"Problem is there's no consistency": Reaction to near miss shocker; Even professional cyclists forget to unclip sometimes; US cyclist to receive $300,000 settlement after riding into wire strung across trail; But cyclists... + more on the live blog

Dogless wrote:

I agree with Archibald about it being unfair on Bridges to have been singled out when it's the system that isn't fit for purpose. I still don't think the argument about 'retained physical advantage' is necessarily a good one, however, unless we apply the same scrutiny to the differences in testosterone levels, biological advantage such as VO2max capacity or height/bone structure, or even socioeconomic status or place of birth. There are so many variables at play that really it's the notion of a binary male/female distinction in professional sport which is flawed. The Paralympics have different categories based on specific abilities, what's to stop the same sort of practices being applied in able bodied sport? It's a bit of a strawman, yes, but the level of ire and handwringing around trans athletes is disproportionate to the actual issue, and it's particularly galling to see it from people who prior to this debate had no interest in women's sport and the lack of coverage, wage inequality etc etc.

Totally agree.

I thought Kate Archibald's statement was brilliant and tbf to Road.cc even the grauniad Laura article about the miscarriage and ectopic has the reference to Kate right in the middle of it. 

Katies statement came out on Wednesday, for those paying enough attention, and Lauras whole point about releasing the information about her miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy yesterday, which every major news site and other cycling site covered and has received an enormous amount of support from the public and also fellow athletes, was to share the information to help support others by talking about it, so families going through the same things dont feel they are alone, and try and break the taboo of silence about talking about it.

I dont think Katies statement needs references from other athletes in support, its strong enough to stand on its own merits., but if Road.cc are going to include them, maybe also at least acknowledge the other news story that broke yesterday along with it.

John Stevenson wrote:

"I'm going to be controversial here, it's the cars right of way"

What do you reckon?

I reckon our Facebook page is infested with mouth-breathing morons, some of whom happen to ride bike, and nobody who thinks there's such a thing as 'right of way' on the roads has anything valid or useful to say about road user behaviour.

I concur.  This is an absolute gem.....

"From what I can see is the reason the car may have strayed a bit wide is because the hedgerow on his side overhangs into the road past the white edging line. If the cyclist had been aware they may have held back on pulling out for the overtake of the parked car. Not only that. How many of the cyclists used a left hand signal turning at the junction? I'm sure if the driver could afford a defence lawyer and took it further, he may have had the decision reversed."

Somehow in their little mind the fact that the cyclists never signalled they were turning left is reason that conviction could be reversed .....

I read a similar twitter comment about the hedge. Nice to know that you can drive partly on the wrong side of the road, despite oncoming traffic, if you find something on your side a bit of an inconvenience.

Hard to believe these commentators passed a test or still have a valid licence.

They should be traced by a new online police division and have their licence suspended for a set period (2 weeks?) and be forced to retake a driving test. A second incident within a year should result  in licence being withdrawn for a much longer period and a large fine. Ooops, I forgot - courts don't do that because of the 'hardship' it causes. 

There are also a number of drivers - not insubstantial - who actually believe they have priority over cyclists at all times regardless of what the law says

Quote:

"Not only that. How many of the cyclists used a left hand signal turning at the junction? I'm sure if the driver could afford a defence lawyer and took it further, he may have had the decision reversed."

I used to be a defence lawyer.  Did a great many motoring matters, because it was easy money (there's always someone well-off prepared to throw more at a speeding trial to save their precious licence than the state is prepared to spend on something less important, like a rape trial).

And I'd tell the client not to waste their money.  "But the cyclists didn't signal!" is exactly the sort of whataboutery that would cause many District Judges (and plenty of lay Benches) to up the sentence.

I must admit the car is travelling too fast to notice that - the freeze frame makes it really obvious they are too far over.

I dont disagree that this was actionable.  I am depressed however about the inconsistency from the different Rozzer forces.  I've had worse that just had the "talking to" letter.

Exactly that, it's the consistency not just across forces but also within them too, I genuinely dont know for instance if I submitted that footage to my local Op Snapshot process what the outcome would be, or whether it would actually be a different outcome week to week.

Which is crazy, how am I then supposed to judge what to submit as I dont have the energy to constantly review all of my video I captured on rides for bad driving and submit stuff constantly & waste time to get beaten back with NFAs or just advice to drivers.

I suspect that the driver came out of his lane as he wasn't confident driving at that speed close to the verge.  That would be the very definition of dangerous driving.

Interesting how drivers are not allowed to touch phones but cyclists can control their drones while cycling, as usual with everything it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

hirsute or should I call you douglas @udprdjm? You're giving away your naivity - it's not a drone.

bikeman01 wrote:

should I call you douglas @udprdjm?

I'm going to go with "No".

Excellent meta-trolling though. 

With 5000+ posts, I really didn't think that other posters would consider me putting " it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us."  as anything other than a quote.

bikeman01 wrote:

hirsute or should I call you douglas @udprdjm? You're giving away your naivity - it's not a drone.

When I gave away my naivity, it wasn't as exiciting and didn't last for as long as I expected... 

I misread that the first time, I clearly haven't mentally got to Easter yet.

When 6000 posts you approach, then you get to accuse someone of trolling

(None of our resident trolls have ever reached those sort of post numbers.  They usually get called out, banned and/or flounce off well before that).

hirsute wrote:

Interesting how drivers are not allowed to touch phones but cyclists can control their drones while cycling, as usual with everything it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

Its not a drone, its a360 degree camera, he's trolling twitter for reactions like yours

Funnily enough, that was a quote from twitter.

I didn't think it necessary to explain this, especially with the phrase " it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us."

hirsute wrote:

Funnily enough, that was a quote from twitter.

I didn't think it necessary to explain this, especially with the phrase " it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us."

I did wonder what/how you'd write that.. apologies, sometimes the nuances of sarcasm can be lost in the ether.

.

Sorry. Ignorant low-tech me. Don't understand.

.

How is this funny? How is JV trolling twitter? (What does 'trolling twitter' mean?)

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Sorry. Ignorant low-tech me. Don't understand.

.

How is this funny? How is JV trolling twitter? (What does 'trolling twitter' mean?)

.

.

It's

.

the sound that

.

a 

.

very happy

.

troll

.

makes in the 

.

summertime...

.

Every time he uses his fancy 360degree camera attached to his helmet, he gets accused of using a drone by WhatAbouterists.

So he attached it to his handlebars for this ride as a trial and decided to call it "his drone". Of course, all the WhatAbouterists bit as expected.