“One more reason why everybody should be retested every five years”: Cyclists react to latest survey showing many drivers unaware of Highway Code rules; Castelli invents the ‘jack-sey’… to everyone’s amusement; Peloton’s playlist + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
The leg-shaving conundrum
> How much faster are shaved legs for cycling? Should you shave your arms too?
I’m going to retrospectively award comment of the day for yesterday to SimoninSpalding for… “My wife has been clear for years that if I start shaving my legs our marriage is over. So they stay hairy…for now.” And also chrisonatrike’s reply… “Nice to know there’s not only an escape hatch if you need, it’ll even help you get away faster…”
Take a peek at pro riders' playlists (if you're brave enough)
The Vuelta might be over, and bar this week’s European Championship races and Il Lombardia we’re heading off into the long racing-less void of winter (pretend cyclocross doesn’t exist for the sake of my self-pitying). One last very important bit of content from Spain is of course the long-awaited second part of Laura Meseguer’s peloton playlist vox pop…
As a reminder about part one, we had Thomas De Gendt and his love for Slipknot, Geraint Thomas listening to Nelly, and Michigan native Larry Warbasse repping Eminem.
Time for part two…
🎧 The second part of the riders’ playlist riding La Vuelta a España 💃
📹 @eurosport #LaVuelta23 #Eurosport https://t.co/ZkZ2wPsFCU pic.twitter.com/cmHkHc5MDI
— Laura Meseguer (@Laura_Meseguer) September 19, 2023
Tell me you had Enric Mas belting out Robbie Williams on your bingo card and I’ll call you a liar.
I imagine for some of cycling’s shadier previous generations ”Cause I got too much life, running through my veins, going to waste” might have been a little too close to home when Robbie’s hit came out in 2002…
Oh, and before I forget, obligatory mention of THAT Chris Froome playlist that broke the cycling internet (and scarred most of us for life)… thank your lucky stars Israel — Premier Tech didn’t get a wildcard spot…
I don’t think any of us have ever doubted Froome’s ability to suffer, but some of this is next level. pic.twitter.com/keOyqrDBL6
— Daniel Lloyd (@daniellloyd1) May 16, 2021
"This name doesn't work quite as universally as you appear to think, Castelli"
Have a Wednesday laugh courtesy of Gary and Castelli…
This name doesn’t work quite as universally as you appear to think, Castelli. pic.twitter.com/0fRRjMhIsX
— Gary Fairley 🏴🇪🇺 (@TheGaryFairley) September 19, 2023
Cue ridiculousness in the replies…
A valuable lesson here. Always run ‘clever’ ideas past a playground test and @urbandictionary pic.twitter.com/R2SHU3mAXB
— phil wright (he/him) (@ukwrightphil) September 20, 2023
Some other highlights…
“Only got the single rear pocket”
“I once did Ventoux with a banana in my Jack-sey”
“Right up your jersey just doesn’t sound the same”
“You don’t want to fall off on black ice and rip your jacksey. Nasty business.”
“Where should we shuv it when we are cycling and not wearing it?”
The internet is quite good sometimes…
REVIEW: Giant Defy Advanced 1 2023
Dave Walker's latest cartoon: Please use the cycle path
New cartoon: Please use the cycle path.
[Funded by my Diagram Club https://t.co/xXBiTtIbPP] pic.twitter.com/UrBb6Tkf7U— Dave Walker (@davewalker) September 20, 2023
Cyclists blast plans to upgrade "already safe" cycle route as "outrageous waste of money" after major active travel schemes axed
Ghost cyclist haunts York (apparently)
WATCH IN FULL SCREEN MODE
‘These cyclists riding around town without hi-vis and lights, basically invisible…’
Shambles Market York’s Facebook page reckons there’s a ghost out and about, this “very strange” footage coming from CCTV nearby. According to Mark Graham, who leads the Original Ghost Walk of York, there are “quite a few stories around the Shambles area — doors that open and close into a different time, houses that disappear.”
Spooky. Or should I say spokey?
Warwickshire Police undertake operation to "target motorists who ignore Highway Code rules by passing cyclists too close"
Warwickshire Police on Monday ran another ‘Operation Close Pass’ to “actively target motorists who ignore Highway Code rules on overtaking cyclists”. You might be familiar with the format of these by now — a plain-clothes officer on a bike is equipped with a camera and rides along a stretch of road, reporting to colleagues further ahead when they are close passed, the driver pulled off the road for “a demonstration of safe passing distances on an illustrated ground-mat and shown a video of their driving”.
The force says the “vast majority passed the cyclist safely” but officers intercepted eight motorists.
“This operation gave us a brief snapshot of driver behaviour on Warwickshire’s roads,” spokesperson sergeant Shaun Bridle said. “We are pleased the vast majority seem to understand the Highway Code in relation to cyclists. It’s really important all road users are aware of the Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others. This is because many of the rules in the code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you’re committing a criminal offence.
“Also you may find that if you do not follow the other rules in the code and are involved in a collision, this can be used in evidence in court proceedings to establish liability.”
"A valuable part of the city will be lost" if cycle lane plans remove car parking spaces, artists claim
Nathan Van Hooydonck forced to retire from professional cycling due to cardiac arrhythmia
[Zac Williams/SWpix.com]
Jumbo-Visma domestique Nathan Van Hooydonck has been forced to call time on his career, a diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmia following last week’s car crash meaning he has been fitted with an internal defibrillator.
“I realise that I was incredibly lucky,” he told the public in a statement released through his team. “Things may have gone differently if I hadn’t got good help so quickly. I’m fine now, but I still have to deal with the fact that this marks the end of my professional career.
“I would like to express my gratitude to the people who helped me, the medical team at the hospital and all the fans who sent me messages. I will now focus on my recovery and my upcoming fatherhood. Everything is going well with Alicia and the pregnancy, and we eagerly anticipate the birth. That really helps me now.”
[Zac Williams/SWpix.com]
Van Hooydonck was reportedly driving his pregnant wife to the hospital when he fell ill while stopped at a set of traffic lights, causing him to accelerate across the junction, colliding with five cars.
The Belgian’s teammate Wout van Aert was todaythird in the European Championship time trial, behind British wonderkid Josh Tarling. Marlen Reusser bounced back from her World Championships disappointment to assert her dominance over the women’s field. More on both races too (plus some discussion on time trialling positions after a major crash involving Stefan Küng).
"One more reason why everybody should be retested every five years": Cyclists react to latest survey showing many drivers unaware of Highway Code rules
The big news this morning? New research from Tier has found that one-in-four drivers are still wrong on Highway Code pedestrian and cyclist priority rules, 20 months on from their introduction…
> Highway Code: One-in-four drivers still don’t know correct rule on cyclist priority
Less than half of drivers correctly identified pedestrians as having right of way in the scenario below, with more than a third believing they have priority when turning into a side road.
Jessica Murphy from Tier said the results of the survey were troubling, and demonstrate the need to further raise awareness of the changes, brought in to better protect vulnerable road users, to avoid dangerous interactions on Britain’s roads.
This morning, cyclists have been reacting to the survey, the replies to our Twitter/X post sharing the research full of suggestions that one-in-four seems low…
Polka Dot research would say that that number is far too low and it’s at least 3 in 4.
— Rob Whittle (@PolkaDotRob) September 20, 2023
3.9999 recurring.
— Ian Myers (@TweekySenior) September 20, 2023
Commenting on our story, essexian said the numbers are “Just one more reason why everybody should be retested every five years. It’s over 38 years since I took my test and no one has checked to see if I am still fit and able to drive. That’s total madness.”
HoldingOn: “I agree. It feels like even if the justice system worked the way it is meant to, it would only be after a driver has done something wrong. A bit late then! Although I would also like there to be more out there for cyclist training. They pose less risk to other road users than drivers, but poor cycling can put the cyclist at risk.
“I am not attempting to blame cyclists for collisions! Things like the shoulder check before moving out. How far out from parked cars should you cycle. Once you know, they seem obvious, but for someone just starting cycling it isn’t always. I worry that I am doing something dangerous without realising it. I don’t know what I don’t know!”
Darren Thompson: “Even though I ride very defensively, as if all drivers are intent on knocking me off, I find it impossible to ride safely in urban areas. Therefore I’ve quit commuting. Change or no change to priorities, there are certain drivers that treat you as fair game.”
ItsnotTheGeorge: “This is what our local city council just installed…. they do not seem to understand either…”
Get in the comments with more of your thoughts on the survey… do the numbers seem right based on your own real-world experience? Do the Highway Code changes need to be better communicated to the public?
Former UCI chief calls for crackdown on "crazy" head-down time trialling after Stefan Küng’s bizarre crash straight into barriers at European Championships
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.
43 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Or just buy direct from Waltly & save a few quid!!
We regularly hear of a traffic police officer giving confident opinions in court cases regarding such things as 'speed at the time of collision', and their opinions seem to be taken seriously. We also know of a police officer's opinion, when being told by a dying man that he has been stabbed, saying 'I don't think you have, mate'. Why are people still surprised that stupid, ill-educated but very self-confident police officers are as thick as two short planks, as well as being criminal (think Couzens, Carrick and many of the officers at Charing Cross Police Station) and/ or as bent as a £9 note- this method of assessing whether a bike is a legal EAPC is so stupid as to beyond belief, unless you have personal experience of the UK police, that is. Many of them really are malevolent, cyclist-hostile thick, out-of-control b******s
@Rendel Harris my "lived experience" is of delivery drivers riding around on illegal modified motorbikes. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone riding around with a silly blue delivery bag riding a road-legal bike, let alone having insurance. I don't see any evidence in the article to support the idea that the seized bike was unmodified and road legal. These e-motorbikes are a menace to the road. Just yesterday I went to my local bike shop and the poor owner nearly killed himself when some fat bloke riding what can only be described as a motorbike drove to the door asking for help with his brakes. Bike shop owner went to have a look and inadvertently turned a throttle, causing the machine to roar into life and drag him along the pavement in an undignified manner.
There wouldn't have been a peloton in that era (aside from Christophe Bassons) if they had instigated night-time testing.
The article states that: "The term E-bike refers to an electrically assisted pedal cycle (EAPC)" YES & NO. It can refer to any electrically powered cycle or motorbike. That would include EAPCs. An "E-bike" is not a legally defined thing.
It occurred to me that this could be fitted to an older rim brake bike as well but it would involve for example building a new rear wheel with a disc hub and rim brake rim.
@Paul J Please show me any reliable evidence. EPO tests already detect levels far below the minimum effective dose. With the recent state of the art, microdosing simply does not make any sense.
@tomlew microdosing EPO most definitely does "work" in terms of stimulating RBC production.
This is what the media frenzy about the "dangers of e-bikes" led us to. Meanwhile, drivers kill one pedestrian a day in general indifference.
@rideANDdie 100% agree. It is quite hard to imagine a driver would not understand that directly hitting someone hard with a car/large vehicle could lead to killing them. @Rendel Harris That doesn't apply. ie self-defense or the killer was mentally impaired (which can be shown/tested by the authorities later) The driver was not in danger from the cyclist. And even if the cyclist tried to attack them, the driver could have locked their doors and closed their windows. The worst the cyclist could have done is dent/scratch the car with their bike (maybe partially damage/smash a window), assuming they didn't have a weapon. And the driver, if fearing for their safety, could have driven away.
43 thoughts on ““One more reason why everybody should be retested every five years”: Cyclists react to latest survey showing many drivers unaware of Highway Code rules; Castelli invents the ‘jack-sey’… to everyone’s amusement; Peloton’s playlist + more on the live blog”
“Less than half of drivers
“Less than half of drivers correctly identified pedestrians as having right of way in the scenario below, with more than a third believing they have priority when turning into a side road.”
Sorry but that is incorrect – pedestrians have priority, not a right of way.
H170: Take extra care at junctions. You should – give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
Yes – I think it’s borne of
Yes – I think it’s borne of an understandable journalistic desire to use a variety of language, but sometimes accuracy matters!
NickSprink wrote:
Pedestrians have a right of way over all roads except motorways, in addition to this they sometimes have priority as well.
Backladder wrote:
The only time right-of-way is mentioned in the Highway Code is in the introduction, where it says: “The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.” If pedestrians had right-of-way over all roads it would be compulsory to stop any time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, even if there was no crossing or junction. That would not be a bad thing in my opinion (in some places in Canada, I’m told, it is compulsory for drivers to stop and let pedestrians cross anywhere if they hold their hand out to indicate they wish to do so) but it doesn’t exist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Right of way is not the same as priority, right of way only means that you are allowed to use the road to get from one place to another. As ChrisB200SX mentions below, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians all have a right of way in law over normal roads, this is why you can walk along a country lane that does not have a pavement at the side.
Backladder wrote:
Yes, obviously pedestrians have right-of-way in terms of access to roads (although this does not exist exclusively, it does not give you the right to walk continuously down the middle of a busy High Street), but it’s generally understood in traffic terms to mean having strict precedence over other traffic rather than priority, and that was the sense in which it was being used in the article and why it was (correctly) challenged.
Rendel Harris wrote:
As I understand it pedestrians are no more required to use pavements than cyclists are required to use cycle lanes so although it might not be advisable it is still legal. In addition there are no laws or rules that give mototists the right to run you over because you are walking along the road rather than across it. The only restrictions I have seen are that you have to be travellng on the road, you can’t just stand there.
It seems to be used incorrectly by many in the same sense as the article above but that is not its meaning.
Backladder wrote:
As I understand it, though willing to stand corrected of course, a pedestrian is entitled to walk on the side of the carriageway (even if there is a pavement available) but is liable to be moved on or arrested for blocking the free movement of other traffic on the highway by walking in the middle of it unless as part of an organised event or protest.
Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.— Backladder
Well now I’m conflicted, because I agree with Backladder, but I also love a dictionary definition…
One might question though, if it is also a legal right giving precedence, where is that precedence set out, given that a lot of the priority rules in HWC are ‘shoulds’, not ‘musts’?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oxford in fact offers both definitions, see screenshot.
[/quote]
I stand corrected.
Backladder wrote:
Same is true of cyclists and horse-riders, no? CROW Act (2000)
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Yes but I think that is only the latest version of the law, we have had right of way on the roads since long before 2000, just too lazy to google it at the moment.
National fitness day
National fitness day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66854194
Although drive to the gym more often is the answer.
Yeah. So it’s “sport”. That
Yeah. So it’s “sport”. That’s not a bad answer (also ticks “community”, “mental health” etc.) Without a serious look at “active travel” though we’re missing the “incidental exercise” which can give everyone some baseline movement which they’re just not getting now (and additionally open lots of other virtuous circles).
Translation: “We are facilitiating, by mentioning it (when prompted) every few months. We will happily say this is a good thing, we don’t have enough, we should have more, and say things about how active travel is about more than just travel. Then (thankfully) we can drop the topic and talk about things which really matter to people and which aren’t a way to lose political capital for no clear gain.”
Translation: “We can’t run for you! We aren’t going to force anyone to run! And it’s not our job to organise a sports club. Actually … we are cool with selling off the sports fields too. If you want to set up a gym franchise though we can maybe talk party donations and corporate tax breaks?”
Such a shame they have chosen
Such a shame they have chosen mid-September. Better weather might encourage more people outdoors for fitness.
You could look at it the
You could look at it the other way, people are often more active in the summer anyway, so doing it in autumn to give ideas how to maintain activity through the dark and cold.
The thing that got me in the article was the guidance from the Chief Medical officer that kids should be active for 1 hour per day. I have absolutely no idea how they are supposed to fit that in. My teenagers get at most a couple of PE lessons a week, and 2 of them do Taekwondo twice a week. With the amount of homework that needs to be done, and remembering that rest and sleep are also vital for good health, I honestly don’t think there are enough hours in the day.
Unfortunately, the Audi/ BMW.
Unfortunately, the Audi/ BMW… drivers will say they believe that the first picture above shows the cyclist dutifully waiting for the car to turn left in front of them, and then being permitted to proceed. They also think that somebody in a wheelchair waiting to cross is a signal to put the foot down, just like amber and red traffic lights.
The first illustration
The first illustration contradicts rule 74 of the Highway Code:
Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Is this a contradiction in the Highway Code?
postrestant wrote:
The order of events is not clear on that diagram.
If the car was already waiting and signalling to turn left ahead of the cyclist (and believed that they’d turn left before the cyclist would be near), then the cyclist shouldn’t go on the inside. (I’d take primary and then overtake a signalling vehicle in that scenario).
If the car was overtaking the cyclist on the approach to the junction and intended to turn left, then that’s very poor driving.
It could certainly be clearer
It could certainly be clearer how the various rules interact, but as I read it there could be a difference of approach according to whether the cyclist is turning or going straight on:
Rule 182 – (for everyone) Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn
Rule H3 (for motorists) – You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle… Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
Rule 74 – (for cyclists) Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. [Is this last line intended to apply only where the cyclist is turning??]
Rule 76 (for cyclists) Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Interesting. It almost seems
Interesting. It almost seems like they asking both sides to exercise extreme caution, by placing significant responsibility on both parties. (H3 line after the quotation also gives a right of way to cyclists: ‘You [vehicle driver] should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary.’
Pragmatically, I can’t see myself undertaking a stationary car or lorry waiting to turn left … but then that may annoy cyclists behind me (or even lead to a crash if I slow down when they don’t expect it) … and the waiting vehicle driver
I just preferred the principle of ‘don’t undertake’ …
postrestant wrote:
Yes – the HWC does this in a number of places: driver should do [x], but cyclist should still be prepared for them not to. I ride defensively / assertively – I’ll hold my own, but I’m always ready to cede priority to 2 tonnes of metal if I need to.
NB: “right of way” and “priority” are different, as are “undertaking” and “filtering”
Everyones favourite driving
Everyones favourite driving instructor, Ashley Neil, did a piece on this on his Youtube Chanel. I’m not inclined to go looking for the link and driving footfall in his direction but if anyone is intersted it’s out there.
Three months ago, deep inside
Three months ago, deep inside the Castelli HQ marketing department…
“So we all agree we should call it what it is.. keep it simple, something everyone will understand and move away from naming things in italian..”
“Si, daccordo”
“Right then.. what it is then”
“Erm… “
“It’s a bit inbetween a jacket and a jersey”
“So it’s a Gabba scusa.. Perfetto”
“What did we just say..!”
“Okay I have it, it’s a Jerket!”
“Yes, yes that’s what we pay you the big Euros for.. it IS a Jerket!”
“Santo cielo! You’re jerks you can’t call it a Jerk-it, think of the memes, Bioracer will have a field day!”
*concentration faces*
“Eureka! I have it, lets call it a Jacksey”
“Si, si! Right see you on Monday everyone”
peted76 wrote:
“Depends, does it have short sleeves or long?”
“Short”
“That’s the Gabba then.”
“No, some of our Perfettos have short sleeves now too”
“Mama mia, whatever we call it, it can’t be worse than this”
Anyone else getting slow
Anyone else getting slow response times and
502 Bad Gateway
on the site ?
Hirsute wrote:
Yes, seems to be taking forever today as it was last night.
Yeah, I’ve got rural internet
Yeah, I’ve got rural internet, which at the best of times seems to involve TCP/IP packets being transmitted by smoke signal and carrier pigeons, but it’s taking multiple minutes to load pages on Road.cc today. Other sites not affected.
Yesterday I got waiting for
Yesterday I got waiting for js.stripe.% or something and that’s with NoScript !
BalladOfStruth wrote:
While IPoAC (IP over Avian Carriers) can not help you with your latency issues, this form of Internet can actually be much faster for latency insensitive, bulk throughput (i.e. MB/s) than other forms of rural Internet access. 😉
Paul J wrote:
I was discussing that only last night with some friends.
On March 12, 2004, Yossi Vardi, Ami Ben-Bassat, and Guy Vardi sent three homing pigeons a distance of 100 kilometres (62 mi), “each carrying 20–22 tiny memory cards containing 1.3 GB, amounting in total of 4 GB of data.” An effective throughput of 2.27 Mbps was achieved. The purpose of the test was to measure and confirm an improvement over RFC 2549. Since the developers used flash memory instead of paper notes as specified by RFC 2549, the experiment was widely criticized as an example in which an optimized implementation breaks an official standard.
How waterproof are these
How waterproof are these pigeons? I can imagine taking a couple of spills, stopping to send some data and finding you’re suffering from pocket loss since the pigeon in yours has become waterlogged.
chrisonatrike wrote:
yep, the site was quite slow
yep, the site was quite slow yesterday too
Hirsute wrote:
Yes – I dropped them an email about it yesterday.
I think they need to boost their systems a bit
In terms of renaming errors,
In terms of renaming errors, nothing will every beat Newcastle Polytechnic in the 90s (when Polys all became Universities) – it was within a matter of days of being called The City University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Steve K wrote:
The late great Humphrey Lyttelton on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue:
Rendel Harris wrote:
With computer technologies, there’s the Scunthorpe Problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
That wikipedia page has some amusing examples such as: The word or string “ass” may be replaced by “butt”, resulting in “clbuttic” for “classic”, “buttignment” for “assignment”, and “buttbuttinate” for “assassinate”
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s a firm of heating engineers not far from me, I really don’t know how their domain name gets past profanity filters, or why nobody asked “are you sure?” when setting everything up.
I just read Sunak is not
I just read Sunak is not going to force everyone to wear cycle clips nor outlaw having N+1 bikes.
I just read Sunak is not
I just read Sunak is not going to force everyone to wear cycle clips nor outlaw having N+1 bikes.
Hirsute wrote:
What about N+1 comments?
Hirsute wrote:
On the other hand perhaps he’ll make cyclists less hated by letting motorists off “road tax” also?
The part I’m unclear on is whether they mean “we’ll achieve net zero (planned) change” or “we’ll make net zero effort”?
Probably the one thing that unites everyone around this debate is that they just want the problem to go away. They’ve enough things to worry about already and those seem much more urgent or localised.