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
Sadiq Khan gets his jab while wearing a Rapha tee
We knew Sadiq Khan was pro-cycling from his support for cycling infrastructure in the capital, but here’s another reminder. The Mayor of London sported a Rapha Technical Tee at his vaccination appointment today. It’s important to look your best on a day out to the vaccine centre so a smart choice from the mayor.
He’s not the only famous face who’s been rocking some Rapha this week. On Monday’s blog Kevin Hart was out posting pics on Instagram of him riding his bike in some sharp new gear. Nice to see as we head into the weekend.
"You couldn't make this up": Your thoughts on speeding driver who appeared to use phone behind the wheel complaining about kids cycling on the pavement
Couldn’t make this shit up. 🙄 https://t.co/zMWgQ3hfqQ
— Bex 🚴🏼♀️🚵🏽♀️🚲🚀🏴☠️🍃💚 (@wevegotwheels) February 19, 2021
No shortage of opinions on the painfully ironic story this morning about the speeding driver who appeared to be on their phone behind the wheel while complaining about kids cycling on the pavement. As many have pointed out, what exactly did the driver want, the kids to be riding on the road in front of him? Others have said there isn’t an LTN near where the incident happened but there may soon be a cycle lane…Worth keeping our eyes peeled for that.
In the comments under this live blog, Philh68 made an interesting comparison to riding laws out in Australia: “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 until 16 years old. The sky hasn’t fallen down.”
feeling an emotion that no emoticon or emoji can do justice to
— Wandsworth Cycling (@wandscycling) February 19, 2021
Classic point the finger at no one but yourself!
— Mr Wookie (@Wookie2Mr) February 19, 2021
19 February 2021, 08:58
19 February 2021, 08:58
19 February 2021, 08:58
19 February 2021, 08:58
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 £2.49. 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.
32 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I see quite a few MAAP items out in the Surrey Hills. The new shop has a cafe and they're from Melbourne so the coffee should be good: I'm looking forward to visiting.
@chrisonabike Mercedes was acceptable, but the second one (old Toyota people carrier/ex-taxi) was a prosecutable offence.
I wasn't saying that nor talking about people who say that. I said it was silly to claim that wearing a helmet indicates acceptance of dangerous driving and poor infrastructure. I choose to wear a helmet; I also regularly report dangerous driving to the police and correspond with councils and road authorities about ways infrastructure could be improved for cyclists. I rather doubt I'm the only helmet wearer who does so.
@JamieT (a pedant writes) she's a London Assembly member, not an MP.
@Rendel Harris ".....but the claim that wearing one is somehow to be accepting dangerous driving and poor infrastructure is silly." Not that silly. Demanding that cyclists wear a helmet is seen by many people as 'the answer' to cycling safety, so there's no need to put in infrastructure. The difference between infrastructure and helmets is that infrastructure works. Helmets are a distraction from what really works, and the more time we spend talking about them, the less time we spend on things that do work. Helmets should be consigned to the dustbin of history as a failed experiment, and we should cease even mentioning them.
@Mr Blackbird Hats off to George Hall My hat's not coming off- despite this touch of cycleway-washing, Hall still bears the Mark of Cain, until he repudiates his party altogether
Perhaps an article showing a) what is available in the uk as cargo bikes and) comments from real life scenarios from those already using bikes or cargo bikes as one gentleman has done in the comments. Perhaps road.cc could follow up with this. Even the London Assembly member said not every business should use cargo bikes but suggested a more nuanced approach suitable for certain trades or companies....
32 thoughts on “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”
Well done Tao – great to see
Well done Tao – great to see a young rider with a social conscience and prepared to act on it.
jasecd wrote:
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
I am not a fan of the team
I am not a fan of the team sponsor he rides for, nor the team boss, but to see Tao use his platform and influence in this way is heart-warming to say the least
I agree. Tao GH and Tom
I agree. Tao GH and Tom Pidcock are clearly decent and thoughtful people, which makes it all the more disappointing that they have such a huge blindspot over being paid to promote one of the world’s biggest polluters.
Speeding driver using their
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.
Philh68 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.
Jenova20 wrote:
Aaaah. Common sense…..
Discretion is ok for police,
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
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:
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
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:
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
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:
Isn’t it the Highway Code that’s being (proposed to be) amended, not the law?
The speeding, phone using,
The speeding, phone using, illegal, dangerous driver perfectly illustrates the amazing human ability to blame other people whilst behaving much worse yourself. We can only hope that he’s learned his lesson and a little humility.
(No subject)
That dickhead driver really
That dickhead driver really wants 5 year olds in front of him on the road??
Yes, yes he does. So he can film them illegally before accusing the parent of being an unfit woketard mother on social media blah blah blah. With people like that there will be a problem whatever you do.
I’m curious if the police
I’m curious if the police will contact him about the driving offences he committed?
Oooh – I know the answer to
Oooh – I know the answer to that one! 😉
Re: Filming driver. As
Re: Filming driver. As someone who spotted this before it was deleted (see yesterdays comments) the driver had many Taxi supporting tweets and had a Taxi logo in his profile pic. Yes, not one of their vehicles but a current or ex cabby definitely.
I could be wrong but I
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 ?
Nope, but the initial
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 LTNss….
Ther’s no F in LTNs….
HLaB wrote:
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
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.
In case anyone claims that
In case anyone claims that drivers know the highway code you can now refer them to this. Some of them are pretty scary.
https://www.whatcar.com/news/the-uks-most-misunderstood-road-signs/n19249
How precise did you have to
How precise did you have to be? I didn’t say ‘with flow’ nor without gates. Would I have been marked down as wrong ?
Seems to be some concern
Seems to be some concern growing on social media that Eurosport/GCN wont have any of the classics,except maybe the Ronde, live for their UK viewers this year.
Anyone know any more details?
Not seen any rumours, but the
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
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.
British Cycling has left that
British Cycling has left that massive loophole in their statement because of pressure from UCI teams who don’t pay their riders but call them “professional”. Last season, BC couldn’t give “elite” status to most UK UCI teams because they don’t pay riders. So now they will be allowed to go abroad, despite not earning a minimum living from cycling.
Drops, AWOL and CAMS don’t pay their riders on the woman side and I believe that Canyon, Ribble, Saint Piran, Swift and Trinity all don’t pay most of their riders on the mens side. Some are little more than club teams with some sponsors or family putting up the money to fund their kids ventures…
Quote:
Really? That’s news to me. How does he fit in all his training and travel to races around his mayoral duties?