Motorist deliberately rams cyclist before driving off – as passenger films; British Cycling and Shell fallout; More oil and gas in the peloton as Movistar linked to Repsol deal; Active travel “not the answer” to cutting pollution + more on the live blog

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the tumultuous last 24 hours for British Cycling, there was plenty to discuss in the comments section today.

Regarding that oil spill-shaped elephant in the room, many of our readers were critical of cycling journo Sophie Smith’s tweets, which appeared to equate (to some degree) British Cycling’s decision to partner with Shell with cyclists purchasing carbon bike frames made using oil.

Understand the furore around Shell sponsoring British Cycling, but there is a degree of ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ to it. Carbon bike frames are made from oil and no one objects to those.

— Sophie Smith (@SophieSmith86) October 11, 2022

“Don’t hate the player because some bike components are made using oil? Interesting take, and I totally don’t go along with that kind of whataboutery,” wrote Awavey.

“We don’t know this was a big bucks deal for BC, the accounts from both organisations may hint at the size of these things, though likely hard to spot in a company that makes £10 billion profit in three months, and we don’t know who the alternatives were, so how can anyone state Shell were the best or only choice available?”

Rendel Harris also pointedly argued that “making an equivalence a few pints (gallons?) of oil needed to make an object that, with care, may last 20 or 30 years (and that actively cuts carbon emissions when in use) with the many billions of gallons burned every day for transport is like saying that because you mow your lawn you've got no right to raise concerns about the deforestation of the Amazon.”

“The Carbon Fibre argument doesn't work for me,” says IanMK. “Yes, composite materials will be made from by-products of the oil and gas industry but using those products to make long lasting items is effectively carbon capture and I would imagine relatively low energy, i.e. it's not directly contributing to global warming. 

“Okay, there may be an issue with recyclability but compare that to a titanium or aluminium frame where we would not only have to consider the mining processes involved in virgin metals but also whether the energy used to recycle that metal is sustainable, which I suspect it won't be.”

If you haven’t had enough of the British Cycling-Shell story already (it really is everywhere), don’t worry – there’s a special road.cc podcast episode coming your way soon…

On this morning’s story, which featured a motorist ploughing into an unsuspecting cyclist from behind – seemingly to simply post on TikTok as a very questionable jokes – OldRidgeBack wrote: “That's horrendous. The driver needs to be taken off the road and the passenger as well. I hope the victim heals up okay.”

Leipreachan was even more blunt in their assessment, and argued that “the driver and the passenger should be taken to prison for an attempted murder with a blunt weapon.”

“I'm sure someone will be along shortly to point out that attempted murder requires 'intent' to seriously injure or kill, but seriously - they intentionally rammed him with two tonnes of high-speed metal, how far can you reasonably take the ignorance defence?” asked BalladOfStruth.

“You couldn't shoot someone in the face, or set them on fire and claim ‘it was just a prank for Tiktok, I didn't intend to hurt him’.”

Rendel Harris also pointed out the dubious use of language from the local Gardaí in relation to the incident: “Again with the language from official bodies, for heaven's sake; if the account of the video above is accurate (as I have every confidence it is) then why on earth is it ‘Gardai are investigating a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and car’ and not ‘Gardai are investigating a serious assault on a cyclist by a car driver using their vehicle as a weapon’?”

Finally, we turn to Bath, where a few of our readers picked apart the featured letter writer’s arguments concerning the impact (or otherwise) of LTNs in reducing car ownership and promoting greater use of other modes of transport.

However, it was road.cc reader pockstone who had the perfect solution, which will surely be appearing on an election leaflet dropping through your letterbox soon:

Congestion in Bath could be much reduced in one fell swoop. A six lane highway in place of Pulteney Bridge and the weir, demolish the Abbey, the Roman Baths, the Pump rooms,the Guildhall and the Art Gallery to connect seamlessly to Broad Quay bridge and the A36 south of the river. Result: no tourists, no shops, no gridlock around Sydney Gardens... the much-reduced traffic will fly through the city centre...come on Bath Conservatives, THINK BIG!!

It’s been an incredible ride 🤝

At the end of this season we say goodbye to three long-serving Sport Directors. Thanks for everything @ServaisKnaven, @bdlancaster and @gabrielrasch. pic.twitter.com/FpMDwChLtX

— INEOS Grenadiers (@INEOSGrenadiers) October 11, 2022

The revolving door at the Ineos Grenadiers’ HQ will be remarkably busy this autumn (if it isn’t already jammed up by a wayward 4x4), as three of the squad’s longest serving directeurs sportifs will be moving on to pastures new.

Servais Knaven, who joined the then-Team Sky as a DS following his retirement in 2011, Brett Lancaster (a DS at the squad since 2016) and Gabriel Rasch (2014) are all set to leave as fracker-in-chief Jim Ratcliffe overhauls the stuttering, high-budget outfit after only their second grand tour-less season since their Tour de France breakthrough in 2012.

Retired classics star Ian Stannard, who won Omloop Het Nieuwsblad twice for Sky, will be one of the new faces in the team car as Ineos attempt to play catch-up to UAE Team Emirates and Jumbo-Visma in the big three-week tours.

The rather vain pursuit of Remco Evenepoel a few weeks ago perhaps underlines the realisation that something needs to change within the hitherto dominant British squad – and fast.

In fact, this mini-revolution in the team’s management structure represents perhaps the biggest overhaul since exactly ten years ago, in the autumn of 2012, when sports directors Sean Yates, Bobby Julich and Steven de Jongh (as well as retiring pro Michael Barry) left Team Sky after an internal investigation into past doping misdemeanours, brought about by the publication of USADA’s Reasoned Decision concerning Lance Armstrong and US Postal.

Knaven, a teammate of De Jongh’s at TVM during the infamous 1998 Tour de France, avoided that particular cull and the squad’s apparent ‘zero tolerance’ policy for historic drugs offences, but would continue to be plagued by doping allegations for much of the following decade.

@BritishCycling is allowing @Shell_UKLtd to taint cycling with dirty money, without consulting its members. If you agree, please consider signing this open letter this morning. https://t.co/cj5QN5ANQi

— Steve McInerny (@TheSharpSharp) October 11, 2022

According to cycling journalist Andy McGrath, the Shell deal apparently went ahead against the wishes of many senior staff, as well as – it seems clear by now – the vast, vast majority of the body’s members: 

My understanding is that numerous British Cycling staff and management were vociferously against Shell sponsorship deal and it went ahead anyway. The move could also affect future funding amount from UK Sport and Sport England too

— Andy McGrath (@Andymcgra) October 11, 2022

Spare a thought for the poor souls who work for British Cycling’s membership department.

Because it seems like they’ll be dealing with the same enquiry over and over again, for the next few days at least.

For instance, one cyclist, who rang up this morning to cancel his BC membership in protest at what he regarded as the governing body’s complicity in ‘greenwashing’, was greeted instantly with what I presume was a weary, resigned sigh: “Is this about the Shell sponsorship?”

Just cancelled my membership.
First question was “is this about the Shell sponsorship?”
Shows a shocking lack of common sense from the leadership (and it’s not the only recent incident) https://t.co/Y7ntADgLWs

— Wrighty (@Gromski) October 11, 2022

The cyclist told road.cc: “Spoke to a nice chap in the membership department and said I wanted to cancel. His first question to me was ‘Is this because of the Shell sponsorship?’

“Went through the brief process of cancelling (end of term versus right now and send card back) and he advised that I email the membership address and explain my reasons so it gets logged and (hopefully) makes it further up the food chain.

“Sounds like they’ve had quite a few emails so far today, but not as many calls.”

If you’re a member of @BritishCycling you should write to their membership team and let them know what you think.
This is what I think pic.twitter.com/12c9c64hc3

— Wrighty (@Gromski) October 11, 2022

Since everyone’s favourite angry, cyclist-chasing, comically-falling motorist is doing the rounds again online (thanks to the No Context Brits Twitter account), it would be remiss of us not to feature it on the live blog:

No better way to start the day. https://t.co/2BUYRcaanC

— Simon Warren (@100Climbs) October 11, 2022

> "Clown takes a pratfall" viral video cyclist talks to press 

We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. @evanrud is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.

“Boy rushed to hospital as 'pollution' brought on asthma attack” https://t.co/qfnNg1lHfS

— Bath Local Conservatives (@BathCA) October 10, 2022

Turns out British Cycling wasn’t the only organisation getting grief for its environmental position yesterday…

The Bath Conservative Association – a longstanding advocate of active travel, judging from its Twitter timeline (or maybe not) – was roundly condemned by cycling campaigners after it weighed in on the issue of congestion and pollution in the city… by claiming that the only answer is to get motor traffic “moving”.

The party association was responding to a letter in the Bath Chronicle by Evan Rudowski, a local who has lived car-free for over two decades but believes that the conversation surrounding how best to reduce car use in the city has been “poisoned” by “a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution”.

In the letter, which can be read in full here, Rudowski writes:

Bath is choked with cars. Reducing car use would benefit the city greatly in terms of overall quality of life – reducing traffic, congestion, pollution and, in the long term, our collective carbon footprint.

Of course, getting rid of cars is a massive challenge and needs to be solved primarily on a societal level. But all of us are still obligated to do what we can locally, and personally. In my family’s case, we’ve chosen to live a car-free life for the past 24 years. We’ve made deliberate choices to achieve this, in terms of where we live, work and go to school…

Unfortunately, the conversation regarding how best to reduce car use has been poisoned in Bath, and more broadly, by a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution.

They argue that closing certain roads to car traffic, thus making it less convenient to drive but more friendly for cyclists, will hasten the shift to different modes of transport. Such schemes are referred to as low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) or active travel or, sometimes, Liveable Neighbourhoods. They are not so much intended to improve things immediately, but rather to help us achieve net zero carbon in the future.

Living alongside the A36 as my family does, no one would like to see car traffic reduced more than we would. The frequently poor air quality we suffer here, and that all of Bath suffers from regularly, has had real health impacts. My oldest child uses an inhaler. I’ll never forget the night I had to rush him to the RUH with breathing difficulties. But low-traffic neighbourhoods are not the answer.

Yes, LTNs make some people’s streets very pleasant, reducing through traffic on those streets while still enabling those residents to keep their own cars and drive in and out or receive deliveries however they please. How nice for them.

But the traffic, congestion and resulting air pollution moved off those privileged streets has to go somewhere. Where? Onto main roads where many more residents live, work and go to school. Neighbourhoods such as Bathwick, where I live, already have enormous amounts of through traffic but relatively low car ownership. It’s unfair, impractical and self-defeating to push more traffic onto our main roads.

Praising Rudowski’s letter, which also called for the introduction of a Clean Air Charging Zone, a workplace parking levy and increased spending on public transport in place of the more “extreme” LTN measures, the Bath Conservatives wrote: “We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. [Rudowski] is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.”

Unsurprisingly, many on Twitter, for some reason, disagreed with the apparent sentiment that increasing car usage would reduce pollution:

Is this a parody account? https://t.co/VOfzEaWiPZ

— Ken Borg (@kenborg24) October 10, 2022

Sorry if I’m being dense, but isn’t “getting traffic moving” a recipe for more traffic, not less?

— 🏚️ ꓠꓲꓯꓕꓲꓤꓭ ꓠꓱꓘꓳꓤꓭ (@willsortitout) October 11, 2022

Do you actually read and think about your own tweets? Someone is a victim of traffic pollution and you use that to justify the free movement of cars? Take a good look at yourself.

— GT 🍃💚🍃 (@Graham21) October 10, 2022

Call me fixated, but I still can’t shift the idea from my head that it’s the motor vehicles that are creating the pollution. If only there were more space-efficient, less expensive, less polluting alternatives to motor cars. https://t.co/MxRGHVTfc5

— Tim on two wheels (@2wheelsgoodBrum) October 11, 2022

As an asthmatic myself, I would appreciate you not appropriating my condition to further your misplaced cause. As transport preference is clearly the issue here, you should be encouraging motorists to adopt other forms of transport to get from A to B to protect my lungs.

— Andy (@IAmKuriousBrown) October 10, 2022

It's been proven time and time again. Increases in road capacity are absorbed by more traffic. "Induced demand".

And it works the other way too. Removing capacity and the trips reduce. Traffic ends up reverting to similar levels... Just with less pollution.

— Dave Mc (@Guigsy) October 11, 2022

And no better way to illustrate that than the single occupancy SUV that is seen in this picture

— Evan P (@YourSUVsucks) October 10, 2022

The only way to reduce pollution is to move people from driving to public transport, walking, and cycling. Making traffic flow more freely just generates more traffic and more pollution.

— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) October 10, 2022

Built many new roads in my life, as a highway engineer of 20 years. I can go back to any road I've been involved in and it will be most congested and most polluted part of that area.Restricting traffic in urban areas only way to resolve air pollution.More capacity=more pollution

— Scott Cooper (@CoopsPine) October 10, 2022