“World class cycling city”: Cyclists urge council to clear “appalling” bike lane filled with gravel and leaves; Has Chris Froome found a solution to the supertuck ban?; Pothole warnings; Meltdown over free lights for cyclists + more on the live blog

56 thoughts on ““World class cycling city”: Cyclists urge council to clear “appalling” bike lane filled with gravel and leaves; Has Chris Froome found a solution to the supertuck ban?; Pothole warnings; Meltdown over free lights for cyclists + more on the live blog”

1. I will never not be delighted
   I will never not be delighted by anti-cycling motorists getting distraught over cyclists getting a minute subsidy.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’d be very happy for the

     I’d be very happy for the police to follow this course with motorists.

     “You were caught speeding so i’m just going to fix this speed restrictor for free”

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • If a vehicle has a valid MOT

       If a vehicle has a valid MOT certificate the speedometer should read correct within the tolerances stated by DfT regulations. Operator fault, 100% should be punised in accordance with the law. The driver has burden of proof to prove both the discrepancy between actual speed and speedo reading, and that could also open up investigations into the Test centre if they might have fraudulently issued a certificate. Even if that was the case, the driver could still be held partly criminally liable if they knew the test centre issued the certificate fraudulently.

       Quite often, they do offer advice, or ignore completely if a car has a single bulb not working, as opposed to issuing a fine straight away.

       I have been pulled over once, on my way to buy a replacement bulb. I told them I noticed it that morning and that I was on my way to get a new bulb because the ones I had were the wrong type. They sent me on my way, I got my light fixed and no issues whatsoever.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • It’s not even a subsidy, it’s

     It’s not even a subsidy, it’s helping them “be safer” given that it’s the motoring lobby that insist that cyclists should have them because some drivers don’t use their eyes properly.
     It’s not dangerous to ride a bike without lights, just like going out for a jog without lights, if you cannot see well enough, just slow down a bit.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • This is such a critical point

       This is such a critical point missed by so many drivers! If you are not able to stop in the time between seeing something the size of a human in the road and hitting it you are driving too fast for the conditions. There are sometimes things in the road that shouldn’t be there, assuming the road to be clear and driving at speeds where you are unable to react to issues is ridiculously dangerous, blaming that dangerous driving on the thing you hit instead of your own actions is entitlement not often seen outside of a car. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • ChrisB200SX wrote:

       It’s not even a subsidy, it’s helping them “be safer” given that it’s the motoring lobby that insist that cyclists should have them because some drivers don’t use their eyes properly.
       It’s not dangerous to ride a bike without lights, just like going out for a jog without lights, if you cannot see well enough, just slow down a bit.

       — ChrisB200SX

       This.

       I lose count of the number of people who tell me that cyclists and pedestrians are invisible in the dark.

       “No, they’re not; you just have to look”

       “What?! What about when they appear in front of you?”

       “They don’t just ‘appear’; they were there all along. If you can’t see them, you’re not looking in the right places.”

       “What about when you come round the bend and they’re just there in the road?”

       “You should be travelling at a speed where you can stop in the distance you know to be clear; not driving at the speed limit and hoping nothing’s beyond the reach of your headlights.”

       “What speed do you think I would have to slow down to to do that?!”

       It’s the earnestness with which motornormativity conditions the driving brain into thinking that everything must be subservient to their right to travel at speed.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • You can ride expecting
         You can ride expecting everyone to drive travelling at a speed where they can stop in the distance you know to be clear

         Or you can ride expecting it to be more like in the drivers crash into buildings thread, or the drivers frequently killing injuring cyclists news articles.

         It’s your choice, even if riding without lights at night is against the law, its still your choice, but it might be the last choice you ever take.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • You may be a cyclist, through
           You may be a cyclist, through your attitude you’re still part of the problem.

         • yeah Im part of the problem,

           yeah Im part of the problem, for pointing out the emperor has no new clothes.

           we’re constantly reminded how vulnerable cyclists are on the roads, and that alot of drivers dont follow the rules. so why encourage people to be at extra risk cycling without lights at night, simply expecting drivers to follow their rules, yet its breaking the rules not to ride without lights at night?

           maybe if youd been witness to a collision between a 4×4 and a cyclist at night, and for all the world expected to be faced dealing with a fatal collision, and the first thing the driver says to you as the only other witness who stopped, I didnt see them they didnt have any lights.

           youd have more of the using lights at night as a cyclist, is probably a good thing mindset.

           fortunately that cyclist survived, albeit with life changing injuries, and as the only other witness I was able to quash the “they didnt have any lights” excuse, others may not be so fortunate if similar circumstances befell on them.

         • stonojnr wrote:

           You can ride expecting everyone to drive travelling at a speed where they can stop in the distance you know to be clear Or you can ride expecting it to be more like in the drivers crash into buildings thread, or the drivers frequently killing injuring cyclists news articles. It’s your choice, even if riding without lights at night is against the law, its still your choice, but it might be the last choice you ever take.

           — stonojnr

           Or you can miss the point of the post altogether.

         • for what, bringing the cold

           for what, bringing the cold harsh reality of life into this perfect world where all drivers travel at a speed they can stop in the distance they know to be clear ?

           look around & observe more next time you ride in the real world.

         • I have been waiting at lights

           I have been waiting at lights to move off and find a cyclist in black with no lights has made a right turn into my lane as I’m about to turn left. Only jsut picked them out at the last second as the glare from the over bright beams from behind them obscured my sight.

           Over bright lights even in a car, can mean people ahead with no lights and dark clothes can be very hard to spot. There has to be some degree of responsibility on all road users.

     • I used to agree with this

       I used to agree with this without reservation.  Now… partly.  Yes, it’s on the drivers* but in human terms (if we’re going to continue “mass motoring” e.g. not just elite drivers [ yes – this should be “standard careful legal driving” but that is not so common…] – so older drivers, distracted parents, people using glasses etc.) it is indeed difficult to see pedestrians and cyclists well when driving in the dark.

       This affects cyclists most because they are normally on the road (pedestrians – intermittently) and normally moving parallel to motor vehicles (so little relative motion for human brains to detect).

       Mostly for me it’s just another example of “why we need much more carefully designed infra where we have large / fast motorised vehicles” **.

       In terms of being seen for cyclists / pedestrians arguably reflective material – especially on moving parts of your body e.g. arms / legs – is the most effective / least cost to user to mitigate things here.

       * The rules do indeed state (although not with a specific MUST) e.g. “Rule 126. Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”

       …and it’s definitely for our own benefit while driving at night to be able to see and stop before hitting e.g. a black-coloured parked car or an unlit tree that has fallen in the road or just that a country road sharply changes direction up ahead.

       ** Rant: space for cycling should be completely separate where those vehicles will be travelling at above e.g. 20mph – and of course separate from the footway!  Also how we design crossing points and junctions needs to be nationally standardised and merits careful attention to very specific details – also main road crossings for all etc.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Taxi drivers are upset about
   Taxi drivers are upset about cyclists getting lights because it’s one less thing they can use in their defence when they murder someone with their distracted driving.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. I kind of get the anger on

   I kind of get the anger on the lights, idiots are choosing to deliberatly ride without lights, this is not an oversite, this is a deliberate decision to flout the law, yet the law enforcers are kindly correcting this for them, some folk will leave them on the bike, others will forget to charge them or replace the batteries, some will even remove them and deliberatly flout the law once again. It does seem a little strange

   A missing light on  car for instance is fitted but broken, and a poor driver will be unaware they will potentially be fined – though in most cases spoken to and told to get it fixed. If a driver has removed the lights from a car and drives on the road then they are likely to get charged with something.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Here we go again with the

     Here we go again with the false driver and cyclist equivalence. 

     A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.

     A driver who’s vehicle isn’t safe is putting others at risk. 

     They are not the same thing. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • It’s not an equivalence thing

       It’s not an equivalence thing, it’s simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • tigersnapper wrote:

         It’s not an equivalence thing, it’s simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

         — tigersnapper

         You literally just made it into an “equivalence thing” and expect to hold cyclists to the same standards as drivers.

         Drivers have to be held to a more stringent standard due to the extreme danger they pose to other people (and walls, shop-fronts etc) and that is why drivers need to pass a test (or at least be supervised by a trained driver) before being allowed to drive on public roads. We don’t hold cyclists to that same standard because that would be stupid and not at all proportionate to the harm that cyclists can cause to other people.

         However, police will often not care about minor driving infractions (e.g. crossing a solid white line whilst overtaking) and so it would seem consistent for them to not worry about handing out fines etc. for cyclists who don’t have working lights and handing out a few freebies may well be a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Yeah, but you suppose
           Yeah, but you suppose @tigersnapper to not (deliberately) ignore that the highway code only exists because of motorists. Cyclists were around and fine for 70 years beforehand…

         • And the ‘equivalence thing’
           And the ‘equivalence thing’ is now a major part of the problem.
           I read somewhere that, when compulsory rear lights for bikes were first proposed, the CTC campaigned strenuously against the idea, on the grounds that it was the thin edge of a long wedge. Since then, although we’ve never quite reached the point some ‘loopy’ folk would like, with full reg, MOT etc., it could be argued that even the relatively small number of regs encourage a view of cyclists as slow/inferior motorcars rather than mechanically enhanced pedestrians. Which might explain some of the hostility and/or misunderstanding from some quarters.

         • CyclingGardener wrote:

           And the ‘equivalence thing’ is now a major part of the problem. I read somewhere that, when compulsory rear lights for bikes were first proposed, the CTC campaigned strenuously against the idea, on the grounds that it was the thin edge of a long wedge. Since then, although we’ve never quite reached the point some ‘loopy’ folk would like, with full reg, MOT etc., it could be argued that even the relatively small number of regs encourage a view of cyclists as slow/inferior motorcars rather than mechanically enhanced pedestrians. Which might explain some of the hostility and/or misunderstanding from some quarters.

           — CyclingGardener

           I think the case for bike lights is a lot stronger these days, now that we have extremely bright, efficient, lightweight and cheap LED lights. Certainly, the old Ever Ready (they were seldom “ready”) lights were a pox upon cyclists.

         • Yes… but what’s happened is

           Yes… but what’s happened is a light arms-race.  Great for me to *see* by, but for being seen?  I’m not convinced that brighter is all that much better.  It might fix “there’s something out there”.  However a) individual bike lights have a very small area of light compared to those on a vehicle and b) unlike a motor vehicle almost no cycles have a pair separated by some distance horizontally – which in motor vehicles can help estimate distance / speed.  So you’ve got the astronomer’s problem – is that a larger/brighter light far away or a smaller/dimmer light up close?

           Flashing lights can also be more salient – but are harder to identify “where exactly?”  In a better world they’d be best left for emergency vehicles IMHO.

           Also (a) means that the lights are more likely to dazzle than vehicle lights and again most cycles aren’t dipped (because we want “full beam” sometimes and the lights are not set up to be dipped easily).

           End state is that everyone on the road is wearing reflectives, hi-vis, flashing big lumens … and you can’t clearly see them amongst all the other road users doing the same.

           I don’t miss the Ever Ready lights though!

         • The twitchiest part of my

           The twitchiest part of my commute home is a 500m section of road with no street lighting, fields both sides and motorists coming in the opposite direction with their stupidly bright headlights and wondering wether any motorists coming up behind me can see me through the dazzle of the oncoming lights.

         • [quote=chrisonabike
           [quote=chrisonabike

           what’s happened is a light arms-race.

           [/quote]

           Or survival of the fittest – if you don’t take part you get out competed and that is not nice.

           (a) My front light has a lens about the size of a 50p coin compared with a saucer for a typical motor vehicle, if they were both the same luminance then I would be invisible riding next to a car 50 meters up the road.

           (b) Back to the astronomer’s problem. Two horizontal lights could be a car a long way off or a bike close to.

           Circular arguments

            

         • Cycloid wrote:

           what’s happened is a light arms-race.

           — Cycloid

           Or survival of the fittest – if you don’t take part you get out competed and that is not nice.

           — chrisonabike

           Maybe – but actually how many lives are saved by having cycle lights brighter than (insert measure here)?  Going forward we have governments and can regulate.  And in fact we do already have road traffic law, vehicle and bike construction / sale regulations … They have actually regulated bike lights in e.g. Germany.  Like everything I’m sure it’s not perfect but seems sensible.  I’ve actually got some (at least one of my dynamo lights) and they’re perfectly adequate in most situations and certainly in urban areas – and that’s at no more than 3 watts, front and back combined.

           Recreational use?  Different thing (and also only a tiny fraction of the population, a little of the time).

         • As a cyclist you are always

           As a cyclist you are always competing with your backbround and other road users to get noticed. You can choose what you wear and your lights but you cannot choose your background. I’m not sure I would be happy riding on this type of road with a 1970s 3 watt dynamo. From what I remember, of the basic models, they did not get up to full brightness until you got going at a reasonable speed, the lights went out when you stopped at traffic lights and they slipped when it was wet. (Except Dydnhubs). You reckon the dynamo is “adequate for most urban areas” – You rely on your lights to save your life in ALL situations. I don’t want to dazzle anyone, but if it’s that or my life… 

           Unfortunately we are in an arms race, you can take the altruistic approach, but reluctantly I choose to compete.

         • Yep – I’ve also moved on from

           Yep – I’ve also moved on from the 70s and 80s and I’m not campaigning for the return of the EverReady light!  If that’s the way you’re thinking however you’ll be even more horrified – of the 3W only between 0.3 – 0.5 W goes out the rear light (e.g. I’ve one of these)!

           …however technology having advanced massively, I find that is indeed plenty* because modern efficient LEDs (plus capacitors to keep the lights on for say 5 minutes when stopped).  (FWIW I run hub dynamos so no slipping, they’re pretty much full-bright at around 10mph I would guess.  I believe even the bottle dynamos have improved a lot also.)

           Your picture – I’m not sure I’d be happy riding on that type of road full stop – and I’m not a shrinking violet (or perhaps I am by your standards?).  Looks like 5-6 lanes across the whole road there… If you’re riding on what seems an (urban?) motorway there then good luck to you!

           It’s not altruism.  I just don’t think – above a reasonable minimum (brighter than my youth of course) – another X lumens will make me safer**.  Same as I think the “Clarkson model of motor safety***” certainly has a grain of truth (being a joke) but is missing so much about humans.

           “Background” as you say and in urban areas aside from the cars you’re competing with all kinds of static and moving lights anyway.  Our cities are bright places.

           * Yes – overnight in the countryside (recreation) I’d likely take battery lights as well to see by better – so I can go a faster pace in unlit areas more easily.

           ** Particularly as I’m wearing reflective things, some of which are moving.  So why add the risk of irritating or distracting others for minimal benefit to myself?

           *** You have to drive a massive SUV because otherwise your kids will die horribly when your car is crushed by someone else’s SUV.

         • Cycloid wrote:

           (a) My front light has a lens about the size of a 50p coin compared with a saucer for a typical motor vehicle, if they were both the same luminance then I would be invisible riding next to a car 50 meters up the road.

           (b) Back to the astronomer’s problem. Two horizontal lights could be a car a long way off or a bike close to.

           Circular arguments

           — Cycloid

           Not quite sure what you mean here?  My point was simply that I increasingly understand the complaint “your light’s too bright!” which I used to hear from pedestrians. (And would reply “but it’s not as bright as a car’s…”).  Because of the small area for a bright-long reaching beam they will be potentially more dazzling than vehicle lights.  My point was just “we’re all losing here” (and it’s possible for humans to avoid arms races sometimes).  Solutions are not easy obviously*.

           Your (b) – again not sure what you mean here.  In the UK we can safely assume two lights – spaced horizontally – will be a car / other motor vehicle until we have more information (e.g. if we’re riding on a car-free path, if I’m on a bike and the lights move slowly relative to me).  Yes – it could be two cyclists side-by-side but the occurrence of cyclists is *much* lower and I find in practice I can often distinguish vehicle and cycle lights anyway as they’re different types of light.  Obviously that one would be lost on most drivers (another reason to keep them separate from cyclists)…

           * Without any changes I expect cycle lights to keep getting brighter because “look – this one goes up to 11!” and more electric bikes (more power on hand).  I do not think this is a good thing in general.  I’m not a believer in population level fixes which rely on self-discipline (either on the part of cyclists in deploying sensible lights, or motorists in getting better at spotting cyclists).  Aside from purely recreational off-roading more brightness isn’t needed in urban areas and especially if we get more separation of cycle and motor traffic (without which we won’t see many more cyclists anyway, barring the food delivery businesses expanding to deliver everything…).

         • chrisonabike wrote:

           My point was simply that I increasingly understand the complaint “your light’s too bright!” which I used to hear from pedestrians. (And would reply “but it’s not as bright as a car’s…”).  Because of the small area for a bright-long reaching beam they will be potentially more dazzling than vehicle lights.  My point was just “we’re all losing here” (and it’s possible for humans to avoid arms races sometimes).  Solutions are not easy obviously*.

           — chrisonabike

           I’ve recently started doing the school run through a mostly unlit park and, despite having theoretically ‘good’ German regulated lights with a shaped beam (a SON Edelux and, latterly, a battery powered one on an ebike), I’ve been getting some ‘too bright’ comments. I guess I must be angling them too high, negating the beam cut off.    

            

         • I mean – they’re still bike

           I’ve been guilty of forgetting to angle lights down having been out in the dark of the countryside.  Or just having had it pushed by something while parking.  Easily done.

           I mean – they’re still bike lights (e.g. very small very bright point in the centre) – and I’ve had a one or two “moths to flames” incidents where it seemed to me that someone – having noticed a “bright light” – while disapproving of it seemed to be unable to look away from it… And for the foreseeable future – at least until “mass cycling” in the UK – there will be a bit of “but cyclists!”

           Alongside various battery lights, on dynamo I’ve Supernova E3 (front / rear) and a Busch & Muller Lumotec IQ-XS headlight.  I used to have a B&M toplight rear one which I rated as it managed to spread the light output over a wider area.

         • Yes to the target fixation

           Yes to the target fixation phenomenon!

         • Absolutely, and wouldn’t at
           Absolutely, and wouldn’t at ride at night without. And not against having sensible rules either. Just wondering, though, how much making us ‘more like cars’ makes us . . . more like cars in some people’s minds. Hence ‘road tax’ etc. (Someone actually said to me yesterday that it was unfair that drivers pay VAT on petrol and cyclists don’t! Too gobsmacked at the time to point out we do however VAT on coffee and cake . . .)

         • CyclingGardener wrote:

           we do however VAT on coffee and cake . . .)

           — CyclingGardener

           and on bikes, tyres, chains brake pads, sexy skin tight clothing and all the other important cycling accoutrements

       • tigersnapper wrote:

         It’s not an equivalence thing, it’s simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

         — tigersnapper

         “Its not about false equivalence, its just about acting like things which aren’t equivalent are equivalent so we can create a false equivalence…”

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Patrick9-32 wrote:

       Here we go again with the false driver and cyclist equivalence. 

       A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.

       A driver who’s vehicle isn’t safe is putting others at risk. 

       They are not the same thing. 

       — Patrick9-32

       But both are inconsiderate towards other road users. 

       Everyone has a duty of care to keep themselves, and others safe. Riding with lights, and ensuring tyres and lights are in good order should be the minimum to expect. I personally go out with lights, nearly all the time – esp in winter, and always a rear light. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Tell that to drivers usng

         Tell that to drivers usng daytime running lights at night. Blinding those in front, near-invisible from the rear.

         Who came up with the idea of DRLs and on front lights only??? It’s so ridiculous – just default a running car to sidelights and, if the driver is unable to determine at what level of darkness to go to dipped beams, fine, automate it.

         Rant over…

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I understand your thought on

           I understand your thought on car light automation but the technology does exist in new cars. However it is not perfect and in daytime conditions where dipped beams and even fog lamps are required (mist, fog, heavy rain, snow etc) the system doesn’t work. They run off ambient light sensors and because there is a hum of daylight (albeit scattered in a way that reduces visibility) they stick to daytime lights. There are campaigns to make people aware to manually switch on their dipped beams for those conditions.

           I have always been lucky to own a car which either does not have a DRL system or with a DRL setting that has low front light power and always activates the rear lights.

     • “A cyclist without lights is

       “A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.”

       And putting at risk the pedestrians they might run into, who might be doing something like using a pedestrian crossing correctly.

       There is a true equivalence, as unlit cyclists and unlit motorists both do create a (non-negligible) risk to more vulnerable road users. The car will do more damage than the bike of course in the event that risk is realised, but the bike is harder to spot and (around my area) unlit bikes are hugely more prevalent than unlit cars.

       Lights are cheap and reliable, and barring theft there’s not really a good excuse for riding without them.

       I’ve no problem with the approach the City police are taking, but conversely I’d have no complaints about them pulling over a sizeable chunk of the peleton at Bank and issuing some fines. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Brauchsel wrote:

         “A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.”

         And putting at risk the pedestrians they might run into, who might be doing something like using a pedestrian crossing correctly.

         There is a true equivalence, as unlit cyclists and unlit motorists both do create a (non-negligible) risk to more vulnerable road users. The car will do more damage than the bike of course in the event that risk is realised, but the bike is harder to spot and (around my area) unlit bikes are hugely more prevalent than unlit cars.

         Lights are cheap and reliable, and barring theft there’s not really a good excuse for riding without them.

         I’ve no problem with the approach the City police are taking, but conversely I’d have no complaints about them pulling over a sizeable chunk of the peleton at Bank and issuing some fines. 

         — Brauchsel

         Not quite equivalence as when a cyclist and pedestrian collide, the cyclist can often come off worse.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’ve never parked my car

     I’ve never parked my car outside a shop and had the headlights stolen.

     A car without working lights is not legally allowed on the road (there may be exceptions if you’re on your way to get them fixed, I don’t know). A bike without lights can be used perfectly legally during daylight. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. i can see it’s going to be a

   i can see it’s going to be a rough day here regards we hate drivers 

   after bienig handed lights by a nice police man, the shame has meant i invested money in good lights

   (give peace a chance, and hope drivers do too)

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Roads around South

   Roads around South Cambridgeshire and into Cambridge itself are terrible.  Most of the “quiet” routes road surfaces have been this way for years.  In and around Shepreth/Barrington/Foxton you are lucky to find a smooth stretch of road.

   Even Dr Hutch has penned articles on the potholes in the area over the last few years.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • DoomeFrog wrote:

     Roads around South Cambridgeshire and into Cambridge itself are terrible.  Most of the “quiet” routes road surfaces have been this way for years.  In and around Shepreth/Barrington/Foxton you are lucky to find a smooth stretch of road.

     Even Dr Hutch has penned articles on the potholes in the area over the last few years.

     — DoomeFrog

     If you know of anywhere in the UK where the roads are actually good, please let me know!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • There’s a roundabout near me

       There’s a roundabout near me that is perfect smooth new tarmac but for some reason feels nice and quick. It is an unjarring reminder of how pleasant cycling on a good surface is. Sometimes I do a few laps of it just to get the benefit before heading off done the road.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Lucky you, they’ve resurfaced

         Lucky you, they’ve resurfaced a bit of road near us, and it’s been done so badly I actually go around it now completely, potholes or a rough road surface would be as good as the shoddy work whoever put it down did. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • The roads in Pembrokeshire

       The roads in Pembrokeshire and Camarthenshire are in much better condition than I have found anywhere else in the UK, maybe not quite up to French standards but not far off.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Must be good in the south of

         Must be good in the south of Wales!  IIRC Cugel formerly of this parish said they were some kind of paradise (Ceredigion in their case), with few drivers to boot.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • There’s a couple of roads out
       There’s a couple of roads out by Wrexham that are really nice. I suspect it might be something to do with the Tour of Britain visiting there ?

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. It would be nice for the

   It would be nice for the police to hand out the lights without making it a media event, knowing full well that there is going to be a barrage of comments from people who take issue with it. It’s happened round our end, big article on the local rag’s web page, one of the few with comments active, surprise surprise.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • But that generates revenue

     But that generates revenue for them. Although my local paper’s online website have hidden most of their articles behind a subscription paywall. Fair to say I have stopped visiting that site.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I meant more the police

       I meant more the police posting about it on Twitter etc.. which in turn gets picked up by the media.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • But they have to show that

         But they have to show that they’re doing something, not just scoffing doughnuts.

         And cyclists riding around without lights are ‘a problem’ say drivers so it’s a winner.

         Perhaps they’ll then turn their attention to the numerous cars with a headlamp not working, drivers phone-fiddling and various other hazardous activities that are witnessed all the time.

         Log In or Register to post comments

7. Re Edinburgh: That pothole’s
   Re Edinburgh: That pothole’s soon gonna be open again…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • That spot on Queensferry Road

     That spot on Queensferry Road is always thus at the end of the year.  It looks quite pretty for a day or two as the leaves fall, then they turn into sludge (retained by the “light segregation”) and it’s somewhere to avoid.

     The problem with all these “cosmetic” / “grubby” issues is what lies beneath.  In the case of Edinburgh’s roads (like elsewhere) that is a variety of rim-breaking potholes (or the edges of metal access covers revealed by same), often sharp bits that have come off motor vehicles and enough gravel to necessitate a gravel bike.

     Of course it’s also less fun having to clean off not just the usual salt and grime but half a compost heap also.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. Who says UK cycle

   Who says UK cycle infrastructure design is ‘built by the terminally incompetent’?

   Here in Cherry Hinton, Cambridgeshire, we have a recently created section of 3 metre wide cycle path that conveniently leads straight into grass and newly planted hedges.

   The alternative route to the left is narrowed by street furniture and awkward path alignment to ensure riders concentrate on this negotiation as they cycle the wrong way along an already tokenistic cycle lane. 

   This is clearly the result of recent forward thinking ‘Plan for Drivers’ but obviously not for anyone else. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Cherry Hinton, Cambridge

   Cherry Hinton, Cambridge again. This section of road called Teversham Drift has been patched with liquorice chunks many times by Wonka Highways monkeys, ensuring the patches last at least a week or so. 

   Here, a liquorice patch in the cycle ‘lane’ has created a choice for the adventurous rider; take the lane to avoid road defects, and get shouted at by drivers, take the slimey cycle deviation and be spat out into path of drivers and be shouted at, or try and fit one’s body through the gap with a driver and be shouted at/crushed to death?

   Teversham Drift; both maintenance duty of care and ability to create safe(r) cycle infrastructure was not the focus.

   Meanwhile, not far from here the Black Cat roundabout redevelopment is soon to start, to shave ten minutes off journey time. The cash-strapped local authority has managed to scratch around and find just £1bn for this. 

   Plan for Drivers (just not anything else).  

   Log In or Register to post comments