“Nice way to sponsor ‘safety’ on the bike”: Alberto Bettiol criticises Tom Pidcock for 115kph tow rope stunt with motorbike champion and says “cycling is already an extremely dangerous sport without doing this” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Cycling club cleared of liability over time trial collision as High Court judge rules negligent driver solely at fault
“The Highway Code is confusing”: Radio DJ who got into heated argument with cyclist over ‘riding in single file’ and ‘in the middle of the road’ — says she doesn’t “understand” these “very odd” rules
Well, well, well — guess who’s made it to the Daily Mail?
Chellce AJ, the Stockport radio presenter whose roadside rant at two cyclists over riding two abreast went viral earlier this week, has now given an interview to MailOnline, which, let’s be honest, had the publication’s name written all over it from the start.
We covered the original spat in our live blog, where Chellce filmed herself mid-argument on a country lane, claiming the cyclists in front of her “have to cycle in single file” and reminding them she pays “road tax.” The clip ended with her being called Jeremy Clarkson and a “f***ing idiot” by one very unimpressed cyclist.
Now, in her exclusive with the Mail, Chellce has doubled down and blamed the Highway Code itself for the confusion: “I think after everything what the comments highlight is there is a lot of confusion. Yes, the clause says people can ‘ride two abreast’ but the main point to take away from the code is it tells road users they should be considerate.”
She added: “I’m very unsure how it is safe being slap bang in the middle of the road – I don’t understand it. It’s just very odd.”
She also spoke on the cyclist who confronted her: “He was honestly just making me feel like I shouldn’t be on the road and as though I had ruined their bike ride. I can’t help being on the road.
“And he just kept looking back as if he wanted me to go – to this day I still don’t understand what his issue was. It was just weird and strange if I’m very honest. He went mental. I just think he was having a bad day really.”
She also recalled how the cyclist shouted “Jeremy Clarkson” repeatedly and described him as “aggressive,” saying: “I was just thinking, ‘you’re a very odd guy.’” As for the other rider? “The other guy he rode with was very quiet.”
And perhaps the cherry on top was her claim that the “Highway Code is confusing”.
So there you have it: cyclists are “odd,” the rules don’t make sense, and as for the Clarkson comparisons? Well, I’ll let you make up your mind on that one…
Stefan Bissegger’s fuelling tips for long rides: carb-load, sugar up, and test everything first
If you’re heading out for a big ride, Stefan Bissegger has some advice: don’t just rely on a couple of gels and hope for the best.
The Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale rider said: “For longer rides, proper nutrition is crucial. Bars and gels alone aren’t enough; you start the day before. Carb loading helps you fuel your body and fill your tank the day before the event.
“The goal is 8-10 grams of carbohydrates per kilogram of body weight, but you shouldn’t exceed your calorie needs too much.
“That means plenty of rice and pasta, but little fat. A hearty breakfast is also important on race day. Plenty of carbohydrates and also plenty of sugar, in the form of honey or jam, is important.
“Don’t forget about energy intake on the bike. For long and tough rides, you can easily consume 90 grams of carbohydrates per hour. Always test the products first during training; not everyone responds to every product the same way.”
In short: eat early, eat often, and know what works before the big day.
“How UCI-banned is my bike?”
Any listmakers among the live blog readers? I’ve got a task for you…
“This is the life we deserve”: Rigoberto Urán asks pros to stop “chasing” Pogačar, Vingegaard, and Evenepoel… and join him in retirement
Retirement is clearly treating Rigoberto Urán well — and he’s encouraging others to follow suit.
The Colombian fan favourite, known as much for his podiums and panache as his irreverent social media presence, posted a video from the Purito Rodríguez Gran Fondo in Andorra this week, urging current pros to hang up their wheels and embrace the more relaxed rhythm of post-race life.
“This is the life we deserve,” he says in the clip, standing alongside Joaquim Rodríguez. “This is a very important message to all the cyclists who want to retire, to my friend and the other friend, don’t think about it anymore, come with us, don’t keep chasing Pogačar, don’t keep chasing Vingegaard, don’t chase Remco, leave him, come, come here. This is the cycling I’ve been looking for.”
ATENCIÓN: “Rigoberto Urán envía un mensaje a Nairo y a Froome” Rigo que se encuentra en Andorra con Joaquim ‘Purito’ Rodríguez, aprovechó para enviar un saludo y un curioso mensaje a Nairo, a Froome, y para todos los ciclistas que se quieren retirar.🤪🤣 https://t.co/QB3XaXqqDc pic.twitter.com/8cfim0LCRY
— ⚡MazaCiclismo⚡ (@RuedaPedal) June 19, 2025
Urán doesn’t name names, but a fan-run account took the liberty: “Rigoberto Urán sends a message to Nairo and Froome,” they posted, captioning the video: “Rigo, who is in Andorra with Joaquim ‘Purito’ Rodríguez, took the opportunity to send a greeting and a curious message to Nairo, Froome, and all the cyclists who want to retire.”
Whether the message was meant as a dig, a nudge, or just classic Rigo chaos, one thing’s for sure: the WorldTour life might be hard… but the gran fondo circuit probably comes with better snacks than carb gels.
Cyclist ‘doored’ by passenger of driverless taxi illegally parked in bike lane sues Google-owned company after tech failure caused “violent” crash
Only eight fines in a year for drivers blocking cycle lane with parked cars, as councillor warns enforcement is limited unless yellow lines are painted
Drivers parking across a Reading cycle lane have sparked frustration, but despite clear signs and years of complaints, just eight fines were issued on the street last year.
Whitley Street in Katesgrove is lined with businesses, takeaways, and a Tesco Express — and is also home to a cycle lane that regularly ends up blocked by parked cars. According to Reading Borough Council, only eight penalty charge notices (PCNs) were issued for vehicles obstructing the cycle lane across the 2023–24 year.
When a local journalist visited the street on Monday afternoon, two cars were seen parked in the cycle lane with their hazard lights on — one of which moved off shortly after being spotted. A cyclist passed through without issue, but the scene summed up the inconsistency of enforcement and the daily lottery faced by anyone trying to cycle legally down the road.
The issue was raised last week at a traffic management sub-committee meeting, where Green councillor for Katesgrove Kate Nikulina asked for an update on promised CCTV enforcement. She said: “The cycle lane along Whitley Street continues to face issues with vehicles parking illegally and obstructing its use… Could the lead councillor please provide an update on how this enforcement has been progressing, including how many penalty notices have been issued to date?”
The answer from Labour councillor and lead member for transport John Ennis? Not many — and there’s a reason for that. While councils were given powers in 2020 to enforce cycle lanes via CCTV, they can only do so if the road has additional restrictions like yellow lines.
“Unless there are kerb markings, double or single yellow lines in the adjacent kerb, we are unable to enforce using CCTV,” Cllr Ennis explained. “This restriction limits our options in respect of enforcement to the majority of Whitley Street to tickets issued in the normal manner… by the physical presence of an officer placing a penalty charge on the vehicle.”
So far, that’s resulted in just eight PCNs since the start of the financial year.
Councillor Ennis added that the council’s enforcement team will continue using the CCTV vehicle “where restrictions are in force.” But for most of Whitley Street, the barriers to effective enforcement remain… quite literally painted on.
When you don’t have to buy your own tyres…
For all the reproach finding Tom Pidcock’s way following his 115kph tow rope stunt with Red Bull (of course), this seems very topical…
As someone who loves the ‘idea’ of skidding (or drifting, as the cool kids say) until he would see one flat spot on the tyre and freak out, I have to say, this is pretty impressive. Let’s see if any pros (or even better, road.cc live blog readers) have something to say about it.
“The bike better be back today or I’ll take people’s heads off”: Cyclist shot by thief after tracking down stolen bike on social media
Unofficial wildcard entries? Tour de Suisse fans launch surprise ‘attack’
How long can they keep up!? ⏱️
Three fans race the breakaway at Tour de Suisse 😅 pic.twitter.com/dMdWVBFtJx
— Cycling on TNT Sports (@cyclingontnt) June 20, 2025
Heartbreak! Breakaway caught at the last moment as Jordi Meeus wins Tour de Suisse stage six bunch sprint
Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe’s Jordi Meeus claimed victory on stage six of the Tour de Suisse, sprinting to the win in Neuhausen am Rheinfall after a brave breakaway effort was caught in the final kilometre.
The 187km stage from Chur to Neuhausen featured two early Category 2 climbs before a long, fast run-in to the finish. Three riders: Groupama-FDJ’s Stefan Küng, EF Education-EasyPost’s Harry Sweeny, and Jayco AlUla’s Mauro Schmid, formed the day’s breakaway and built up a lead of more than three minutes. Schmid, the Swiss national champion, was the last man caught, swept up with just one kilometre to go after over 180 kilometres in front.
Lotto-Dstny looked to be positioning Arnaud De Lie for the win, but it was Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe’s Danny van Poppel who delivered the decisive lead-out. Meeus powered past in the final 300 metres to take a convincing sprint victory — his first of this year’s race.
Behind him, XDS Astana’s Davide Ballerini finished second, after teammate Alberto Bettiol had driven much of the chase. Groupama-FDJ’s Lewis Askey rounded out the podium in third.
Arkéa–B&B Hotels’ Kévin Vauquelin finished safely in the bunch to retain the yellow jersey. He leads the general classification by 29 seconds over Soudal Quick-Step’s Julian Alaphilippe, with UAE Team Emirates’ João Almeida in third.
“Nice way to sponsor ‘safety’ on the bike”: Alberto Bettiol criticises Tom Pidcock for 115kph tow rope stunt with motorbike champion and says “cycling is already an extremely dangerous sport without doing this”
Red Bull recently released a new video featuring Tom Pidcock hitting a personal speed record of 115kph — while being towed by a motorbike. The stunt, which we covered in our live blog earlier this week, sees the Olympic champion latch onto a rope behind former Dakar Rally winner Matthias Walkner before launching into a full-speed descent on the Rossfeld Panorama road on the Austrian-German border.
In the video, Walkner asks, “What was the fastest you’ve ever done?” Pidcock replies, “I think just over a hundred.” The longer five-minute YouTube version shows Pidcock descending solo as well, even putting out up to 800 watts while cornering and sustaining speeds of close to 100kph without the tow.
However, there were a fair few who you could say weren’t thrilled — one of them being someone who knows a thing or two about riding fast downhill. Alberto Bettiol, reigning Italian road champion and winner of the 2019 Tour of Flanders, criticised the stunt on Instagram, commenting under Red Bull’s post: “Nice way to sponsor ‘safety’ on the bike.”
One user replied to Bettiol’s comment: “Bit of an odd take coming from a fellow pro. Risks are part of every elite sport. Should we ban F1, MotoGP, or World Cup downhill too? The public watches high-risk disciplines all the time — they accept the danger because they understand the context. Red Bull makes these types of videos all the time.”
The XDS Astana rider responded: “Cycling is already an extremely dangerous sport, even without doing those kinds of things — especially now, when we as professional cyclists are remembering that Gino Mäder passed away two years ago.”
Another person added: “I’m sure you’ve taken bigger risks on descents live on TV…” To which Bettiol replied: “Yes, and I thank life that I’m still alive. But I certainly won’t promote it.”
Fan reaction has been mixed. One fan wrote, “Pidcock is a pilot, dude — he knows what he’s doing, don’t worry,” while another joked, “When it’s June and your team doesn’t get the wild card for the Tour de France.”
Others echoed Bettiol’s concern. “I think professional cycling should not aim to celebrate these high risks,” one person said. “It’s not meant to be a life-risking extreme sport. Where is the responsibility?”
What do you think — is it irresponsible promotion or just part of the Red Bull spectacle? As always, let us know in the comments!
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.
71 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
10 years in prison for killing a cyclist should be the minimum sentence. The objective is to raise awareness and remind motorists they must remain vigilant at all times when behind the wheel. Drivers who harm people and/or damage properties shall be sent to retest. No excuses. No exceptions.
@wtjs No remorse from the 84 year old driver though. " He fully accepts responsibility and places no blame on the cyclist whatsoever". Which seems to imply he'd like to blame the cyclist if he could.
Hookless and yet still ‘just 1585’ grams. No and no . The only thing ‘industry leading’ is their marketing team that convinces folk to part with their money for this product.
@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.
@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.
@Andrewbanshee Its unbelievable how short sighted the business community is, they all want people to buy more of their product but can't see that giving them more money would enable that very outcome.
The geometry chart is interesting. The progression in stack and reach is quite normal from 52 to 61 cm, but looking at what they call the "49" and "44" sizes, the differences are pretty small. It would definitely be more appropriate to call them 50 and 48. When are the brands going to start realizing that smaller riders need smaller wheels so that the frame geometry isn't compromised due to squeezing in the big hoops?
Judge Martin Picton accepted Booth was remorseful... How often do we have to endure this tripe from judges? This pseudo-remorse is of no importance- the only time the matter should be mentioned is when there is obviously no remorse- likely very rare owing to coaching by the shyster defence lawyer. He's sorry that he was caught, but that remorse didn't stop him from repeating the offence all those times when he wasn't.
...adding "Sorry - this doesn't normally happen..."
My legs have at most about 3 speeds anyway.
71 thoughts on ““Nice way to sponsor ‘safety’ on the bike”: Alberto Bettiol criticises Tom Pidcock for 115kph tow rope stunt with motorbike champion and says “cycling is already an extremely dangerous sport without doing this” + more on the live blog”
Seems a bit silly to make a
Seems a bit silly to make a fuss over to me. He’s a sponsored RB athlete who is also a brilliant bike handler, and its clear that its a stunt. Tom is more at risk on a XC course, or going balls out down on the descent before the Alpe. Alberto is a hypocrite.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Wait until he hears about what people get up to at Red Bull Rampage.
Exactly!
Exactly!
I disagree. A pro rider
I disagree. A pro rider descending as fast as possible in a race is doing their job. This is a couple of people who have taken additional cash from a supremely irresponsible and unpleasant business to create”content” and encourage “engagement”.
I wouldn’t like to say definitively that AB isn’t a hypocrite as I don’t know everything that he has done for money during his career, but we spend every day talking about the risks that come from mixing motor vehicles and bikes, so this stunt is not only dumb, but completely indefensible.
Alberto Bettiol wrote:
Being paid to do it on live TV for entertainment purposes is kind of promoting it Alberto, no? Pidcock on a closed road with no other riders, support cars or fans around and not in the middle of a race (so no fatigue and/or pressure to catch others) is probably considerably safer than most.
I am not sure pro riders
I am not sure pro riders during a race stage are doing it to entertain, they are trying to do their job to the best of their ability
SimoninSpalding wrote:
And thereby providing us with entertainment; we watch because we find it entertaining and exciting to see people pushing themselves absolutely to the limit. If it didn’t entertain us we wouldn’t watch and there would be no pro cycling.
He genuinely thinks a brand
He genuinely thinks a brand linked to adrenaline sports, in a promotional stunt, will/should be “sponsoring” safety?
He knows Crashtappen drives for their F1 team right?
fwiw I think people are
fwiw I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill on Bettiol’s response.
but he does have a point its not a great thing Red Bull did there from a safety pov, especially in the week the pro peloton at Tour de Suisse were remembering Gino Mader, and the new memorial they unveiled this week (weird how that doesnt take up the headlines but promoting an energy drink brand by descending at 100kph does)
‘tak[ing] up the headlines’
‘tak[ing] up the headlines’ seems a bit of a stretch – a few fairly niche websites have mentioned it – it’s not exactly leading the Six o’Clock News.
On cycling websites it seems
On cycling websites it seems to be taking up more room than mentioning the memorial does, just as an observation
With the apparently endless
With the apparently endless availability of illegal, unlicenced, uninsured electric motorbikes for kids to “play” with, it doesn’t strike me as a brilliant idea to do something they could attempt to copy without all of the safety that this had in place.
But then I suppose expecting responsibility from a company whose business model is to push an addictive, diabetes causing product to young people is just delusional on my part.
I get that. But I’m from the
I get that. But I’m from the early video game generation & we could rent video nasties at the local chippy when I was a kid (& we kids attempt to “copy” all kinds of batsh!t stuff).
But then, GTA never made me steal a car, beat up a pedestrian or jump off a bridge. I’m still also yet to hack someone to pieces with a chainsaw. I do harbour ambitions in some cases though
I know we live in different times but sometimes something fun/entertaining is just that. With the illegal bikes you mention, I’m amazed it’s not happening already. I mean kids were jumping Raleigh Strikers over massively sketchy homemade ramps in the ’70s. Damn you Evil Knieval!!! It shouldn’t have struck you as being a brilliant idea.
It often amazes me how
It often amazes me how drivers like Chellce who don’t understand the Highway Code and certainly don’t understand cycling, are somehow so confident of their lack of knowledge that they have to tell cyclists that they’re doing it wrong. What empowers these kinds of people? Why are they so compelled to advertise their stupidity?
Ahh yes and we shown that she
Ahh yes and when shown that she was talking utter crap its still not her fault, its those confusing highway code rules. I struggle to understand things I haven’t remotely looked at as well. It try not to argue about them or advertise my ignorance of them though.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think this is what you’re getting at too, but surely the point is that they are supremely confident they are right – they don’t know what they don’t know.
It’s the very definition of
It’s the very definition of Dunning Kruger and has beome ever more prevalent in the media since the obsession with “balance” was given free reign, where ignorance and prejudice is platformed to “balance” informed, evidence based positions. Of course everything is made all the worse by the availabilty of social media platforms and the cult of click bait from which these cretins build a following.
Dunning-Kruger plus anti
Dunning-Kruger plus anti-cyclist ‘war on motorists’ – stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and prejudice, all wrapped up in one toxic, self-righteous parcel. The actual facts of the Highway Code cannot penetrate such a thick armour.
Chellce wrote:
As long as that consideration is other people giving way to me, and not the other way round, which would obviously be preposterous.
Of course this thing is legal, but if I hold it up to the light in a certain way, I can reverse the polarity of the rule. I can demonstrate that black is white and reverse zebra crossings so that pedestrians give way to motorists.
Compare:
with
Same outcome, but we learn how to offset blame to others.
GMBasix wrote:
am I the only one expecting the babelfish to enter the argument about now
stonojnr wrote:
Ask a glass of water!
One cannot be confused by the
One cannot be confused by the Highway Code if one hasn’t bothered one’s hole to read it. What she means is that she’s ignorant of it.
Confused being 2025
Confused being 2025 understatement for ignorant.
Over the past 20 years, cars have grown by 20 or 25% in volume and height. For confused motorists and idiotic authorities, the immediate priority is to remove bicycles from roads.
I assume donald trump isn’t
I assume donald trump isn’t the first to use the phenomenon of facing no repercussions for being apparently stupid enough to utter falsehoods when he knows they aren’t true or simply doesn’t know the truth.
In the past, people were more wary of being seen to be stupid.
“Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and prove it.”
Now people see that they can get away with it…
Fingers crossed he is gone soon (or actually faces some punishment for it).
mitsky wrote:
Times change … but my money is on “not until he’s good and ready” and “no, he won’t” on those two.
Not that this is uncommon when you really look, but rulers with criminal convictions – or those attempting to avoid them by staying in power – are pretty salient (relatively) recently (Trump, Boris Johnson, Netenyahu * – and Putin per the ICC).
Or perhaps that’s a sign of hope? After all generally the more authoritarian and repressive a ruler / the less independence the legal system has / the less oversight it has of the elite – the fewer legal threats they tend to face. At least at home.
* For some reason I feel compelled to mention the leaders of Hamas have some questions to answer (not least to the ICC) – or would, if they weren’t dying violently about as soon as they’re known.
chrisonabike wrote:
I think that’s probably a non-starter.
mitsky wrote:
We had plenty of examples from Boris Johnson:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/60-lies-boris-johnson-tory-21065956
He did face consequences for some of them (e.g. being sacked), but most of them just got repeated and believed by idiots (see Daily Mail, Telegraph, FaceBook for more details).
In what world do you live?
In what world do you live? All politicians lie. It’s part of their job description. The higher up they are the less they know, for the sake of plausible deniability. Remember – Biden couldn’t remember where he was or what executive orders he signed with the magical auto-pen.
Edgy
Edgy
mitsky wrote:
Pedant on: Surely that should be “”Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt” :Pedant off.
It’s stupidity to us, but not
It’s stupidity to us, but not to her species, the ones with their arses welded to their car driver’s seats, which greatly outnumbers the former. To them it is intelligence and speaking sense. Call me a cynik if you like, but I am quite sure she is delieberately stirring shit now for gaining publicity from that lot.
Chellce – is that a really
Chellce – is that a really annoying version of ‘Chelsea’ ?
It’s pronounced chalice, cos
It’s pronounced chalice, cos she’s the font of all knowledge
“Watch: Man gets stuck
“Watch: Man gets stuck driving car down Rome’s Spanish Steps“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c70rw09z6z2o
But cyclists.
“And he just kept looking
“And he just kept looking back as if he wanted me to go”
You mean he was checking the position of your wankpanzer in case you decided to barrel through with zero regard.
Re: Pidcock
Re: Pidcock
What in the actual hell are people getting worked up about? His rims are clearly less than 80mm deep, and bars look to be at least 40mm wide o-o at some point and at least 32mm i-i at the levers. Absolutely no risk at all.
It’s the sock length.
It’s the sock length.
It’s quite the sticky bottle
It’s quite the sticky bottle incident isn’t it?
If the UCI were *really*
If the UCI were *really* serious about safety they’d be banning aero socks.
Worth a listen on Red Bull’s
Worth a listen on Red Bull’s stunt history….
Please can you stop embedding
Please can you stop embedding links to Mail Online, for the sake of us who have no willpower when it comes to self torture of the comment section….
If according to her “… the
If, according to Chellce AJ, “… the Highway Code is too confusing…” then is this an explicit admission that she should not be driving at all and should tear up her driver’s licence?
She has openly said this with no apparent repercussions.
How long untill a driver involved in an incident ends up injuring or killing someone else (pedestrian, cyclist…) and decides to use this as a defence?
Effectively already the case;
Effectively already the case; admissions which demonstrate “I’m an incompetent / not careful driver” are used in mitigation (to elicit empathy / emotional sympathy from jurors / magistrates) at the very least.
Quote:
I think this is the key. She is learning the art of self publicising by being controversial. Here is a link to our local news website :
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/
I don’t need to link to a specific article because I can gaurantee that on any particular day there will be at least one article featuring Clarkson.
Chellce AJ has already proved
Chellce AJ has already proved to be the personification of Dunning-Kruger, but she’s still digging.
What’s the next step down from Dunning-Kruger?
eburtthebike wrote:
Willful ignorance
Please can you stop embedding
.
I’m never wrong.
I’m never wrong.
The Highway Code rules say I’m wrong.
So the rules MUST be wrong!
Who doesn’t love Karens?
Who doesn’t love Karens?
Re cycle lane prking
Re cycle lane prking
“Unless there are kerb markings, double or single yellow lines in the adjacent kerb, we are unable to enforce using CCTV,” Cllr Ennis explained. “This restriction limits our options in respect of enforcement to the majority of Whitley Street to tickets issued in the normal manner… by the physical presence of an officer placing a penalty charge on the vehicle.”
So far, that’s resulted in just eight PCNs since the start of the financial year.
Councillor Ennis added that the council’s enforcement team will continue using the CCTV vehicle “where restrictions are in force.” But for most of Whitley Street, the barriers to effective enforcement remain… quite literally painted on.
Is it true that they can enforce double yellow lines using CCTV? If it is, why isn’t it possible to enforce using submitted camera footage? Any experts out there? I find the whole situation very confusing and quite unfit for purpose. What’s the point of spending money creating cycle lanes for drivers to park in?
No.
No.
Conservative government explicitly banned councils enforcing double yellows via CCTV. (They can enforce red clearway markings, as confirmed per a relatively recent court case this includes loading bays etc in zones with single red lines)
Reading articles on politicians justifying why councils shouldn’t be allowed to enforce via CCTV its basically:
1. CCTV removes the extra bite at the cherry of convincing the traffic warden to let you off (before trying to convince council, then mediator, then magistrate…)
2. A single traffic warden in a CCTV equipped car can issue more penalties in a day than all the wardens said council had were issuing per year prior to having cctv equipped cars…
3. Config errors resulting in legal parking being ticketed (prior to getting fixed) so requiring an appeal..
With (car advertising funded) press finding nice examples (e.g. disabled individual issued fine so having to submit a defence (blue badge exemption) because the CCTV uses a database of cars recorded to be used by blue badge holders (which isn’t complete), rather than ‘telling the warden they are disabled’…
That the CCTV ANPR database still makes fewer errors on both blue badges and areas, times, etc covered by parking restrictions than parking wardens isn’t mentioned of course…
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
I couldn’t understand how 8 PCNs were issued if you are correct so I did some googling. What I found seems to indicate that CCTV enforcement was banned in 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-bans-use-of-cctv-spy-cars-for-on-street-parking
But limited exemptions to the ban were introduced in 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/548/pdfs/uksiem_20200548_en.pdf
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/200601%20Advice%20Note%20-%20CCTV%20for%20Mandatory%20Cycle%20Lanes.pdf
It seems there are many hurdles to clear, one of which is use of an approved camera which explains why cyclist video reports can’t be acted upon.
It’s even more complicated than I thought. The whole situation needs a serious rethink in my opinion, it’s ridiculous.
In 2025 AI-powered world, a
In 2025 AI-powered world, a picture of illegal parking along with plate number, time stamp and geo-coordinates should suffice to issue automated fines. Fines should be immediately deducted from the culprit’s electronic wallet. Repeat offenders should lose points and be shown on their city’s drivers’ wall of shame. No human resources are required. Same for close passes.
“Is this the biggest yellow
“Is this the biggest yellow box junction in the UK or Ireland?
It’s really silly and very few people know how to use it…”
If that is the case, they should tear up their driver’s licences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78n97jglyzo
To be honest, given as far as I know: drivers who stop in yellow box junctions are never fined/prosecuted.
So the headline should be
“Is this yellow box junction the biggest waste of time and money in the UK or Ireland?”
Also
Also
so that even when people do know how to use it, it won’t be doing a useful job. 🤦♂️
https://archive.is/hRAGk
https://archive.is/hRAGk
HGV, so-called professional, driver kills a cyclist and his punishment? placed on a community payback order with 200 hours of unpaid work and tagged for two months. He was also banned from driving for 24 months.
This happened just up the road from me and cause an uproar in the local community, nice to see the authorities doing a sterling job.
I’ve long been of the opinion
I’ve long been of the opinion that drivers who kill and injure should be banned for at least twice as long as it takes their victim to recover. So if you kill someone, you’re banned forever.
The people of Nottingham are
The people of Nottingham are killing their rivers with ebikes [subs please check]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d1528yvy2o
Without wishing to join the
Without wishing to join the tinfoil hat brigade, there does seem to be a publicity drive to attack cycling, especially ebikes: just before the vote on the odious IDS’s amendment about dangerous cycling to the parliamentary bill. Just coincidence I’m sure.
Today, BBC R4, 20/6/25 about 0730 “Ministers are being urged to close a legal loophole for delivery drivers to cut down the number of ebikes on our streets.” They were talking about illegal electric motorbikes. The whole article is at 0752, and they’ve repeated that they are ebikes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002dlgr (link is external)
Article in today’s Guardian:
Article in today’s Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/21/chaos-in-clapham-a-visit-to-the-most-dangerous-cycle-spot-in-great-britain
If I’d just seen the raw text I’d have assumed it was from the Telegraph, Spectator or Mail. I ride through this junction regularly and yes, a lot of cyclists do ride through there like utter kamikazes at rush hour. However a lot of drivers behave apallingly as well, plenty of red light jumping, left hooking, speeding, close passing, illegal parking etc. Hardly a mention of that. No attempt to analyse who was at fault in the large number of incidents there. Frequent references to riders without helmets as if that represents de facto recklessness. Ditto ebikes. References to legal behaviours as if they’re not, e.g. cyclists who “swerve in and out of bike lanes” as if they’re supposed to be in them the whole time. A really disappointing article that seems to have very little point beyond saying cyclists are dangerous.
I can’t see anybody in that
I can’t see anybody in that clip who’s actually endangering anyone – even the person going the wrong side of the island and ‘narrowly avoiding’ a bus (by the width of an entire lane). The one incident they actually cite wasn’t due to the rider but because “these two cars came out of nowhere”.
I’m sure the kind of behaviour shown does add uncertainty, and therefore stress, to the experience of some other road users, and I wouldn’t do it myself, but generally they seem to be negotiating the space without much trouble.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I saw that this morning and thought that it was disappointing. The video at the top shows cyclists and a scooterist going through a red light, but when I saw that, I was thinking that it looks absolutely safe for them to do that – clear view of the road and traffic and pretty much zero chance of a collision. Also, it does look sped up slightly to make the RLJers look a bit more reckless.
I get more and more convinced that we should have some kind of traffic light bypass for wheelers or adopt a kind of treat-red-light-as-stop-sign rule to explicitly allow people to go through with care.
I get more and more convinced
I get more and more convinced that we should have
some kind of traffic light bypass for wheelersthe same application of the law and the same degree of opprobrium for motorist red light offenders as the hyper-junk press has incited against cyclist red light offendersWhereas the (Lancashire) police simply shrug metaphorical shoulders and say ‘everybody does it’ when it’s drivers
https://upride.cc/incident/px68nhc_toyotatrailer_redlightcross/
My concession to variety has taken me back 5 years to my first villain-detection session at these lights, but you all know by now only too well that the same offences continue today as a result of the police condoning them (the motorhome about to go through the red light is on the very right of the frame)
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree but only in this sense (which is likely more limited than you have in mind):
… which relies in part on the idea that pedestrians don’t need formal crossing points or lights for cycle infra – which in turn is supported by designs where there is almost always a buffer between cycle infra and the main road large, normally enough to act as a pedestrian refuge. Neither of those concepts appear in much UK thinking it seems…
Another take on the “cycling past red lights” appears when a place starts designing separate networks for different modes – which can share some corridors but the cycling network may just not need to go through all the signallised junctions:
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/every-traffic-light-in-assen.html?m=1
Little of any of this is common in UK thought I’d say. I think we’re still all stuck with the “bikes as small slow cars” in some way – ergo “we need a version of the car infra” mental model. (This is readily apparent in visualisations of eg. some UK “Dutch style” infra like the roundabout designs recently).
Of course “but bike lanes and lights are what we have currently”. True – but in that case I don’t recommend adding red light exceptions for any mode, even if say we choose not to police this so strenuously for cyclists).
Sub headline:
Sub headline: “Commuters share their views at the junction with the highest number of cycling accidents”
Photo title: “Cyclists and scooter riders running red lights on Clapham High Street near one of the worst junctions for cycling accidents”
Accidents. You need read no farther.
But I did because I’m a masochist: “The popularity of ebikes undoubtedly contributes to the congestion on the road on the morning of our visit.” Oh really? How?
At least they quoted an authoritative source, Duncan Dollimore from CUK, unlike the BBC, who just try to get some delivery driver (sic) who rides a bike.
They don’t seem to mention the source of the danger, the number and speed of the motor vehicles and incompetent drivers: odd that.
It would be more informative
It would be more informative if we could see the raw images not some edited for effect snips that are neither coherent nor supportive of any claims by the scribbler.
This is a really terrible
This is a really terrible article using the normal, sometimes contradictory, language used by other news media (at times the vehicles seeming to be autonomous rather than under human control, at others it indicates the human users).
I would have hoped Guardian writers would do better.
“In every direction bikes are weaving through traffic, filtering through busy roads in stops and starts. Drivers shout, horns blare and cars cut across each other.”
Talking about road safety,
Talking about road safety, this is the best rebuttal of motornormativity that I’ve seen. Not all the media is as blinkered as they are in this country.
eburtthebike wrote:
Whilst I like the article, I don’t think the comparison of attitudes towards smoking and driving are particularly valid. Smoking doesn’t really have any “use”, whereas driving is a form of transport, so I don’t think you can directly compare them.
Maybe a better survey would be to gather opinons about a few traffic situations and determine who is to blame for a collision, but vary the vehicles involved. That would allow a direct comparison. (e.g. one scenario might be a cyclist turning across traffic and getting hit by a driver, and then switch the roles around).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Partly agree … but then we get into the sociology of it and *choices*. Some of which don’t now appear to be choices due to the dominance of motoring – “what there is” also sets the boundaries on our thought (“appearance of problems to someone with a hammer” etc)
Smoking served numerous social purposes (and was considered healthy by some – and in fact originally served religious and political purposes). Compare driving – being able to drive (goes on job applications even for non-driving jobs), owning a car, what kinds of car you own – these help define us to the world (or who we want to be). Even the act of driving is not just about getting from a to b – there are often other choices and there *certainly could be* if we hadn’t gone for the car so much.
And now … that vitally important smoking, binding together people and “keeping them going” … it’s declining, and overall its social role is changing (though the practice itself continues).
This would be interesting – an extension of exactly what Ian Walker did in his work on motonormativity:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000172
There’s a simplified video
There’s a simplified video presentation of one of Walker’s studies here:
… bit further on it shows the questions they compared responses to – quite striking (although … surveys …)