Police issue lights and hi-vis to cyclists instead of a fine to get home “safely”; Jeremy Vine says red-light jumping cyclists are “great adverts for cycling”; CyclingMikey blasts “psychopaths” gleeing at cyclist being run over + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Umm... BBC has been taken over by the Daleks?
You read that right. It’s 60 years of Doctor Who, and to celebrate one of the longest, most successful and just all-around brilliant shows of all time, BBC Breakfast was being hosted by some Daleks.
Umm… You know? One of the Doctor’s oldest nemeses, the deeply hateful, xenophobic aliens literally based on Nazis?
BBC Breakfast has taken a turn. pic.twitter.com/2J3J38vgdN
— Scott Bryan (@scottygb) November 23, 2023
“Well that’s unusual… Hello!”
Anyway, here’s me celebrating Ryan Sinclair trying to learn a bike and accidentally summoning the Thirteenth Doctor (please don’t start throwing your Treks off a cliff to summon another please, also I really like Ncuti Gatwa!).
Are red-light jumping cyclists "great adverts" for cycling? Jeremy Vine seems to think so...
I know Jeremy Vine has become so frequent with his 360-degree headcams that his usual visits to our live blog have become less frequent. But the Channel 5 presenter might have casually dropped something so controversial that it’s a bit harder to ignore this time.
If you haven’t noticed recently, along with the usual ‘bad driver’ videos, Jeremy Vine has also been doing some ‘bad cyclist’ ones here and there. His latest one, posted late last night, seemed to be merely one so.
A cyclist can be seen approach another group of cyclists waiting on their bikes for the light to turn green, but then he weighs his options, sees a gap between the two in front, and makes a go for it, getting tangled almost falling, all before the light turned green.
Just how Ayrton Senna had said, “If you don’t go for a gap that exists, you’re not a cyclist anymore.” (I could be remembering the quote wrong)
At first I was cross with this cyclist — who crossed my path yesterday.
But then I realised he’s a great advert for cycling. pic.twitter.com/UUWIHFwdmO— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) November 22, 2023
But instead of, you know, blaming the cyclist, Jeremy Vine instead went on and said that this is actually a “great advert for cycling”, because “if he’s in a car, we are all dead”.
So here we are today, it’s time to debate red lights for cyclists once again!
It’s a topic much widely discussed on road.cc, as in many other places. If enough pedestrians and cyclists share the road, does it make active travel faster and safer?
Yes it was. This guy poses no danger on a bicycle. Put him in a car and he will kill.
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) November 22, 2023
But as we know, Amsterdam — one of the best cities for cycling in the world, has in the past experimented with doing away with traffic signals altogether, and with some success.
Until 2016, one of the Dutch capital’s busiest intersections at Sarphatistraat-Alexanderplein was controlled by traffic lights, with cyclists, the predominant users in Amsterdam as in a lot of Dutch cities.
The test was part of a larger mobility strategy across the city to make more room for cyclists and pedestrians, meaning limiting access and space for private vehicles. The new setup forced people to engage with their surroundings: Instead of relying on traffic lights, they now relied on their own abilities and the cues of others.
Over the period of a year, it was seen that cyclists had become more aware of their surroundings and of other road users. In less than two weeks, the evolution was already observed on Alexanderplein.
Delay times were reduced and safety remained unaffected, showing that regulation can lead to responsible and alert road users. It was so successful that the pilot was extended and a few months later the lights were completely removed, and even led to the junction’s redesign.
You know who else has also suggested this plan? Conservative Party’s mayoral candidate Dan Korski, who had also vowed to end Sadiq Khan’s “attack on drivers” by unveiling a milieu of radical traffic changes, including ending segregated bike lanes, 20mph speed limits, ULEZ and low traffic neighbourhoods.
Again, as with every blog post, there is no right or wrong answer here. I’m interested to see what you think about Jeremy Vine’s approach, will it do good for cycling/cyclists or is it just more clickbaity social media shenanigan?
Mathieu van der Poel's CX World Champion Canyon bike
Nova bike de Campeão do Mundo de Cyclocross para @mathieuvdpoel pic.twitter.com/noFaOaS2qO
— O País Do Ciclismo (@opaisdociclismo) November 22, 2023
MvdP challenge: Win cyclocross title without losing BOA dial.
"We've been calling for a safe cycle lane for six years": Lack of protected cycling infrastructure putting schoolchildren in danger, councillor argues
A councillor has spoken out about the “risky” lack of safe cycling infrastructure on a major road that runs near five schools and argued that the situation is so bad he would not let his children cycle to school alone.
Demanding action and pointing out that “we’ve been calling for a safe cycle lane for six years”, Galway City councillor Alan Curran, representing the Social Democrats in the Irish city, said the current painted lines “don’t offer the protection our children need”.
“I won’t let my kids cycle to school alone; it’s just too risky,” Curran said. “We’ve been calling for a safe cycle lane for six years. The current painted lines don’t offer the protection our children need. There’s ample space on both sides for proper cycle lanes without removing any road space or footpath width.
Forget cargo mounts, it's all about aero in this stunning gravel machine
I don’t know about you, but I’ve always had a sweet spot for Bianchi bikes. It’s something, I can’t really explain, that just feels the perfect marriage of efficiency, style, tradition and innovation. Or maybe I just love the colourway!
Anyway, the Impulso RC gravel racing bike is Bianchi’s foray nto the world of gravel racing. Positioned as the pinnacle of the updated Impulso gravel range, this new model reflects Bianchi’s aim to distinguish between adventure-oriented gravel bikes and those tailored for high-performance racing.
Read more on off.road.cc: > Bianchi unveils Impulso RC – an aero-inspired gravel bike
"Bloody hell, call the angle grinder man!": Is this (no, really!) the worst barrier ever?
Over the years at road.cc, we have come across a couple of truly, astonishingly, shockingly, even blasphemously designed inhumane pieces of infrastructure that not just seek to exclude cyclists, but also alienate people with disabilities or those in the elder age groups. Let’s run back a few of them, shall we?
Most recently, this kissing gate in Worcester, which sent a family of four around and left a cyclist labelling it as “utter shambles and non-inclusive”.
Then this piece which was labelled as “discriminatory” by University of Salford’s noteed researcher on inclusive active travel, Harrie Larrington-Spencer, who also accused Stockport Council of trying to “worm its way out” of making sure that all cycling and walking routes are accessible.
Then these bollards in Milton-Keynes brought to our attention by Steve Abraham, most known for his long distance record riding attempts who also doubles up as a deliver rider, which were too narrow for cargo bike trailers… also supplied by the council.
And of course, cycling’s original bad gateway, made forever infamous by road.cc user HoarseMann during a period of rough time for this website…
In my opinion, all these might pale in comparison to what Wheels for Wellbeing, a disabled people’s cycling organisation campaigning for equity in active travel, posted on Twitter.
We think is the worst barrier we’ve ever seen!
An A frame has been added to a tight triple chicane -impassable for many #Disabled people #Cycling or with any other mobility aid.
We’ll be contacting the LA & working to get this path made accessible to LTN 1/20 standards. pic.twitter.com/NVwuEOhCpP— Wheels for Wellbeing (@Wheels4Well) November 22, 2023
Who thought adding an A frame to an already inaccessible for many triple chicane gate was a good idea? Thankfully, the campaign group informed that they have contacted the local authority and are working to get this path made accessible to LTN 1/20 standards.
I mean, can someone please explain what is this and who came up with it please? To make things worse, the account confirmed that this is in an urban location, so pretty sure that rules gatekeeping cattle out!
The campaign wrote: “People have noted that countryside access often includes stiles & inaccessible sections. Fortunately, this Least Restrictive Access guidance from PathsforAll helps land managers remove restrictive countryside barriers too. And the pictured barrier is urban.”
We wish them luck in getting these barriers taken down and hopefully replaced by something more prudent!
Under-fire mayor accused of "abysmal failure" to rip out "disastrous" cycle lane insists works will go ahead once council can afford it
A regional mayor under pressure to deliver a key election pledge to remove a cycle lane — estimated to have cost £1.7 million and accused of causing injuries to cyclists and pedestrians, as well as failing to prevent motorists parking in it — has insisted it will be scrapped, but only once the council has the money to do so.
During his May election campaign Chris Cooke branded the infrastructure an “absolute disaster” after it was condemned for causing injuries to cyclists and pedestrians while also failing to deter motorists from driving or parking in it…
More controversy for today's blog... Cycling Mikey calls people laughing at a driver running down a trick cyclist on road as "absolute psychopaths"
Some people will call this adding to the controversy, but it all matters on how you perceive the situation.
The number of absolute psychopaths delighted at knocking a kid off his bike. Teenagers do annoying stuff, doesn’t mean that you can run them over. https://t.co/K3TxkxFL4H
— CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) November 23, 2023
CyclingMikey, another road.cc live blog regular, shared this video of a driver knocking down a cyclist showing off tricks in the middle of the road, calling people who gleed at the outcome as “absolute psychopaths” and that running people over sitting in your SUVs was just wrong.
“Teenagers do annoying stuff, doesn’t mean that you can run them over,” he wrote.
Obviously his post was met with sceptics who didn’t agree with the sentiment. “He is clearly not visible and is breaking the law on having no lights/reflectors,” wrote Ellis O’Brien.
So you think it’s ok to run them over? Come sit in the car with me and tell me it’s ok to run your kids over as we drive towards them.
— CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) November 23, 2023
Another person said that he agreed with Van Erp (his real name) that the glee was out of order, but counterargued that it was dangerous in the first place to perform tricks on a busy A road in the dark with no lights and that he also veered right at last minute.
However, Mikey replied: “Just leave more time and space when you see an erratic road user. Unless you think you own the road and are entitled to knock them off.”
Only one person caused danger there. Only one person used two tonnes of heavy machinery as a weapon to teach a lesson.
— CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) November 23, 2023
How do you feel about this whole incident? Let us know in the comments.
Toms Skujiņš trying not to die in the off-season ft. skinny tyres and narrow bars
Skinny tires + narrow bars = Death of #offseasonToms pic.twitter.com/cEwzQVosJ8
— Toms Skujiņš (@Tomashuuns) November 23, 2023
Well, you know what day it is tomorrow... Maybe it's okay to give in to this festivity celebrating the capitalist hellscape we live in (sometimes)?
Hello hello! It’s Black Friday tomorrow. You know, the day when all big corps try to lure you into buying things you probably don’t need with subpar deals front, left, right and centre?
But then there comes something which may not be subpar, and it’s you’ve been itching to get your hands on but were just waiting for the right moment… Well hooray, the right moment is now and we’ve rounding up all the deals on the internet which are actually worth your time and maybe, money? So let’s get through this together, shall we?
"A light-hearted joke": Labour shadow transport secretary addresses backlash over cycling comments
The shadow transport secretary and Labour Party MP for Sheffield Heeley, Louise Haigh, has addressed criticism from cyclists, campaigners and road safety figures that followed her interview comments about active travel policies, 20mph speed limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods.
> “A light-hearted joke”: Labour shadow transport secretary addresses backlash over cycling comments
Comments roundup: Your reaction to all the controversies on today's blog
Some passionate comments today from the viral video of the trick cyclist getting hit by an “annoyed” driver…
Matthew Acton-Varian: “As controversial and unpopular as Cycling Mikey might be, his points are absolutely valid.
If the youth was eratically driving a car, you wouldn’t use your own vehicle to ram them into “teaching them a lesson”, becuase Insurers would declare it your fault and might not pay out, and the police would call it aggravated assault using a motor vehicle.
That incident should be no different.
If you can give dangerous drivers a wide berth (because it’s what you’re bloody told to do when you learn to drive) then you can do it with erratic VRUs.
Drivers should have to take a new theory test every time their licence is due for renewal, and shouldn’t be renewed until they pass.”
brooksby: “With the kid doing skillz on a road at night: what sort of sociopath thinks, “That kid’s being really annoying so I’ll nudge him with my SUV”?? I do not believe for one moment that the driver failed to see the kid.”
Some interesting thoughts on Jeremy Vine calling red-light jumping cyclist a “great advert for cyclists”:
marmotte27: “JV has a point. Not that the hard of thinking would understand it though…”
mitsky: “The JV/RLJ issue reminds me, tangentially, of the difference we saw when the Elephant and Castle roundabouts were redesigned. First with red lights then with proper segregation for cyclists.
As someone who was able to manage the original design by watching what was happening around me I was mildly annoyed at both developments as it actually confused me and slowed me down. Yes I know that safety was paramount and it helps those who might not have chosen to cycle through there, especially as the original layout was considered to be the most dangerous junction in London. So I’m happy with the increase in cycling it will have led to.
It just made me realise that rather than almost blindly following the new infrastructure I was more mindfull and aware of my surroundings on the old layout.
Which is good practice overall as we won’t always be in such situations here.”
And finally, some very level-headed (would expect nothing short from our enlightened readers!) comments abouts the highlight of today’s blog, police force stopping cyclists after dark and handing them temporary lights and hi-vis rucksacks instead of a fine…
Car Delenda Est: “I could be in favour of a very small fine for those without lights/reflectors (not those with lights that are broken/out of battery/turned off) that could be waived if you send them a picture of your bike with working lights/reflectors, take the bike to the station, or send them a receipt for some lights/reflectors.”
Hirsuite: “Sounds a good outcome on the lights. It’s important to have lights at night – I certainly want some warning a cyclist is ahead.”
Tom_77: “With the free lights, I understand the concern about “rewarding” people for breaking the law. But it seems like a pragmatic approach. The fire brigade won’t have the authority to hand out penalty notices. The police would have to do it, and I don’t think that would be a good use of resources.”
OnYerBike: “I note the Twitter post says the cyclist was given “temporary” lights – it is quite possible they are required to return those lights and demonstrate they have bought some of their own. I know the police in Cambridge have done something similar. As for “break[ing] the law and get away with it” I assume the person who made that comment never exceeds the speed limit even slightly? If so, statistics suggest they are in the minority.”
Fursty Ferret: “I applaud this approach, which is far better than a lazy Twitter post saying “wear high viz”. I don’t think that as cyclists we should be exempt from all laws, and using lights at night is common sense. Sensible and safe outcome.
The people whinging about it on social media seem to be ignoring the fact that driving offenses are rarely prosecuted and normally result in a generic warning letter unless someone is killed or seriously injured.”
Also some inspired discussion about Ncuti Gatwa, Doctor Who, Sex Education, Barbie, and Matt Smith! No place on the internet as road.cc comments thread!
"Yes I doped": Jan Ullrich comes clean ahead of release of new documentary series
Cycling documentary series seems to be all people want these days! So who’s the latest one about? The “eternal” second, the Yoyo, Der Kaiser, the one and only Jan Ullrich. And the 49-year-old has finally spoken out about his doping past.
“Yes, I did dope,” he said on Wednesday evening during a panel discussion on the sidelines of the presentation of the documentary series “Jan Ullrich – The Hunted”, reports Spiegel which will be available to watch on Amazon Prime Video from November 28th.
He admitted the D-word! Big shock? Rider does something everyone was doing! That’ll get the people talking surely!
Ullrich continued: “If I had told my story, I could have won many good years. I didn’t have the balls. It’s really good to say it.”
.jpg)
The Vuelta and Tour winner first made contact with the now infamous doping doctor Eufemiano Fuentes from Spain in the summer of 2003. “I wanted to win and build on my successes. I had a new team at the time and Dr Fuentes was recommended to me. That’s how I ended up there,” he said.
He added that shortly before the start of the 2006 Tour de France, this connection was to be Ullrich’s undoing – he was excluded from his T-Mobile team and finally ended his career in 2007.
However, the 1997 Tour de France winner emphasised that the blood doping was only “the last straw” from a sporting point of view.
“You still have to have huge talent, still be hard-working and subordinate your whole life to it.” Ullrich wasn’t worried about his health at the time – “because everything was medically controlled. In the end, it was my own blood that I had taken – something natural,” he said.
However, what’s even more shocking is that other forms of unauthorised performance enhancement were already commonplace at the beginning of Ullrich’s professional career in 1995, as Ullrich said: “It started with me in 1996. When I came into contact with it, there were already substances that could not be controlled. It had already been in cycling for a few years. Cycling already had a problem back then.”
Well, let’s just hope no current vanguards of the peloton come under the clouds of doping dubiousness recently? Hmm, let me have a quick read of yesterday’s blog…
Well now, I really don’t want to jinx it…
"Dangerous" cyclists "entirely unaccountable" and should have number plates, argues former Met Police chief
Here we go again…
The discussion around number plates for cyclists has been reignited today in the House of Lords, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Hogan-Howe, claiming that to tackle danger cyclists should need “a registration plate somewhere on the back” in order to avoid being “entirely unaccountable”.
“I fear that my list of people who are dangerous is longer than just people who have electric scooters and electrically charged cycles,” he said. “I fear that cyclists, particularly in London, seem to be entirely unaccountable.
And the controversies just won’t stop today!
Police stop cyclists without lights, and issue “lights and hi-vis rucksack instead of a fine” so they can “get home safely and legally”
Round up, everyone! It’s the latest police operation episode on the road.cc live blog.
Name of the game? “Be Bright, Be Seen” launched by Oxfordshire’s Fire and Rescue Service’s Road Safety Team, together with Thames Valley Police & Brookes University staff, with the former posting on social media that all of them “worked together to highlight the importance of cyclists doing all they can to make themselves more visible to other road users”.
They said that they stopped cyclists riding without any lights or hi-vis around Oxford Brookes after dark and instead of handing them a £30 fine, they were issued with temporary lights and hi-vis rucksacks, so that they could “get home legally and safely”.
2/2
Police stopped cyclists without lights &, rather than issuing £30 fines, they were given high visibility rucksack covers & temporary lights so they could get home safely & legally.
Be Bright Be Seen.
Visit https://t.co/4FffHdjeZ3#ShareTheRoad #Cyclists @tvprp pic.twitter.com/P20FjiWiOm— OxonFireRescue (@OxonFireRescue) November 21, 2023
Very generous, very Christmas-y! Not sure if the cyclists were feeling thankful yesterday (sorry it’s only allowed to be thankful today, or something like that as they do across the pond)… But hey, see everyone? That’s a clear declaration of the war on the motorists!
Of course that’s not me saying it, but people on social media who claimed that this was not a fair outcome as cyclists got to “break the law and get away with it”.
Sean Stone on Facebook wrote: “So they break the law and they know it!! Then they get free rucksack & lights, maybe they should just give them a on the spot fine and a fine for no common sense!!!”
Paul Macca had some advice for the police: “Fine them, and make them attend a station within a certain time frame to prove they have lights. So dangerous around Oxford in the evening, The police need to set up by the plain roundabout, the majority of cyclists using it don’t have lights.”
David Janes even suggested confiscating the cycles until the cyclists could prove that they have bought lights.
And yet others claimed that taxpayers’ money was being wasted, with a Twitter account with the username @Innkeeper55 commenting: “What an absolute joke and a waste of tax payers money! If they’re breaking the law they should be fined, not rewarded with a gift”.
However, there were a few voices who disagreed, another user on Twitter writing: “Good job! Setting the right example, in the first instance, is more important than punishment. Hopefully these cyclist learn and remind others.”
1/2
Yesterday, our Road Safety team, along with Thames Valley Police & Brookes University staff, worked together to highlight the importance of cyclists doing all they can to make themselves more visible to other road users.#BeSafeBeSeen #Cyclists #ThamesValleyRP @tvprp pic.twitter.com/egyMR7Y0Vp— OxonFireRescue (@OxonFireRescue) November 21, 2023
Meanwhile, some also believed that it was “victim blaming at its best.” One Twitter account user wrote: “Drivers should slow down, get off their phone and look out for cyclists and all vulnerable road users,” while another questioned the Fire and Rescue Team: “How many fines issued to close-passing drivers?”
Of course, being a sensitive issue, I am going to step aside and let you all discuss the topic. Do you think handing lights and hi-vis sets the right example and makes roads safer all around, than slapping cyclists with a fine, or is it just a continuation of blaming cyclists for their own safety? Let me 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 £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.
48 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@perce The new troll, my friend, is solely piss and wind, the new troll is solely piss and wind.
Very correct price for a basic, no-frills frameset. Older and wiser -after a warranty case on a '100 year' Ti frameset that lasted 5 years before a drive side chain stay weld said sayonara- I'll never again purchase a really high cost Ti frame. If the replacement -3999 Euro at retail but I paid 800, which is what it took for them to +- honour the warranty- fails, I'm done. Firstly because they do fail. Titanium is very finicky where welding conditions are concerned and good luck with that warranty, better read the wording very carefully. Secondly, often the price is justified with 'it's a frame for life'. Errrr....yes, unless you decide you want something different after 5 years, it breaks or technology evolves to a point where your frameset becomes aa anachronism and after 10 years you can start hunting for spares(UDH and disc brakes, anyone?). Third: I'm getting a bit tired reading about these so-called 'magical' properties of Ti. The only magical thing about it is the corrosion resistance. All that absorbing of vibrations etc is mainly function of frame design/geometry. If you want vibration damping: larger tires, lower pressure, done.
True,but I can't count thé number of times I've seen him on TV as an invited expert for comments since
"...there was enough suspicion to warrant an out-of-hours knock on the door for the Tour’s then-top two." A generic statement that sounds like a cover-your-arse mumbling. Can they be more specific? Nope. Good to see Vaughters join Lefevere to add up some controversy to the very politically correct pro peloton. In the late 1990s and early noughties, when cycling was becoming a global phenomenom, officials, race organisers and team managers turned a blind eye on doping. Nobody wanted to slay the goose with golden eggs.
Am I missing something. Pogacar would be firm favourite no matter what you did unless you made it a very flat edition which no one would want. Outside of Pogacar its all up for grabs. You can't build a good multi-week race with Pogacar in the form he is in. Take Pogacar out and this would be fine.
Sounds a little like a pissed off driver decided to teach a cyclist a lesson by brake checking them after overtaking them. I hope I am wrong.
Moronic coppers seize and destroy third-party property without notifying the actual owners. Not to worry, compensation to be paid by public money, i.e. the taxpayer. When did the Police openly become the English people's enemy?
@jackcycles What a coincidence! I was at my local bike shop only last week, a Tuesday I think it was. I'd been watching my tomato plants not growing all morning so I said to my pal "it ain't no use to sit and wonder why Dave" and off I went. On the way back two cyclists were approaching and the wind began to howl. I'd seen them earlier knocking on Evans's door so I invited them in to take shelter from the storm. After the idiot wind had subsided and one more cup of coffee they were on their way again.Anyway, I don't think I saw any e-bikes at all, just a bloke on his way to a cello class. I'll tell you what though - I ain't buying any plants from Maggies farm no more. No sirree Bob.
And again- looking like photos don't work on ebiketips. Take my word for it- Marcus Wright's Transit is shown just up the road from the Old Garstang Police Station with his gear outside, on a joinery job
48 thoughts on “Police issue lights and hi-vis to cyclists instead of a fine to get home “safely”; Jeremy Vine says red-light jumping cyclists are “great adverts for cycling”; CyclingMikey blasts “psychopaths” gleeing at cyclist being run over + more on the live blog”
I applaud this approach,
I applaud this approach, which is far better than a lazy Twitter post saying “wear high viz”. I don’t think that as cyclists we should be exempt from all laws, and using lights at night is common sense. Sensible and safe outcome.
The people whinging about it on social media seem to be ignoring the fact that driving offenses are rarely prosecuted and normally result in a generic warning letter unless someone is killed or seriously injured.
Yes, fair point on the lights
Yes, fair point on the lights and a very welcome/constructive approach, but if our hapless plods stopped me to give me hi vis anything I would tell them to do one. As an aside, I do find that the number of cars with one headlight has massively increased over the last 10 years. I don’t blame a lot of owners though, it used to be a £5 and 10 min fix to swap a blub which most drivers could do, my car has to go to a garage now…and it doesn’t cost a tenner.
if our hapless plods stopped
if our hapless plods stopped me to give me hi vis anything I would tell them to do one
Agreed! It won’t happen here because the police would be only too pleased for the few remaining cyclists to be KSI’d off the roads, and you never see any except for a flock of cars sitting outside Garstang Police Station. Most of us remember the picture posted by, I think, Surrey Traffic Police of a wrecked police vehicle which was stationary when another driver smashed into it- the comment was something like ‘Not high-vis enough?’ I am becoming more and more enraged by this nonsense- it’s just official victim-blaming: ‘you mustn’t have been visible enough or this hard-working, law-abiding driver wouldn’t have hit you’
I note the Twitter post says
I note the Twitter post says the cyclist was given “temporary” lights – it is quite possible they are required to return those lights and demonstrate they have bought some of their own. I know the police in Cambridge have done something similar e.g. https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter104/article14/
As for “break[ing] the law and get away with it” I assume the person who made that comment never exceeds the speed limit even slightly? If so, statistics suggest they are in the minority.
it would appear they have
it would appear they have precedence for handing out non-temporary lights:
City of London Police 2016
of course, that could be a completely nonsense news story (it popped up in my search)
OnYerBike wrote:
For legal reasons they switch off several seconds before someone drives into them, apparently…
Is this regime not simply a
Is this regime not simply a cycling version of a “Producer”?
Did they complain about that, too?
Adwitiya wrote:
I haven’t seen him in anything, so look forward to seeing if he’s good in the role.
I thought Jo Martin was superb as the Fugitive Doctor so I would have liked to see her given the full role.
I only come along here
I only come along here because, for the first time in my life, I thought I was hanging (virtually) with the ‘cool kids’. Just realised that we’re all just a bunch of nerds??
IanMK wrote:
Nerds can be cool too!
Even the ‘cool kids’ are a
Even the ‘cool kids’ are a bunch of nerds, they’re just nerdy about different things 😉
hawkinspeter wrote:
I haven’t seen him in anything, so look forward to seeing if he’s good in the role.— Adwitiya
He was in Sex Education (on the Netflix), he was very good in that.
Tom_77 wrote:
Twas also in the Barbie movie in one of the better bit-parts.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I haven’t seen him in anything, so look forward to seeing if he’s good in the role.
I thought Jo Martin was superb as the Fugitive Doctor so I would have liked to see her given the full role.— Adwitiya
Did you know there are rumours – now that Disney is part involved in Who – that they want to do a Andor style spinoff and get the Eighth Doctor (Paul McGann) back on board for a limited series…
brooksby wrote:
Cassian as the companion in the crossover series Dr Wars: This was the way.
HoldingOn wrote:
I would imagine that they would want to do Eight in the early days of the Great Time War – so, before the Night of the Doctor minisode – which means they’d get to do a lot more violence and shooting.
He’s in Sex Education on
He’s in Sex Education on Netflix which has proven very popular amongst streamers. He’s a talented up-and-coming youngster, not unlike Matt Smith when he took over the Tardis. Smith has gone from strength to strength, from playing Christopher Isherwood in a biopic, to a young Prince Phillip in The Crown to a member of the Targyren household in House of the Dragon (GoT spin-off).
I could be in favour of a
I could be in favour of a very small fine for those without lights/reflectors (not those with lights that are broken/out of battery/turned off) that could be waived if you send them a picture of your bike with working lights/reflectors, take the bike to the station, or send them a receipt for some lights/reflectors.
Agree maybe better to force
Agree maybe better to force you buy them something cheap like the cheapest rear >1w led light with batteries, that make you super visible.
Sounds a good outcome on the
Sounds a good outcome on the lights.
It’s important to have lights at night – I certainly want some warning a cyclist is ahead.
On the FB comments quoted in
On the FB comments quoted in the article – do those people imagine that the police immediately confiscate and crush cars with defective lights?
There’s so much of me that
There’s so much of me that wish they did this to non-comoliant motor vehicles.
With the free lights, I
With the free lights, I understand the concern about “rewarding” people for breaking the law. But it seems like a pragmatic approach. The fire brigade won’t have the authority to hand out penalty notices. The police would have to do it, and I don’t think that would be a good use of resources.
I think there might be a
I think there might be a palce for a fine which pays for the lights and the jerkin.
Lights yes, Jerkin no.
Lights yes, Jerkin no.
There is no requirement to wear one, if police want to waste resources on them that their problem.
The JV/RLJ issue alongside
The JV/RLJ issue reminds me, tangentially, of the difference we saw when the Elephant and Castle roundabouts were redesigned.
First with red lights then with proper segregation for cyclists.
As someone who was able to manage the original design by watching what was happening around me I was mildly annoyed at both developments as it actually confused me and slowed me down.
Yes I know that safety was paramount and it helps those who might not have chosen to cycle through there, especially as the original layout was considered to be the most dangerous junction in London.
So I’m happy with the increase in cycling it will have led to.
It just made me realise that rather than almost blindly following the new infrastructure I was more mindfull and aware of my surroundings on the old layout.
Which is good practice overall as we won’t always be in such situations here.
68 pedal cyclist casualties
68 pedal cyclist casualties from 2003-07 at the Elephant & Castle roundabouts.
I feel that was an unanswerable case against ‘do nothing’.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Making roads safer for vulnerable road users is a good thing. 🙂
OMG can Jeremy Vine PLEASE
OMG can Jeremy Vine PLEASE just stop with all the extra animations and pasting in meme clips…?!
He lurks on here and does it
He lurks on here and does it now just to annoy you.
Hirsute wrote:
He makes these videos for you
He makes these videos for you so its reasonable for you to tell him how to make them to suit what your preferences are.
The Senna quote was Ayrton
The Senna quote was Ayrton trying to justify why he crashed into Prost at about 120mph, to take the world championship, a year later he admitted he’d lied it not being intentional.
It might not be the best quote to base your view on. The cycling equivalent would be using Lance Armstrong to justify doping because every one else was doing it and he never failed a test.
Battery Angle Grinders
Battery Angle Grinders
Does anyone (apart from the bike thieves) have any practical experience using them?
How long would it take to remove some of those barriers with one?
Some of them are begging for Direct Action.
You’d only need to take out
You’d only need to take out the single barrier on the right to make a difference, I am sure a battery would last that long.
Is that a barrier or a
Is that a barrier or a throwback to the Krypton factor assault course?
How anyone can walk away from that thinking job well done is beyond me.
Looking at the tarmac, I
Looking at the tarmac, I presume that they put the chicane in and it didn’t stop scooterists so they’ve come back and put the A frame in.
How would you even get a ‘normal’ bike through there? You’d certainly never get a cargo bike or a recumbent or a trike through.
I think you could also add
I think you could also add parents with a pushchair and possibly even OAPs with a pull along tartan shopping trolley to list who cannot get through, it’s so bad!
How many mobility vehicles
How many mobility vehicles would fit through there? I’ve seen something like this about – although I’m not sure of the classification.
It’s atrocious! I’m an able
It’s atrocious! I’m an able-bodied fit(ish) adult riding a medium size hybrid bike and looking at that picture I think I’d struggle to get through. I’d definitely struggle with my kid and the child seat on the back.
That thing has no place where people are moving about.
“@Innkeeper55 commenting:
“@Innkeeper55 commenting: “What an absolute joke and a waste of tax payers money!”
With road accidents costing the UK in the region of £36bn per year (over £2 million for a fatal accident, £220,000 for a serious injury accident and £25,000 for a slight accident). Spending £30 on education and potentialy preventing them is far from a waste!
With the kid doing skillz on
With the kid doing skillz on a road at night: what sort of sociopath thinks, “That kid’s being really annoying so I’ll nudge him with my SUV”??
I do not believe for one moment that the driver failed to see the kid.
Little shit had it coming.
Little shit had it coming.
Sorry, I have been reading too much twitterX and daily fail ! Have been brainwashed.
The driver was jealous I reckon !
JV has a point. Not that the
JV has a point. Not that the hard of thinking would understand it though…
As controversial and
As controversial and unpopular as Cycling Mikey might be, his points are absolutely valid.
If the youth was eratically driving a car, you wouldn’t use your own vehicle to ram them into “teaching them a lesson”, becuase Insurers would declare it your fault and might not pay out, and the police would call it aggravated assault using a motor vehicle.
That incident should be no different.
If you can give dangerous drivers a wide berth (because it’s what you’re bloody told to do when you learn to drive) then you can do it with erratic VRUs.
Drivers should have to take a new theory test every time their licence is due for renewal, and shouldn’t be renewed until they pass.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
I agree with your sentiment, but I would argue it should be different. In a car, the misbehaving yoof would have significantly more protection from another car. This is a much more shocking and dangerous act, than a car-on-car crash.
Once again the kissing gate
Once again the kissing gate has a radar lock on it. £4 for two from mazon. problem solved but then there’d be nothing to whinge about
You’re dead right. All those
You’re dead right. All those people using hand cycles because their legs don’t work well enough to walk should just hop off their bike, drag themselves to the gate, open it, somehow prop it open, get back onto their bike and ride through. Problem solved.
I’m able bodied and struggled to get a cargo bike through a gate with a radar lock key.