Telegraph admits publishing “erroneous” Strava data — corrects story claiming “death trap” cyclists are hitting “52mph” while chasing London segments; Giro d’Italia helmet row; Richmond Park Strava segment flagged as hazardous + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Giro d'Italia helmet row as Patrick Lefevere questions jury after Julian Alaphilippe fined for removing helmet to "take off his wet cap" in the cold
A grim day at the Giro yesterday as the riders tackled a shortened, but still freezing cold and sodden, day of riding through the mountains. Julian Alaphilippe was again one of the protagonists, up the road chasing stage victory before Tadej Pogačar’s latest display of inevitable superiority.
Everyone will have a story from stage 16, few who completed it will forget it quickly, but one reaction angle coming post-stage was regarding the jury’s attitude to Alaphilippe briefly removing his helmet mid-stage to remove his wet hat beneath. Patrick Lefevere took to Twitter (a quintet of words that’ll strike fear into anyone, I know, but don’t worry, nothing contemptible today) to point out his rider was fined 200 Swiss francs (£172) for the pleasure.
Rider taking off mandatory helmet during the race./ Rider
131 ALAPHILIPPE Julian, UCI ID 10007155752 (SOQ)
200 CHF fine
That how they treat riders who want to take off his wet cap under his helmet 🙏— Patrick Lefevere (@PatLefevere) May 21, 2024
“That’s how they treat a rider who wants to take off his wet cap under his helmet,” he wrote.
You can certainly understand Lefevere’s frustration (a sentence I never thought I’d write), given the extreme weather conditions perhaps the jury could have cut Alaphilippe some slack in not wanting a soaking hat on his head? I’m sure they’d argue it is just their job to enforce the rules as they are written.
The replies suggest the cycling-watching public are split on it:
“The UCI wants a big Christmas Party this year!! Often wondered if fines are their party fund?”
“The correct way to do it is to stop, take of his helmet and wet cap, put helmet back on and set off again.”
“When he falls on the wet road and suffers a serious head injury, everyone screams that he should have obeyed the rules. Or would he have done everything right even in this case? The penalty is justified if he doesn’t stop, there are already enough serious injuries this season!”
“UCI are clowns sadly”
I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up then. Alaphilippe was also the subject of post-stage comments from fellow breakaway rider Ewen Costiou of Arkéa – B&B Hotels who finished ninth, the young Frenchman thanking his compatriot for taking “a big turn just for me while he was dead”. The TV pictures showed the peloton nearing as the two-time champion got on the front of the breakaway, pushing the pace and emptying the tank to earn them some welcome seconds before he subsequently dropped out the back of the telly completely empty.
“He’s a huge champion, it’s great to have done that, he didn’t have to,” Costiou said.
Tremendous ride yet again and another most combative rider award for @alafpolak1 🙌
Photo: @GettySport pic.twitter.com/LCihtmgjjJ
— Soudal Quick-Step Pro Cycling Team (@soudalquickstep) May 21, 2024
And finally, we can’t let this opportunity pass without another look at the Frenchman’s amusing quotes published on his team’s website. I say ‘amusing’ because Soudal-QuickStep are the masters of seamless sponsor shout-outs. This is the team, after all, who (in 2022 during Alaphilippe’s recovery from a crash at Liège-Bastogne-Liège) reported their rider was now strong enough to “resume light training on a set of Tacx rollers”.
It gave us a laugh imagining the team’s doctor earnestly concluding: ‘I’m sorry, Julian. Your body is not strong enough for Elite or Wahoo just yet. For people with your injuries, I always prescribe Tacx…’
Welcome to today’s shoehorned sponsor shout-out…
“It was a crazy day,” Alaphilppe said. “With the route change because of the weather, and the full gas tempo from the start all the way to the finish. The weather didn’t make it easy, but Specialized’s rain tyres have lots of grip in these conditions. I rode on my instinct and I can be happy with the way I gave my best.
“It was cold today, but I had my Castelli clothing to keep me warm and dry, which helped me stay in the lead so deep into the stage.”
Fair play, superb name-dropping, plus the sponsors pay the bills to keep the team running… and we enjoy reading it and putting it on the blog. Long may it continue…
What's the fastest way to commute by bike on a budget? The sub-£500 DIY e-bike vs acoustic bike challenge
Richmond Park Strava segment flagged as hazardous
The main segment in south-west London’s Richmond Park, a popular destination for cyclists in the English capital, has been flagged as hazardous after a week where Strava was thrust into the spotlight by much coverage around “dangerous cycling” in the national press.
The Royal Parks, the charity which also manages Richmond Park, asked Strava to remove a popular segment in Regent’s Park due to a pedestrian being killed in a collision with a cyclist in two years ago.
In response, Strava told road.cc that it was urging cyclists to “prioritise everyone’s safety” and “behaviours related to” the death of a pensioner — hit by a cyclist at speeds of 25-29mph as a group ride completed laps of Regent’s Park — “violate” its community standards. The ride-sharing app also made it clear the feature to flag a segment as hazardous already exists.
On Friday, we reported that Telegraph journalists had been told to “check your research” after the paper put a story on its front page claiming that cyclists are hitting 52mph in pursuit of London Strava segments… despite that being faster than Olympic track cyclists, with Richmond Park named as one segment where cyclists were “creating death traps”.
The story led Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman to criticise the media’s portrayal of cyclists. “Mums, dads, sons and daughters being labelled as killers. It’s just got to stop,” he said.
How long does it take to save up for an S-Works SL8 around the world?
CyclistsHub.com has shared an interesting article detailing how long it takes to afford a top-of-the-range SL8 around the world…
Check out the full piece and all the stats here…
Coastguard rescues child who fell 20 metres "down a steep bank" while cycling along cliff path
Falmouth Coastguard Rescue Team said it was called to a cliff path between Maenporth and Swanpool on Monday evening to a report that a child had fallen around 20 metres down a steep bank while cycling along the route.
“Team members carried out an assessment of the casualty’s injuries, suspecting a potentially serious leg injury and began treating him. Paramedics then arrived on scene and administered some pain relief to enable a comfortable move to our stretcher,” the coastguard team confirmed.
“The casualty was then moved up the bank using some of our rope rescue equipment. He was then carried out along the footpath to a waiting ambulance for onward transport to hospital. The casualty was incredibly brave throughout his ordeal and we wish him a speedy recovery.”
The good people of Facebook sum up Pat's hat spat
Lefevere or the UCI: pick your fighter… no, you can’t say neither…
The two comments we’ve got over on Facebook sum up the way this sort of thing divides opinion…
Steve Soper: “Stupid doesn’t really cover most of these so called officials.”
Paul Wilson: “Imagine the guys who are in charge of the rules applying the rules. The horror. You can’t have it both ways, if the weather is increasing the danger then all the more reason to enforce the safety rules.”
We’ll spare you the poll…
"If that does not invoke the extreme weather protocol, then what does?": Adam Hansen comments on stage 16 chaos
CPA riders’ union President Adam Hansen has tried to explain the events that led to yesterday’s stage being shortened and questioned the organisers’ “let’s see how it goes approach” in the face of freezing conditions that “would have resulted in riders on the side of the road, scattered all over the climb, looking for shelter in the snow”.
“On the rest day, the CPA first contacted all stakeholders to arrange an agreement based on the weather forecast for stage 16,” he said. “It was clear that the conditions on Umbrail Pass should invoke the UCI extreme weather protocol, and the riders proposed eliminating this pass to avoid two degrees with snow during the long descent.
“The riders’ intention was to have a full race without having to stop and restart due to extreme weather. The riders stood united in their decision, which was communicated to show the seriousness of their stance. After many hours of negotiations on the morning of the race, the CPA did their best to convey the riders’ seriousness in avoiding today’s situation.
“In the end, it was clear that Umbrail Pass could not have been raced as local authorities closed the pass due to too much snow. If the riders had raced, as the stakeholders wanted, the race would have stopped at the Umbrail Pass. Please remember, the riders’ intention was always to race from point A to B and put on a show, exactly like they did and how a race should be.
“So ultimately, due to the weather, the original race course could not have been completed. Especially since before the race had even started, it was zero degrees with snow. If that does not invoke the extreme weather protocol, then what does?
“It is 2024; we need to have a clear protocol in place for all stakeholders to understand and accept to preserve the good image of cycling. A ‘let’s see how it goes’ approach, especially today, would have resulted in riders on the side of the road, scattered all over the climb, looking for shelter in the snow. This is not the solution for ensuring the riders’ health.”
Former cycling film actor accused of motor doping at French stage race dramatically flees and knocks down race director with his van
Giro d'Italia stage 17: Another tough day in the mountains
Picture the scene. You’re two weeks into a Grand Tour. Knackered. You limp through a freezing day in the mountains, get back to the bus, open up the roadbook and are confronted with this for the next stage…
An earlier break containing Julian Alaphilippe, Nairo Quintana, Damiano Caruso and a few others has since returned to the peloton, meaning it’s almost entirely back together as the riders approach 50km to go. Lidl-Trek’s Amanuel Ghebreigzabhier chased some mountain points at the top of the last climb and has found himself alone at the front with 30 seconds’ advantage. Apart from that, there’s just the main bunch of favourites (well, THE favourite and the rest) and those well off the back.
Is it going to be stage win number six for Pog?
Comment(s) of the day... I'm glad we're not the only ones who enjoy Soudal Quick-Step's sponsor shout-outs
It’s a full on job when you work for a team whose website lists 48 sponsors and partners…
Georg Steinhauser wins stage 17 of the Giro d'Italia
💥💥💥💥 GEORG STEINHAUSER! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
He tried and tried and never gave up. Our German youngster takes his first pro win on stage 17 of the Giro d’Italia after a magnificent ride.
We are so proud of you💕#Giroditalia pic.twitter.com/pqiic3lJ2X
— EF Pro Cycling (@EFprocycling) May 22, 2024
EF Pro Cycling and Georg Steinhauser finally have their stage win, for the German it’s also his first pro win — not a bad day to do it on…
The result was in the bag from quite far out on the final climb, not that it will have felt that way for the 22-year-old grinding his way up the vicious (if immaculately surfaced) slopes of Passo Brocon. In the end his advantage was cut to 1:24 by the finish line, a late surge by Tadej Pogačar meaning the maglia rosa took even more time on his rivals.
Behind Pogačar, there was once again little between the rest, Ben O’Connor suffering a bad day and losing time, but Antonio Tiberi, Geraint Thomas, Dani Martinez, Einer Rubio and Romain Bardet all finishing 1:42 down on Steinhauser.
Alright smart-arse! Now you can turn your butt into a fitness tracker
> Alright smart-arse! Now you can turn your butt into a fitness tracker
So... anyone doing anything on July 4th?
It’s nice of Rishi to schedule the election for the day of a flat (and likely very boring) first-week Tour de France sprint stage. July the fourth… wouldn’t want to overshadow any of those punchy days or early mountains…
Telegraph admits publishing "erroneous" Strava data — corrects story claiming "death trap" cyclists are hitting "52mph" while chasing London segments
The Telegraph has removed figures from its story published on Friday claiming that “Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain”, the piece justified with dodgy GPS data incorrectly suggesting cyclists were hitting speeds of 52 mph in London.
The correction and amendment has been made online and comes after the newspaper published this on its front page last week…
The online version of the story is now titled: “How cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps”.
In a correction at the bottom of the article the newspaper admitted publishing “erroneous” data and claimed Strava data “cannot be checked or independently verified”. Adding to the bizarre tale of one of the nation’s biggest media organisations getting something so simple so spectacularly wrong, over the weekend it emerged that one of the journalists working on the story was a former BBC fact checker. No, really…
The Telegraph’s correction states: “This article and its headline have been amended to remove speeds recorded on Strava which Strava has now deleted and which appear to have been erroneous. Data is uploaded to Strava by users, either automatically or manually, and cannot be checked or independently verified; the data is accepted on trust. We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record.”
The newspaper was ridiculed and heavily criticised for the piece, and there will be concerns the correction comes too late for the thousands of people who will have already read the headline online and in print.
Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman described the article as “hate speech” and said certain sections of the press’ demonisation of cyclists as killers has “just got to stop”.
I don’t normally get involved in calling out headlines but it’s just getting bonkers.
If this was directed at a gender, race or religion it would be rightly called out as the hate speech it is. Mums, dads, sons and daughters being labelled as killers. It’s just got to stop. pic.twitter.com/DWWBSNbQl8
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) May 17, 2024
“Mums, dads, sons and daughters being labelled as killers. It’s just got to stop,” he said. “I don’t normally get involved in calling out headlines but it’s just getting bonkers. If this was directed at a gender, race or religion it would be rightly called out as the hate speech it is.”
The Sky Sports News presenter Sanny Rudravajhala also expressed his anger at the article’s inaccuracies, addressing the authors on X/Twitter: “Your whole piece centres on injuries and deaths from cyclists without anything to compare it with. Four deaths caused by cyclists for example versus say the 1,711 from cars in 2022?
“Or 143,326 injuries from car accidents versus the 462 from cyclists that you mention. And bloody hell, this quote, ‘Strava enthusiasts claim dangerous cyclists are a small minority’. – I mean, clearly they are? Or are the majority of Strava cyclists dangerous?
“I just cannot imagine compromising my entire journalistic training to the point of providing no balance whatsoever bar one random rider vox in an entire piece. Please do better.”
The glut of media coverage around “dangerous cycling” was sparked by a recent coroner’s inquest into the tragic case of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths, killed in a collision with a cyclist in Regent’s Park back in 2022, with the inquest being told that the cyclist would face no charges.
Last weekend, the Telegraph reported that another pedestrian was hit by a cyclist at the same spot where Ms Griffiths was fatally struck. Strava responded by urging cyclists to “prioritise everyone’s safety”, stating that “hazardous” segments could be flagged on its platform.
In response, the government agreed to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure. The amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, put forward by Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, would introduce the offence of ‘causing death by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling’, with Transport Secretary Mark Harper saying the proposed legislation would ensure the “tiny minority” of reckless cyclists would face the “full weight of the law”, while protecting “law-abiding cyclists”.
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.
81 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
One of those inflatable saddle covers, surely...
Hiplock are offering 10% off their series 1000 ultimate bundles, the lock and the anchor, with ULT10, until the 28th. It's something.
Stage 4 - the bot turns up and wants to do the ride with you. :o(
Very good.. And if white shorts reflect the aesthetic of where amateur (road) cycling is, I have one more reason why road cycling is dwindling.
I see LLMs as returnung the internet to its proper form. We had stage 1, where we could use the internet to dodge human interaction. Result! Then stage 2, social meeja, where suddenly the internet was about interacting with more people. Boo! Now stage 3: we can dodge the humes again and instead prattle on to chat bots and ask them to plan bike rides.
We are told day in day out that AI is the future, mankind's only way forward. One step at a time, the environmental damage and human costs of AI start to surface. Mega data centres require plenty of electricity to power servers and gazillion of cubic meters of water for cooling, each year. This means more atmospheric pollution and respiratory diseases and less water for humans, animals and agriculture.
It seems we hardly hear of doping cases involving women conti and pro cyclists. Here is the latest data : Of the 20 total professional doping cases recorded in 2025, four involved female cyclists.
81 thoughts on “Telegraph admits publishing “erroneous” Strava data — corrects story claiming “death trap” cyclists are hitting “52mph” while chasing London segments; Giro d’Italia helmet row; Richmond Park Strava segment flagged as hazardous + more on the live blog”
The title of that article
The title of that article needs changing.
“£500 Commuter challenge: Bike Vs e-bike hack-job” better reflects that a) the questionable quality of cheap aftermarket motor conversion kits and b) no regular bike should ever be referred to as “acoustic”.
“Bike Vs Fire hazard” is also acceptable.
I think Dan needs to dish out
I think Dan needs to dish out the RoadCC admin login details again..
ROOTminus1 wrote:
I don’t think you can compare the cheap aftermarket shite conversion kits with the likes of those from Swytch and similar.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
Swytch are a highly respected mainstream British company – hardly cheap, either – and as far as I’m aware their products have never been implicated in a fire, but don’t let that get in the way of the “all ebikes are a fire hazard” narrative.
Did Alaphilippe literally
Did Alaphilippe literally take his helmet off long enough to remove his cap? So, how many seconds, exactly, was he helmetless?
brooksby wrote:
Not very many – there is a video doing the rounds on social media.
I can’t help but think that
I can’t help but think that removing your jacket, or even arm warmers while riding is more risky than removing a helmet…but also these are top level pro’s who in most circumstances having highly developed bike skills.
Global Nomad wrote:
I was thinking that today watching riders in the middle of the peloton cycling hands-free whilst trying to deal with a flappy jacket, taking a helmet off and removing a cap is something that could actually be done with one hand, apart from perhaps a very brief moment to clip the strap back on.
I don’t know about taking arm
I don’t know about taking arm-warmers off, but I once spent a fortnight in hospital after my seatpost broke as I was putting them on.
Disappointed Alaphillipe
Disappointed Alaphillipe didn’t also say “With all the wet weather I’m glad our team bus has nice, grippy QuickStep flooring”
henryb wrote:
“In future I’m going to avoid helmet fine misery by covering my cap in Soudal’s market-leading marine sealant…”
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/electric-cars-more-likely-to-hit-pedestrians-than-petrol-vehicles-study-finds
“Drivers”, surely?
Who are the people who can’t
Who are the people who can’t hear electric vehicles approaching? Other car drivers, I imagine.
While there’s no aggressively loud engine revving, I’ve never experienced electric vehicles as being hard to hear.
momove wrote:
Whether or not a vehicle is silent should be irrelevant – people need to look before crossing a road or performing a maneouvre if using a vehicle. If someone is only listening out for loud engines, then they’re likely to step into the path of a cyclist or EV.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yeah, but they don’t look, do they? And they do regularly step out in front of cyclists (unless I turned invisible and didn’t notice).
In a sense, this study is just exactly what everyone was saying a few years ago about the lack of engine noise from EV (remember when the idea was doing the rounds to add fake engine noise? Have your EV sound like a ICE car, or like the Millennium Falcon…).
brooksby wrote:
Personally, I think adding fake engine noise is a mistake – it’s almost validating the idea that people can cross the road without looking and besides which, it ignores the fact that cyclists don’t often make engine noises (brrrm brrrm)
As others have suggested, it
As others have suggested, it may be noise is not all of it, possibly not even the main factor (haven’t checked the report yet). I could imagine it does play a role sometimes (by introspection at least one person does “look with their ears” – at least I seem to catch myself using sound to cue how much visual attention I allocate).
Anyway, this is all a good opportunity to consider sonic skeuomorphs again – or “one vehicle to the tune of another”. Bring on Trotify!
Ding Ding, I’m a bicycle!
Ding Ding, I’m a bicycle!
lonpfrb wrote:
I sometimes call out “ding ding” instead of using a bell to warn pedestrians on a shared path. I tend to go for “beep beep” if they’re in the road or for the very worst non-looking offenders, I’ll shout a loud “oi!” at them until they look round (whilst amending my speed/direction so I can avoid them if they don’t respond).
brooksby wrote:
I thought it is now standard to add artificial noise to electric cars at low speeds? Certainly I’ve noticed electric cars making a noise I have assumed to be added. Nothing as outlandish as fake ICE exhaust noise or the Millennium Falcon, but just a generic sci-fi-esque whine.
Logically both internal and
Logically both internal and external noise should be flexible/programmable. Tyre noise is included.
Millennium Falcon it is then..
Your choice of:
Your choice of:
Imperial March from Star Wars
Top Gear theme (“Jessica” by the Allman Brothers Band)
Born to be Wild – Steppenwolf
Driving in my car – Madness
Postman Pat theme
Crazy Frog
?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Whether or not a vehicle is silent should be irrelevant – people need to look before crossing a road or performing a maneouvre if using a vehicle. If someone is only listening out for loud engines, then they’re likely to step into the path of a cyclist or EV.
— momove
It’s also about silent approach of vehicles to people who are not looking and may be standing – for example in shared space areas.
One user group concerned are visually impaired. of course.
AIUI EU regs are audible warning required at less than 30kph, as that is approximately the speed where road noise dips beneath the chosen minimum threshold.
It seems very sensible.
mattw wrote:
Shared space areas are problematic for blind people anyhow, so just adding some fake noise to EVs is unlikely to help them feel safe (probably textured surfaces are required so they can tell when they’re at the edges).
My main complaint against having fake EV noises is that logically it doesn’t seem to make much sense when we have other silent traffic (scooters, cyclists, joggers), and the urban environment is noisy enough without adding fake noises. It doesn’t surprise me that more people are turning to using headphones to deal with noise anxiety due to the constant traffic noise that we’re subjected to.
momove wrote:
If only people would look with their eyes and not their ears, it wouldn’t matter if they were as quiet as maglev trains.
Hearing impaired, deaf and
Hearing impaired, deaf and deaf-blind for a start.
And hearing impaired may be a condition like tinnitus (roughly a constant or intermittent self-generated noise when something in the hearing system does not work properly), or many others.
momove wrote:
I can think of a couple of times been seriously caught out…once an electric bus…there was a bit of wind noise but merging lanes and what I believe motorcyclists call “a lifesaver” saved me…another time riding thru a car park (in these parts a lot of shared paths follow rail lines and disappear in car parks) passed an electric Honda on the left as was slowing and indicating right presumably having spotted an empty bay…30 secs or so later as I came to exit the car park again shoulder check and driver hadn’t turned and car was a metre or so behind me and heading to pass… just yesterday out walking the doggo I was looking but passed by a virtually silent (no tyre noise) Tesla and driver was intent on using the acceleration that comes with electric propulsion as weaved thru set of islands that don’t slow modern cars down…the acceleration as well as the silence was what drew my attention as being different to an SUV or sports car
True. However, this does
True. However, this does suggest that a significant factor in the much higher risk of a pedestrian being struck by the driver of an electric car is that they didn’t hear it coming / didn’t look before stepping into the road. These cars tend to be heavier due to the added weight of batteries (and a motor in the case of hybrids) so may well cause more injuries at the same speed. Hopefully people will learn to look properly before crossing the road, though I’m not hopeful bearing in mind how many I see glued to phones.
I can’t see the extra mass
I can’t see the extra mass making a lot of difference. The shape and rigidity of whatever part hits you are surely going to have a much bigger influence on the severity of injuries.
What _really_ irked me about
What _really_ irked me about the article was the phrase “eco-friendly cars…”.
I’m expecting “the quiet man” to now call for “causing death by quiet driving” to be made an offence.
Perhaps “Emit elsewhere”? Or
Perhaps “Emit elsewhere”? Or “slightly better for the environment in some ways but maybe worse in others”* ? Or “new tech fixes old tech” – dodge issues with a current technology / find a “new stretch of road” by switching to another. Which of course will come with its own problems, more or less further down the road!
* Whatever other issues there are with new “green tech” one issue it doesn’t seem to address is being able to produce the raw materials in a sustainable manner, due to continued large-scale requirements for concrete and good-quality steels. And as ever Jevon’s paradox may apply.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
The quiet man is currently gurgling as he has risen to the surface of the political toilet for the third time before being flushed away to the memory hole of history.
& not ‘accidents’ either!
& not ‘accidents’ either!
‘Younger drivers being less experienced’ So is the driving test not strict enough? or doesn’t cover not hitting pedestrians?!
Maybe it’s the touted ‘insane’ acceleration away from traffic lights etc?
I love my bike wrote:
I suspect the acceleration. The raw data should make it obvious, if the Nissan Leaf is hitting pedestrians at a similar rate or much lower rate than Teslas.
My wife drives a Leaf, and while the acceleration is more than adequate, it’s an easy car to drive slowly.
brooksby wrote:
Worth investigation but at the more dangerous speeds (20mph and up) doesn’t road noise dominate? So presumably both ICE and electric vehicles are a similiar volume?
Ime that’s the case, at 30mph
Ime that’s the case, at 30mph there’s very little difference in most ice cars to evs, road noise, once past you yes the engine exhaust makes an ice louder, but you can see them then.
When they’re travelling milk float speeds it’s harder to hear them approach, above other ice noise
Whether it’s novelty factor as they’re easier to spot I do think Tesla drivers close pass alot though.
Similar tyres say yes..
Similar tyres say yes..
Yes, which is why EU regs
Yes, which is why EU regs apply below I think 30kph.
The research is nonsense as
The research is nonsense as for the last few years, EV have had to have noise generators when travelling at low speeds so people can hear them coming. The research is from 2018 when EVs didn’t have such…. I know as my first EV was new in 2018….. it was great fun creeping up on Peds in car parks who couldn’t be bothered to look up from their phones.
You would have to be stupid or on the phone….same thing some might say…. to get caught out by an EV in 2024.
I can think of a number of
I can think of a number of possible reasons for this which could do with some research:
– Yes many peds do seem to rely on hearing. Very few do a shoulder check before crossing a side road; so much so that I’ve taken to calling out ‘Electric car?’ as I manoeuvre round them . . .
– Potential faster acceleration which – especially if the vehicle ‘looks’ slow and heavy (SUV, van) – might well take someone not expecting it by surprise.
– Maybe type of driver? Interesting the article mentions youth. Possibly also a particular drivist attitude. Lots of e-cars are now SUV types.
– One that worries me when cycling too: more ‘tech’. Both in terms of screens to look at or touch for controls, both distracting; and also proto-self-drive ‘safety’ stuff. The latter raises the concern that people might not realise they have it (keep in lane really scary in that possibility!), might not understand how it works, or might rely on it too much and not pay proper attention.
Whatever, if statistically significant it certainly needs looking into, especially the last, as this could well become an issue in its own right.
Another factor that should
Another factor that should not be overlooked is that cars are getting increasingly wider so they will invariably be closer to the pavement.
– Yes many peds do seem to
– Yes many peds do seem to rely on hearing. Very few do a shoulder check before crossing a side road; so much so that I’ve taken to calling out ‘Electric car?’ as I manoeuvre round them . . .
The HWC was updated, so maybe you should anticipate & let them have priority (?)
Not sure what an observant ped should do if it’s a Tesla approaching; eye contact is even more meaningless!
You can give priority without
You can give priority without stopping – just making the point that there might be other, bigger and less polite silent things around!
brooksby wrote:
100%
http://rc-rg.com
“wow, that car did that all by itself?”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3331869633536303/
So how would you reword the
So how would you reword the sentence without making it unnecessarily verbose?
“You are more likely to be hit by a car driven by a driver driving a hybrid or electric car than by a car driven by a driver driving a car with a petrol or diesel engine”?
john_smith wrote:
You are more likely to be hit by an EV driver than an ICE driver
I news media/journalists are
If news media/journalists are able to say “Pedestrian hit by cyclist.” (rather than “Pedestrian hit by bike.”) then they should be able to say “Pedestrian hit by driver.”
I’m not sure they’re
I’m not sure they’re equivalent–in the first case you’ve got a person on a bike and in the second a box with a person inside.
“Pedestrian hit by bike” sounds to me as though bike was perhaps unmanned, and “pedestrian hit by driver” makes me think maybe the driver got out and biffed the ped.
john_smith wrote:
When a driver gets out of their vehicle, they become a pedestrian, so you’re incorrect
The claim that younger people
The claim that younger people are more likely to own an electric car seems to be based on a very spurious survey. Following the link in the article, the survey results seem to indicate that 41% of people aged 16-24 own an electric car. And that’s 41% of all people aged 16-24 own an electric car; not even 41% of young car owners own electric as opposed to ICE cars (and even that would seem implausible).
In fact, given there are ~7 million people aged 16-24 in the UK, and ~1 million electric cars registered in the UK, even if every single electric car was owned by someone aged aged 16-24 , you still wouldn’t reach 41% of people aged 16-24 owning one.
OnYerBike wrote:
Figures probably skewed by 16 year olds thinking they were being asked about their scalextric toys as they are not old enough to hold a driving licence.
Something needs to be done
Something needs to be done about the dangerous pedestrians walking out onto the road without carefully looking to see if anything is coming.
” Working days needed to
” Working days needed to afford” err..i’m sure that should be workign days to earn the equivalent sum. Unless affording a bike means you dont spend on anything else. I’ll caveat this by admitting i haven’t followed the link to check their protocol.
my bike setup cost me the equivalent of about 2 of my net UK salary…..obviously saved over a much longer period
Global Nomad wrote:
2 days? months? years? Months seems reasonable.
The most I’ve spent on a bike is a little more than half a month’s worth of my pay, after taxes, health care, and retirement savings contribution.
Said the man earning $250k
Said the man earning $250k/annum 🙂
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Nope, I just don’t spend a lot (relative to my income) on bikes. I’ve only ever bought two that weren’t second hand, and I’ve never bought a carbon frame.
Well, after all that, if
Well, after all that, if rumours are true that the election is about to be called, then there’s a high chance that the relevant Bill falls and we don’t get the dangerous cycling law (yet, at least).
4th July…just called by a
4th July…just called by a Tory Wet.
If he calles for the
If he calls for the dissolution of Parliament on the 30th May, there are still five working days for it to be rushed through. Seeing as it seemed to get added and OK’d to be added in about five days, don’t hold your breath.
It could go through quickly as a last gasp effort and be approved just because there’s no point in stretching things out due to an election.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
According to The Guardian Parliament will be prorogued on Friday 24th May:
I was using 30th May because
I was using 30th May because it’s on BBC’s site :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62064552
Guardian also says parliament ends on 30th May too :-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/22/why-is-rishi-sunak-calling-a-general-election-now-and-what-happens-next
I’d be less pessimistic if it was 24th May 🙂
30th May is dissolution of
30th May is dissolution of Parliament, 24th is prorogue date after which ‘normal activites’ diminish so there is room for exceptional stuff to happen. It depends on whether the government considers the crime bill exceptional. It is contentious, not only because of the cycling (from my point of view) but also because of other stuff like immigration and the clamping down on protests.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Good points.
There was Lab Con support for the anti-cycling stuff.
On immgration and Rwanda (?) it is around Lab not wanting it, but also around any benefit Sunk may get from an easy campaigning hit on Labour. They could let it through then replace it with their package after the Election, assuming a win and whatever is in their manifesto.
Rotherham is interesting, as I’d expect Gallowazzock to run a sectarian campaign.
Thanks for the wash up info,
Thanks for the wash up info, I was wondering exactly this. I was vaguely aware of the wash up process but not exactly certain of what it meant.
So if this legislation is considered contentious (what does this mean – whether the main opposition party would oppose it?), it wouldn’t get passed through the wash up process?
This is the progress of the
This is the progress of the Criminal Justice Bill. Can’t see it passing in the 2 days remaining, unless it’s cut down to just a few sections.
Thanks for the info – helpful
Thanks for the info – helpful.
Guess we’ll see what happens between now and the end of the month in any case.
Tom_77 wrote:
Legally? Not like Boris?
According to The Guardian
.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Parliament wasn’t sitting next week anyway – Whitsun recess. And it’s not just about rushing through that amendment, but the whole Bill. I don’t actually know how controversial the rest of the Bill is, but not sure there’s time anyway – but we shall see.
its already been through its
its already been through its 2nd reading, it will just get parked and picked up by the next government most likely via a carry over motion or simply as a new bill that looks alot like the old one. No party or individual MP has spoken out about the cycling parts, so its got enough broad consensus it would get passed whoever is in power.
I think carry-over only works
I think carry-over only works between sessions within a Parliament, not at a General Election.
Caveat: I am not a nerd to *that* extent.
the finance bill got carried
the finance bill got carried over when May called her snap election, so theres precedent it can happen for bills that arent overtly party policy by the back door and have broadly achieved consensus already among MPs, its all part of the negotiations that will take place over the next few days.
regardless as I said even if they put the 6months worth of effort of this one in the bin, all a new government has to do is copy & paste the old one and off we go again.
this hasnt gone away.
mattw wrote:
You are correct (I think).
I can’t call the Policing
I can’t call the Policing wotsit wotsit wotsit Bill.
If it is only 3rd reading to go, it could get through in washup.
I’m not especially worried about the changes – it’s mainly a displacement activity by self-deluded goons such as Iain Duncan-Smith. I’m still interested to see if it will require more equivalent standards to be applied to dangerous driving in all types of vehicle in practice.
I’m just glad that Rishi Sunk is overwhelmingly likely to be placed in his political grave earlier than I was expecting, and most of the more brain dead reactionaries with him.
IDS should be gone (Lab Target no 10), for example, and Teresa Villiers (Lab Target no 37) who was jumping up and down about “anti-car” LTNs in the astroturf debate this week. So there will be a significant clearing out of the dross.
mattw wrote:
We can but hope. I think my MP (Sir Simon Clark – Cons.) hasn’t been too bad as far as they go and I’d be happy to vote for him if he wore a different coloured tie but this time round, I’ll be voting for whoever isn’t Conservative and who has the greatest chance of kicking them into the dustbin of history.
My gut feeling is we’re in for a hung parliament come July 5th.
The Telegraph retraction is
The Telegraph retraction is itself misleading.
Suspicious rides can be reported and unlikely stats are grounds for removal. Apparently, instead of hand wringing about how nothing can be done, the Telegraph have seen the process in action and not understood it.
The Daily Telegraph is now as
The Daily Telegraph is now as bad as the Mail. I cancelled my subscription earlier this year after yet another anti-cycling article. Chris Boardman is right.
IPSO received 90 complaints
IPSO received 90 complaints about the Telegraph article and are investigating. I’m guessing that the retraction is to head this off.
What I would love to see, though, is corrections have as prominent a place as the original article, i.e. splashed across the top of the front page. A guy can dream…
A few years ago the park was
A few years ago the park was left open overnight for a while because of a huge sinkhole in Petersham – Motorists killed nearly 200 deers in a year, I was talking to a motorist about it in a youth hostel, I was told ‘it’s alright for motorists to kill the dear in Richmond Park because they have to be culled.
Telegraph “We are happy to
Telegraph “We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record.”
No, they aren’t. They’re happy to publish a correction that almost nobody who read the original pile of excrement will read, and most people who read it will still believe it.
Exactly this, Corrections
Exactly this, Corrections should have to be published on the same page and in the same size font as the falsehoods they are fixing. You put something wrong on the front page you are gonna look really stupid publishing a paper where the headline is “We were wrong, we are sorry, cyclists can’t go 52 miles per hour and to think that was reasonable shows how gullible and lacking in basic analytical skills our journalists really are. Can you trust us on anything else?”