“Peak UK nonsense”: Disbelief from cyclists and walkers at “utterly bizarre” barriers and signage installed on popular route controversially closed by council; Pro cycling’s next noughties-born superstar? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
How does a product recall work in the bike industry?
Pro cycling's next noughties-born superstar?
With 1km to go Isaac del Toro makes a final attack, and takes out the Men’s efex Stage 2 for UAE Team Emirates 🥇@efex_IT | @Santosltd | #TourDownUnder
📺 Stream the race now on 7plus: https://t.co/k2Exq3FDwl pic.twitter.com/LwZYq1NCcS
— Santos Tour Down Under 🚴🚴♀️ (@tourdownunder) January 17, 2024
UAE Team Emirates might just have another special young talent on their hands. Clearly Tadej Pogačar and Juan Ayuso are getting on a bit, so step up Isaac Del Toro from Mexico. Date of birth? Are you ready for this? Brace yourselves? 27 November… 2003!?
The 20-year-old won Tour de l’Avenir, including the Col de la Loze stage, the race that is essentially the ‘baby Tour de France’ and that has been won by riders such as teammate Pogačar, Egan Bernal, Miguel Ángel López, David Gaudu, Cian Uijtdebroeks and other notable names in recent times. In short, win that and you’re more than on the right track…
Well, now he’s arrived in the big leagues, winning the second stage of the Tour Down Under with a monstrous attack with a kilometre to go to hold off the rest of the bunch and take his first professional win (on only his third day in the peloton). Isaac Del Toro. Remember the name.
Scathing select committee report finds "not enough" communication of Highway Code changes and Department for Transport "not on track" to meet active travel goals
If you missed our story on the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the Department for Transport’s work on active travel here’s your bullet point summary:
- Not on track to meet its active travel targets by 2025
- Not ensured active travel schemes are sufficiently joined-up with wider transport infrastructure
- Failed to communicate effectively with the public to help tackle perceptions that active travel is unsafe or to encourage more people to take part
- Is holding back local authorities from delivering on projects due to “considerable uncertainty” in funding
Yep, not the most positive appraisal…
Important news in The Telegraph: How to cycle to work — without becoming a cyclist
“How to cycle to work – without becoming a cyclist”. 🤦♂️
This just goes to show why we need to adopt the Dutch term fiets/fietser. Clearly the right wing have made a name for someone who rides toxic and now they’re realising the issue with that…https://t.co/4fhVuqBWjU
— Cargo Bike Ben (@cargobikeben) January 17, 2024
Interestingly this was promptly changed to… ‘How to start cycling to work – without completely hating it’.
"Not stopping after a collision seems to be almost normalised": Warning hit-and-run collision numbers at record high
.jpg)
The number of hit-and-run collisions in London has hit a record high, with a London Assembly member who carried out research on the issue concluding that the offence has been “almost normalised”.
Caroline Russell was speaking to Ross Lydall of the Evening Standard, her research looking into the fact that there were 7,708 hit-and-run incidents recorded in 2021, the most on record for a year where data is available.
That is up 14 per cent on the 7,079 recorded in 2020, with 761 people seriously injured and 12 killed in hit-and-runs in 2021. This compared with 682 serious injuries and 14 fatalities in 2020. And while the shorter-term year-to-year statistics may also be impacted by Covid lockdowns, Russell explained that in the long-term the number of casualties in hit-and-runs in London had doubled since 2009.
The number of cyclists injured in London by hit-and-run drivers in 2021 was 1,859, with 1,327 pedestrians injured in incidents too.
“This apparent increase in irresponsible and dangerous driving on our roads is worrying,” she said. “In 2021 there were nearly two-and-a-half times as many hit-and-run casualties on London’s roads as there were in 2009. Not stopping after a collision seems to be almost normalised and the people that do it appear not to care about their victims or to fear any legal consequences.”
The campaigner and Green Party London Assembly member has called on the city’s mayor Sadiq Khan to establish an action plan to reduce such offences as part of the wider Vision Zero project.
"He drove towards me at speed, then shouted 'b***h' in my face": Nine out of ten women face abuse while cycling, shocking new survey finds
Tadej Pogačar, Jonas Vingeagaard and Primož Roglič top the charts for cycling's highest-paid riders
Tadej Pogačar is the highest-paid rider in the men’s WorldTour, a new report published in La Gazzetta dello Sport has suggested. The Slovenian will earn €6 million this year, compatriot Primož Roglič’s transfer to Bora-Hansgrohe reportedly seeing him jump to second in the earnings list on €4.5 million per year, while Jonas Vingegaard is third on €4 million.
Away from the Grand Tour big hitters, the Italian newspaper reports Mathieu van der Poel is also on €4 million a year, while Wout van Aert will be paid an estimated €3.5 million for his 2024 efforts.
[Alex Broadway/SWpix.com]
The top ten is rounded out by Remco Evenepoel (€2.8 million), British duo Tom Pidcock and Adam Yates (€2.7 million), and Egan Bernal and Carlos Rodriguez (€2.5 million). This does not include the commercial deals enjoyed by the aforementioned riders, so in reality the figures will be higher. Not bad… especially if you live in Andorra or Monaco…
“No athlete in my career has had such a strong appeal to brands,” Pogačar’s agent Alex Carera said. “In cycling, Pogačar can be seen as the most universal, the most versatile, the one with the greatest communicative reach.”
"We don't doubt this letter will get criticism... We're human, we use our roads too and we want to sort this": Council pens open letter apologising for potholes
Derbyshire County Council has published an open letter to residents on Derby Live, apologising for the deteriorating state of the county’s roads and pledging to tackle the issue:
Dear residents
On seeing this, we can hear the immediate response: don’t write about it, just fill them! We do agree but we also wanted to acknowledge the problem.
We’re stating the obvious to say there’s been a massive increase in potholes to what we would usually see. We’re sorry for this. Whilst we always prepare for winter, the last few months really have thrown exceptional things at us. Many communities sadly are still dealing with the destruction of October and Babet’s floods (with a month of rain in a single day), November’s freeze and snow, and December’s double the usual rainfall. You’re right though when you say this recent damage isn’t the only problem: this has been decades in the making with ageing highways and reducing investment comparatively.
But we’re not going to fluff or filibuster with reams of stats or politics on what we’re facing. We’re filling hundreds of potholes each day and have extra teams on. It doesn’t matter though how many potholes we’re filling if the one outside your house or on your journey is still there. You, rightly, don’t care about the 90,000 we filled last year, just the ones that are there now. We’re also not doing comparisons with other counties. What matters is Derbyshire.
So, we’re further bumping up resources to deal with the current backlog and changing from how we usually do things to focus on wider fixes where we can. We’ve also started a resurfacing patch programme of an extra 250 sites where we have pothole hotspots.
We’ll post further updates over the next few weeks on this but, crucially, we want you to see it on the roads in action. We know that’s what will make the difference.
Just to touch on a few further points, we can’t always resurface every road immediately. All the budget and resources still wouldn’t make that possible given how far we cover.
Sometimes the weather or underlying road problems also means a repair won’t last. So we have to do temporary repairs to try to make things safe. But we do try to do permanent repairs or resurfacing where we can. Likewise, we’re reviewing the materials and methods we use so we can make sure we’re using the most efficient and longest lasting solutions.
Many also ask why one road has received works over another which looks worse. We sometimes have to intervene at the point we do so it protects and prolongs the life of the road at a lower cost. This then means we can do more and focus on more places.
We’re also making the case nationally for more investment — this is starting to filter through, which is what means we can do the above, but we will keep working together with others on this.
As a final but no less important note, we’re seeing an increase in abuse towards our staff who are out working on the network. We understand the frustration, and share it, but hope people don’t take it out on those teams. In many cases they’re working round the clock in often rubbish weather. Many are stepping into roles they don’t usually do to help. They’re doing the best they can so, genuinely, thank you to them.
We don’t doubt this letter will get criticism. It probably would’ve been easier not to do it when we read the comments back. But please take this for what it is: acknowledging the challenges and problems, and being open in what we’re doing. We’re human, we use our roads too and we want to sort this.
We’ll be out too with the teams when we can. We know actions speak louder than words so please be assured that’s what we’re doing.
Water company slammed after "absolutely vile" sewage spill on popular cycle path used by schoolchildren
*Bracing ourselves for a shit-tonne of puns*
Your thoughts on Thirlmere reservoir's latest addition... some very strange barriers
You’ve been filling the comments section with thoughts on this… (what’s the best way to describe it?)… bizarre (being kind)… face-palmingly baffling (being less so)… barrier. Let’s get stuck in…
Benthic: “In a prominent display of ignorance, they have erected a ‘no cycling’ sign in addition to the ‘no vehicles’ sign.”
mctrials23: “Luckily as a cyclist that barrier looks like a lovely little bunny hop.” Too dangerous, I’m afraid… now get back on that fast, busy A-road…
I think Muddy Ford gets comment of the day however…
“Obviously someone key to the decision is an equestrian. They need to get off their high horse and allow the commoners access to what they were legally entitled to do.”
Cue the puns…
hawkinspeter: “Has the route been closed furlong? Back in the day, it used to be that motor cars were only for the wealthy and horses were for the poor people, yet now it’s only the wealthy that have horses and cars are for the poor. My, how the stables have turned.”
Steve K: “Is it a mane road?”
And plenty more after that worth a chuckle. On a (marginally) more serious note…
Creakingcrank: “Somebody should talk to the horses, to find out why their lobbying for access was successful while the cyclists and pedestrians failed.”
Which would mean of course, as pointed out by the little onion, getting the answer straight from the horse’s mouth… our work here is done…
"Peak UK nonsense": Disbelief from cyclists and walkers at "utterly bizarre" barriers and signage installed on popular route controversially closed by council
Before we get stuck into this one, some context…
This is the popular road that runs along the western shore of Thirlmere reservoir in the Lake District. It is a “key part” of the National Cycling Network and, in Cycling UK’s campaign on the matter, is described as “one of the only safe road cycling routes” towards Keswick. If this route were to disappear then vulnerable road users would be forced to use a busy A-road “hemmed in by walls with fast flowing traffic and heavy goods vehicles” as the “only alternative”.
Unfortunately the quiet and picturesque waterside route was closed, at first temporarily, for two years due to storm damage. However, in the autumn, Cumberland Council proposed a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to close the road to all traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians.
Despite calls from many, including Cycling UK and the more than 1,000 cyclists and walkers who ignored the closure to protest the proposed closure, it was approved in November, which leaves us here today. Introducing your new Thirlmere reservoir barriers and signage…
Yes, this is the route now closed to cyclists and pedestrians, but where horse riding is allowed, hence the barrier design.
Needless to say there has been a fair bit of reaction to this…
Richard Brown: “I don’t understand why all traffic apart from horse riding. Surely the risk is even greater being on a horse than being in a vehicle if there is falling debris.”
Simon Douglas: “Peak UK nonsense. There will be nothing that a weekend of work won’t fix and they’ll spend more adding barriers over the years to stop people walking along the road than they would on just fixing it.”
Merton Cycling Campaign: “The insanity (for cyclists) is the alternative route — the A591 — is FAR more dangerous. As a cyclist you cannot leave decisions about risk to organisations who don’t understand or care about cycling.”
Paul: “An absolutely bizarre option.”
Duncan O’Sullivan: “Just fix the damn road already.”
Neil Evans: “What in the hellscape is this nonsense?”
During the campaign, road.cc reader Dave got in touch to say he had cautiously avoided the previous construction site-style barriers to ride through during a summer bikepacking trip and took the picture below…
In fairness, a quite considerable amount of damage, as noted in his report, however: “There was an obvious route through and evidence of plenty of use […] It seemed clear to me, and the other cyclist I met, that: there has been a totally unnecessary delay on dealing with this route. If it had been important for motorised traffic it would have been done very quickly.”
The official line was there is a risk of falling rocks, however as Cycling UK pointed out, that while public safety is most important and falling rocks are an “obvious hazard” there “are plenty of roads around the country where falling rocks remain a risk without resulting in the extreme solution of permanent closure”, not least on… the A591 on the opposite shore…
A glimmer of hope?
The road is owned by United Utilities, Cycling UK calling upon the water company to make the necessary repairs and that it should be fined if it failed to do so, and that such works could be carried out under a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
It is the company’s responsibility, as local historian Ian Hall pointed out during the campaign, the 1879 Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act entitled the corporation to dam the lake at Thirlmere, thus creating a reservoir to pump water to Manchester. But crucially, under the act the company would be required to build and maintain a road for public use, a route that “shall be maintained by and at the cost of the corporation forever” (not until some trees fall down and you can’t be bothered).
A United Utilities statement released on January 12 said:
A section of the West Road at Thirlmere is currently closed beneath Rough Crag for safety reasons. We’re currently working on a project to make the Crag safe so that the road can be reopened again as soon as possible.
A glimmer of hope? I’m sure many will want to see action before believing words…
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.
57 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Another really weird review from road.cc. They take a product, use it for something it wasn't designed for and then mark it down. I've just upgraded my Boost to the Boost 3 and I can say it does the jobs it is designed for very well. I use it on rides in daylight for Saturday group rides and occasional all day epics. I feel that cars are more likely to see me and the significantly brighter day flash and doubling of battery life are significant upgrades, especially for longer rides. It's also so light that there's really no downside to using it so safety wins. I also use it for short 30-min commuting. The easy of detachment and robustness of the light here are key and it's perfect for this use case. For longer rides that involve significant unlit or off-road, such as along a canal path, at night I use the Exposure Strada RB. Again, road.cc, right tool: right job. It's also great that Exposure use common mounts for all their lights. I change the Boost and RB between multiple bikes using the mount with a red pin and it takes seconds to move from bike to bike or to detach for charging. The table for setting brightness is something I tend to set only once. Then the single button is a boon.
Yes, I can't wait: a duff BMC frame with a crap oval BB, and carbon rims set up tubeless and without a pressure -relief hole so you can pressurise the cavity and which would likely (to complete the disaster waiting to happen) be hookless/ mini-hook and explode with no notice
About time they got more of them out of cars and onto bikes. Do their fitness levels some good.
I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else’s Yes, that's the point - the aim of the pseudo - database is to shut the punters up and deceive them about how little the police have done. They know the deception scheme has been successful when people report on here that they have achieved successful outcomes from most of their reports. They haven't.
Mayor Adams perverted a lot of laws, hence the fact that he is no longer Mayor. New York cyclists have had an ongoing problem with members of the ultra-orthodox Satmar Jewish community in Williamsburg. They don't like people in cycle shorts and skimpy tops cycling through the neighbourhood. They used their political influence to get a cycle lane removed from a local highway. There was talk of a naked bike ride through the area but I think wiser counsels prevailed.
This is disgusting. Cycling is for everyone; no-one should feel intimidated out of the hobby. The kind of "men" who think it's ok to harass women would think twice about doing it to a man. If we are going to persuade large numbers of motorists to become cyclists then the issue of harassment has to be addressed.
I've a memory the poster may be Edinburgh-adjacent (is that right?) - in which case it *may* be possible as the shared use paths (former railways) (plus a bit of more recent infra) can allow you to do this. Highly dependent on your journey though. That's not the case most places in NL. There you may be using motor-traffic-reduced and slowed *streets* there but most roads have alternatives. But here in the north-west I can cycle for several miles in a couple of directions using them. Of course if I needed to eg. go east-west in the south of the city it's back to more usual UK conditions...
According to the website as seen on my mobile this is an outstanding deal - the price in the box at the top by the weight etc. is showing as £0.00 ! (sorry due to site redesign I can't post a screenshot - besides I'm ignoring the price points which *are* quoted later in the article and am off to claim my free machine...)
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Then ... it will be easy to see that in the casualty numbers, no? And (albeit this is looking a decade back) indeed you can *see* the truth! https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/a-year-of-death-and-injury-2016/ Do you mean is "we are used to *looking for the cars*" (or even "looking with our ears" - which is real) and thus cyclists are often surprising? Or is it "cyclists are in or space, we know that motorists are only on the roads"? * But ... it is true that cyclists are a bit less visible and quieter than motorists. And it is true that some cyclists don't make efforts to be visible. And indeed some are too relaxed about cycling in accordance with the law. The latter points are not good ... but then the damage caused by cyclists in a collision is on average much less than a with a motor vehicle. And while people often think that motorists are more likely to be motivated to obey the law because of legal consequences (because eg. "They've got number plates") that it's debatable. Unlike cyclists motorists aren't going to be motivated to proceed carefully because of worries about being injured or killed in a collision with a pedestrian... * Excluding all those motorists who reach year kill more people on the footways than cyclists do altogether...
The cross checking is limited but I do have the matching data fields on my own records which correspond with the police's data fields: 'Offence Date', Offending Vehicle Type', 'Reporter' ('Cyclist' for me), 'Location Town or City', 'Primary Offence'. If that isn't replicated in the database for an incident I have reported it tells me something is wrong with the database. If I have reported an incident and there are several matching possibilities then, yes, I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else's.
57 thoughts on ““Peak UK nonsense”: Disbelief from cyclists and walkers at “utterly bizarre” barriers and signage installed on popular route controversially closed by council; Pro cycling’s next noughties-born superstar? + more on the live blog”
I’m all for it, if the road
I’m all for it, if the road might dangerous, use the horsists as canaries to find out if it is safe or not.
Somebody should talk to the
Somebody should talk to the horses, to find out why their lobbying for access was succesful while the cyclists and pedestrians failed.
Get the answer, straight from
Get the answer, straight from the horse’s mouth?
I’m sure they’ll make the
I’m sure they’ll make the answer up in the hoof
That’s unfair. Lots of horses
That’s unfair. Lots of horses are outstanding in their field.
Creakingcrank wrote:
True, and many have a very impressive track record.
Have we heard from the Mare
Have we heard from the Mare of Greater Manchester about this?
And they’ve had to overcome a
And they’ve had to overcome a lot of hurdles.
With the exception of bizarre
With the exception of bizarre bylaws like this, access for horses and riders means it’s a bridleway, which allows cyclists and obviously pedestrians.
What happens here if the horse [-]gets a puncture[/-] throws a shoe, and the rider has to get off and walk with their animal, is that allowed?
They’d have to pick the horse
They’d have to pick the horse up and carry it, obviously 😉
If the horse dies, they would
If the horse dies, they would have to flog it.
brooksby wrote:
I think it depends on whether it’s in a stable condition or not
The council found that they
The council found that they didn’t have the powers to exclude horse riders when making the TRO, and so came up with this option. There is still ongoing discussion on the eventual full reopening. I would not make too much noise about the current situation – I view it as a very creative fudge to open the road without opening the road.
Informative, thank you.
Informative, thank you.
Intentional grey areas to
Intentional grey areas to allow access without officially granting access. All well and good, but councils have a habit of springing enforcement on such vague-ities and wonder why people get pissed off.
Usually because there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary solution, then management changes hands and someone becomes a dick about things
Drinfinity wrote:
That would be interesting to know more… TRO’s can usually be made applicable to Hosses so there must be something peculiar about the deal between UU and the Council.
Secondly – it may be a fudge but its a damn inconvenient one and those barriers arent accessible friendly…
Important not to be a neigh
Important not to be a neigh-sayer on these sorts of things
Creakingcrank wrote:
Perhaps a Gallop poll?
In the past, the people who
In the past, the people who had money used horses, the poor used their feet and walked, the lobbying has been done for a very long time. Nothing changes!
The solution would appear for
The solution would appear for cyclist to use the road in pairs. When stopped, both riders should point to the other and say, in unison, “horses only? I’ll have you know that this is a palomine…”
Go on a tandem in costume –
Go on a tandem in costume – it didn’t say “only horses *except* pantomime horses”.
‘Peak UK Nonsense’ is an
‘Peak UK Nonsense’ is an understatement of this malevolent anti-cyclist (and anti-pedestrian) foolishness. I was about to complain about the effect on the Keswick to Barrow charity walk, but I now see they have completely changed the route since I last did it.
Obviously someone key to the
Obviously someone key to the decision is an equestrian. They need to get off their high horse and allow the commoners access to what they were legally entitled to do.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Has the route been closed furlong?
Back in the day, it used to be that motor cars were only for the wealthy and horses were for the poor people, yet now it’s only the wealthy that have horses and cars are for the poor. My, how the stables have turned
Is it a mane road?
Is it a mane road?
Steve K wrote:
superb
Enough with the horse puns,
Enough with the horse puns, you’re all being very filly.
I’m counting the puns, and
I’m counting the puns, and putting this stallion a piece of paper.
This whole issue is a total
This whole issue is a total (night) mare.
Enough puns now, you al need
Enough puns now, you all need to rein it in.
David9694 “blimey, they’re
David9694 “blimey, they’re literally using the comments on the exact same article in the body of the article”
Let’s get a view from the
Let’s get a view from the RSPCA about animal rights on why it’s acceptable for a horse to walk where its assessed to be too dangerous for a human…
Reason #42 cyclists don’t use
Reason #42 cyclists don’t use a cycle lane…
“Old Norwich Road is a dedicated bus route, and the council said the dumped sugar beet was blocking the cycleway lane.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c972zg2z99do
Brum and bass on the bike?
Brum and bass on the bike? good.
Someone dropping the beets on the cycle way? Not so good.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Bass in Coventry is also good.
Most interest Suffolk
Most interest Suffolk highways have ever taken to a blocked cycleway, we’ve got roads still flooded from October, potholes like this https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24044689.huge-pothole-ipswich-road-debenham-repaired/ and they get in a right tizz about some sugar beet left on side of the road on a near traffic free dead end route ?
The road is essentially an LTN, to stop motorists rat running A14 congestion, with only buses allowed as motorised access thru, consequently very few drive along it, and why it ended up as a cycle route.
The bit they’re talking about is here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/K1M14oWRNrB6wWp87
no one I know locally rides the painted bit of marked cycleway, I think Timmy Mallet did on his round UK ride but mentioned it was odd, because it forces you off route onto a surface that’s probably not been touched in the 40 years or so the road stopped being used properly, the actual road to the right is fine has plenty of room as there’s next to no traffic and the cycleway is one way only anyway.
I think there is an
I think there is an opportunity here to make money enabling pedestrians to use the road,
Or…
Or…
having zoomed in and read the
having zoomed in and read the sign, I can see they have rolled out the “will be prosecuted” chestnut
“Any other modes of transport found to be using this route illegally (walkers, cyclists and any motorised vehicles) will be prosecuted.”
Not look at the wording of the ??law?? but wondering if this is the same as all the private property signs that talk bullshit about prosecuting trespassers when in fact regular trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
For it to be valid would it not need to specify what the potential punishment/fine would be, or does that go to prove that its bullshit and trying to scare people away.
thehill wrote:
Thinking back to the BlackBeltBarrister’s video about the company threatening to sue a cyclist for trademark infringement – would it be possible to get an injunction against the sign placer for threatening legal action or would the sign have to be targetting a specific person?
As an act was created saying
As an act was created saying a public road should be maintained forever by the water company, surely nobody could be prosecuted for using it.
I’m not a lawyer, but my
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding of the legal status is:
The road remains a “road” and therefore subject to laws controlling use of roads. It has not reverted to just being “land” (to which access may be the civil tort of trespass but not a criminal offence).
The Road Traffic Regulation Act allows the relevant Authority to create “Traffic Regulation Orders” which apply to “roads” (defined as “any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes”). In particular, Section 2 spells out what restrictions the Authority is permitted to apply. These include prohibiting access to vehicles (including bikes) and prohibiting access to pedestrians. Section 2 does not mention horses (either by deliberate or inadvertent omission).
It is an offence to contravene a Traffic Regulation Order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/2
This would appear to create a somewhat tortuous result that it is a “road” because the public have access to it, and therefore the Authority has the power to prohibit public access to it. I’m not entirely clear how this legislation interacts with other legislation that provides for Public Rights of Way such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or Countryside Act 1968.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-67981472
“A footpath near a Lake District beauty spot that was damaged in a storm has reopened to walkers.
United Utilities opened the footpath on Friday, while a tarmac road alongside also reopened for horses and riders.”
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/thirlmere_access_update-766603
“The use of barriers in support of the restrictions is permitted by Section 92 of the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act, however horse riders will be able to pass if they so choose. The Council will ensure that signage is erected to make horse riders aware of the danger together with signage that the road is closed to vehicles (including pedal cycles) and pedestrians.”
Peak UK nonsense
Peak UK nonsense
In a prominent display of ignorance, they have erected a ‘no cycling’ sign in addition to the ‘no vehicles’ sign.
more strange signs
more strange signs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-67996335
Hirsute wrote:
I think it’s a good idea to put unusual words onto non-critical signs like that as it gets people to expand their vocabulary and also makes the sign much more memorable if you’ve had to look up a word. It’s a shame that “Exercise Obtundity” is the name of the police operation rather than being an instruction.
Excellent comment, “I was
Excellent comment, “I was stopped by the police for not exercising obtundity but they let me off with a caution.”
I think you will find I was
I think you will find I was being perfectly cromulent.
Rendel Harris wrote:
my dog is called obtundity, I’ll take him out more often now
I thought it was for a band
I thought it was for a band playing an outdoor gig. I won’t bother trying to get a ticket now.
Luckily as a cyclist that
Luckily as a cyclist that barrier looks like a lovely little bunny hop.
Quote:
This morning I was riding into work and overtaking a long queue of traffic approaching the clifton suspension bridge. As I approached a section where there were parked cars on my right, I moved into a gap in the queue as I could see oncoming traffic. As the oncoming cars passed by me I heard this massive <bang!> and looked over my shoulder to see the
wing doorside mirror of one of the parked cars hanging off. Nobody stopped to check what they’d hitI’ve seen that happen too, by
I’ve seen that happen too, by a vehicle travelling too fast through a narrow gap between cars. Annoyingly, it was the parked car that lost its mirror and not the irresponsible driver’s car.
Quote:
That’s due to the perverse incentives. If you fail to stop, then any subsequent penalty is unlikely to be any harsher, yet there’s a chance that you’ll not be discovered. Also, if you have any alcohol or banned substances in your system, then you can claim that you were shaken up by the collision and had a drink/smoke/snort to settle your nerves, but you were clean at the time.
I think leaving the scene of a serious collision without administering aid (or at least phoning for an ambulance or checking that someone is assisting) should be grounds for a lifetime driving ban and a prison term.
For less serious collisions, leaving the scene should be treated more harshly than being under the influence of alcohol – just to ensure that there’s an incentive for drivers to act more humanely.
Leaving the scene of any
Leaving the scene of any collision should be an automatic custodial sentence. If you don’t stop, you don’t know whether it is serious or not.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Yes, but if you know that you’ve just clipped an inanimate object then different rules should apply. If however you think you clipped a mirror but instead hit a cyclist, then the full penalty should apply because the driving was bad enough that they didn’t even know what they hit.
“We’re currently working on a
“We’re currently working on a project to make the Crag safe so that the road can be reopened again as soon as possible”
Yeah
One of the same companies that have taken our money to treat sewage and then illegally dumped it.
I can’t think of many I would trust less, apart from maybe a politician.