Speeding driver who appeared to use phone behind the wheel complains about kids cycling on the pavement; Sadiq Khan gets his jab...in a Rapha tee; Supreme Court ruling may affect Deliveroo; Tao takes a knee; Aero talk with Dowsett + more on the live blog

Not seen any rumours, but the GCN app still has all the races listed (MSR, Paris-Roubaix, Strade Bianche, LBL, KBK, La Fleche Wallonne etc). 

It would be a massive kick in the teeth for their new GCN+ platform if they launch it then loose the rights! 

EDIT - just seen on a Facebook post that they definitely won't have Omloop (in an answer to a comment) - not sure if there's any other races missing from their coverage alongside this. 

Paris Roubaix is supposed to safe because the ASO deal with that, but sorry should have been more specific its the Flanders classics specifically, the likes of Omloop,Gent Wevelgem, Dwars Deer Vlanderen, the Ronde (from next year), Amstel Gold, the exclusive international media rights were all bought just recently by a media company called Infront, and GCN confirmed at the moment they dont have any rights to show those races yet, Eurosport arent saying anything, but the issue is assumed to be Infront are just asking too much money to show these races.

so might be something that gets resolved, might not.

How precise did you have to be? I didn't say 'with flow' nor without gates. Would I have been marked down as wrong ?

Nope, but the initial complaint is "all the LTNs...." and I think others have pointed out, there is no LTNs' in that area. However the road has been 20mph for at least 4-5 years judging that the sign in the video in on the same post back until Apr2015.

As an aside, as I was trying to find the junction on the road and noiced two things on StreetView:-
Lots of cyclists are on that road over the years.

This Streeview car appears to do a close pass right after a pinch point. 
 

Ther's no F in LTNs....

HLaB wrote:

I could be wrong but I thought the government instructed the cops to not prosecute kids under 10 for using the footway. Also to consider why folk in general are intimidated to use the footway. Separately the footway looks quite wide. I couldn't tell from the illegal camera footage if they were actually using a dedicated cycle facility 🙄

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 (England and Wales) so the police can't prosecute young children for anything. Also, fixed penalty notices can't be issued to anyone under 16.

(Ref - Cycling UK blog)

I was once told I wasn't too old to be taken home in the police van for riding on the pavement. Unfortunately I was too slow to say "thank you very much officer, I'm a bit shaken up after just being forced off the road by a driver."

Think I was 16 at the time.

I'm curious if the police will contact him about the driving offences he committed?

Oooh - I know the answer to that one!

Philh68 wrote:

Speeding driver using their phone, just as well those kids were on the pavement. As an Aussie I find that it being an issue in the   UK quite bizarre - here (NSW) children may ride on pavements to 16yo. The sky hasn't fallen down.

Government advice is that the police should use common sense before fining people riding on the pavement, and only do so if the person is cycling dangerously, or being a nuisance.

Jenova20 wrote:

....

Government advice is that the police should use common sense before fining people riding on the pavement, and only do so if the person is cycling dangerously, or being a nuisance.

Aaaah. Common sense.....

Discretion is ok for police, they can ignore the stuff they can't be arsed dealing with. The general public are better served by certainty in the law. Parents are much happier knowing that their children are able to ride on the pavement in relative safety, rather than it being at the discretion of law enforcement with the possibility of them being forced into the road because they're perceived a risk to pedestrians. The reason for laws is they resolve the ethical dilemma so we don't have to decide in the heat of the moment.

The main challenge with your approach is that often laws that are brought in have to cover every eventuality and therefore apply to the lowest common denominator. 

Personally I hate this approach as we get further and further into a nanny state, legislating for everything. Much like some individuals getting all hot under the collar about 'how far can we ride during lockdown'. Just use your brain!

Sometimes you know the common sense approach is common sense! 

Gimpl wrote:

The main challenge with your approach is that often laws that are brought in have to cover every eventuality and therefore apply to the lowest common demonitor. 

Personally I hate this approach as we get further and further into a nanny state, legislating for everything. Much like some individuals getting all hot under the collar about 'how far can we ride during lockdown'. Just use your brain!

Sometimes you know the common sense approach is common sense! 

Very few laws cover every eventuality from the offset and as such are updated through loophole cases, which set a judicial precedent. Either way, laws are there to protect people and I don't think strengthening their practical applications is a bad thing. More generally the U.K. has the most cameras per sq ft than any other country in the world so we're already "the nanny state".

So what you are saying is that laws are brought in that then get progressively more restrictive! 

This is not a good thing when a dose of common sense at the outset will usually suffice - particularly in instances like this one and the how far can I ride question. 

Yes, laws are there to protect people - of course they are. It also seems that some laws are being brought in to protect people from themselves - the lowest common denominator! Maybe my view is outdated but if people are too stupid to realise they are doing something stupid it's their look out!

Not sure what cameras have to do with the application of nanny state new laws though.

Gimpl wrote:

So what you are saying is that laws are brought in that then get progressively more restrictive! 

This is not a good thing when a dose of common sense at the outset will usually suffice - particularly in instances like this one and the how far can I ride question. 

Yes, laws are there to protect people - of course they are. It also seems that some laws are being brought in to protect people from themselves - the lowest common denominator! Maybe my view is outdated but if people are too stupid to realise they are doing something stupid it's their look out!

Not sure what cameras have to do with the application of nanny state new laws though.

No what I'm saying is that it's almost impossible to cover every eventuality from the offset and eventually a case comes up that the law doesn't cover and if appropriate a new precedent is set. It is simply a process of updating the law as times change. Plus leaving something to "common sense" can bring two very different judgements on identical cases due to each individual seeing things differently, so there would be lots of inconsistency and injustice as a result.
 

I think the bigger problem is that laws aren't enforced as much as they should be and road.cc's close pass collection emphasises that very well.

Camera's are inextricably linked as they aid the speed and due process of enforcement. I understand your points, I just see it a little differently that's all.

Ah the nanny state mission creep myth. Laws are drafted to cover specific situations, they are usually reactionary to circumstance and rarely pre-emptive. Laws so vague as to be wide open to interpretation generally don't stay that way, and laws no longer needed are revoked. Close passing laws here are an example of vague laws - it was already law to not overtake another vehicle too closely, but the non specificity made conviction nigh on impossible and gave neither cyclists or drivers clarity as to a safe distance. Hence the amended law to specify minimum distance.

The pavement riding law here was amended to increase the maximum age from 12 to 16. This was after research found injury rates were higher in children both on road and on pavement, mainly due to inexperience and risk perception. So the law increasing the age cutoff was made to lower the risk level. That's sensible use of laws.

Philh68 wrote:

Hence the amended law to specify minimum distance.

Isn't it the Highway Code that's being (proposed to be) amended, not the law?

jasecd wrote:

Well done Tao - great to see a young rider with a social conscience and prepared to act on it.

Yup, and can't help thinking some of the older riders should have done it first/wish they'd done it. Actions speak louder than words