favoured columns or papers. The only way to do that reliably is to read counterpoints in ideologically different papers.

           Refusing to read ‘right wing’ sources just leaves you vulnerable to manipulation by the ‘left wing’ papers you choose to read.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

           — Rich_cb

           How wonderful it must be to be totally, utterly, completely objective and be able to point out the biases of others while having none whatsoever of your own.  Who was it who said that self-delusion is the most powerful force on earth?

         • Spotting omissions doesn’t
           Spotting omissions doesn’t require you to be free of bias.

           It simply requires you to have the ability to read.

           If I read the coverage of a subject in the guardian then read the coverage of the same subject in the telegraph it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to notice if there are facts being deliberately omitted from one or both papers.

           This happens more frequently in the guardian.

           If you refuse to read alternative sources of news then you are just allowing yourself to be manipulated.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Spotting omissions doesn’t require you to be free of bias. It simply requires you to have the ability to read. If I read the coverage of a subject in the guardian then read the coverage of the same subject in the telegraph it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to notice if there are facts being deliberately omitted from one or both papers. This happens more frequently in the guardian. If you refuse to read alternative sources of news then you are just allowing yourself to be manipulated.

           — Rich_cb

           Did Dunning and Kruger acknowledge your contribution to their research?  As a subject obviously.

         • Are you claiming it’s
           Are you claiming it’s difficult to spot differences between two articles?

           It’s basic comprehension.

           I’m hardly claiming mastery of string theory.

         • It’s still too early to

           It’s still too early to accurately critique any country’s approach to the virus, which is going to be around for years. What’s going to happen when hermetically-sealed New Zealand wants to open itself up to the rest of the world?  Will Germany’s lead on testing make any difference to its death toll in the end?   Should the UK have gone into lockdown earlier?  Should we have applied lockdown only to vulnerable groups?  There is no consensus on this amongst scientists and no consensus amongst the public.  There is no “best way” to deal with an unknown, moving target like Covid-19.

           Yes, we all have our own different opinions, but anyone claiming to know what’s been done rightly and wrongly by the government of any country is calling the winner of the London marathon at Cutty Sark.

           It seems to me that a section of the British public is simply unwilling or unable to make a judgement about how to live their lives. The media largely seems to want a tailored laundry list for every person in the country – anything else is unclear, too muddled.

           I’m no fan of Johnson, but you don’t need to be a professor of English to understand from Sunday’s broadcast that it’s time to return to the workplace if you need to be there to do your job, if you can get there safely and stay safe once there, and don’t have childcare issues.

         • Exactly.
           Exactly.

           I don’t think it’s that complicated, people just need to take a small amount of personal responsibility.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

           — Rich_cb

           Is that so?

           But is omitting certain items of information the main problem? While I’d not ever be as complacent as to say that the Guardian is ‘accurate’ the perspective of its owners and editors is one I am far more comfortable with than the billionaires that bankroll (and most certainly steer the perspective of) the Telegraph.

           I’d suggest that looking at the subject matter, the emphasis and how they are framed is informative. Do I want to experience a xenophobic world view or an inclusive one? Flag-waving anti-EU royalists trying to protect a system of privilege and inherited wealth? Does my main news source stand up for the rights of people on minimum wage or does it argue for tax cuts for the rich and laws to benefit corporations and supress employees? Does it probe into ministers’ international connections or does it gloss over those awkward trade deals and private meetings with dubious characters? I know which one I prefer to use and I’d want it to do that regardless of which party is in power (and to scrutinise the opposition parties equally). 

           I don’t have the time and energy to read and analyse the coverage from multiple sources; sometimes one is too much.

         • That just comes across as
           That just comes across as hopelessly naïve.

           You are relying on one source of news leaving yourself entirely ignorant of any information that your chosen source chooses to omit.

           Omitting vital pieces of information is incredibly important. Often information will come to light that completely undermines the editorial position. The responsible thing to do would be to include coverage of that information and allow the readers to make up their own minds. What usually happens is that the inconvenient facts are simply ignored.

           As I’ve said previously, in my experience this happens most often and most obviously in the guardian. The telegraph, while clearly still having an editorial line, does appear to allow far more pluralist viewpoints than the guardian.

           If you want to be informed you need to read multiple sources.

           Try a free trial of the telegraph, read it with an open kind and consider whether it’s healthy to have your own preconceptions challenged? Hint: it very much is.

           If you really can’t abide the telegraph you could do the same with the Economist. You’ll often find information in there that concisely dismantles the opinions in the guardian and the telegraph.

8. Halfords checking 7m bikes

   Halfords checking 7m bikes for roadworthiness? oh the irony…

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Oooh, look some paint. The

   Oooh, look some paint. The A270 has always been a monumental racetrack, that isn’t going to make cycling on it any safer. See those traffic islands? See the NMOTD today?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Right, and the Government’s

     Right, and the Government’s new Statutory Guidance specifically says use physical separation because “road markings only are very unlikely to be sufficient to deliver the level of change needed.”

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Whilst it’s good to see some

    Whilst it’s good to see some places  cracking on with introducing their pop up cycle lanes it is disappointing, but not unsurprising, to see some councils – Haringey and Barnet – already finding a range of spurious reasons not to introduce pop up lanes.

    People appeared to get excited on Saturday that the guidance would ‘tell’ councils to introduce the temporary lanes as if this guaranteed their introduction. You can ‘tell’ a child to tidy their room but you can’t force them to do it just as the guidance can’t force councils to build the lanes.

    Again another lame and half-hearted response from the govt in this crisis that’ll likely be picked up only by those councils that have an interest in cycling already.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • You are correct unfortunately

      You are correct unfortunately. The usual councils (in London) Camden, Hackney, Lambeth, Enfield will continue to do good stuff for active travel and others like Barnet won’t. Haringey is a peculiar case, it’s centre left, it espouses and preaches active travel and cycling but actually does FA to promote active travel or make it easier. It’s a borough criss crossed by rat runs, busy, hostile roads and angry, aggressive drivers. (And that’s just during the ‘lockdown’)

      Log In or Register to post comments