“We’ll raise it at the next AGM”: Cyclists blast journalist’s call to “please do better” after “one of your number” jumped red light and hit her; New Richmond Park layout “increases danger for cyclists”; Brown shorts Valverde wins + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Driverwashing 101
Greenwashing, sportswashing, now driverwashing, I can’t keep up…
Driverwashing
Hit by someone riding a bike: “struck by a cyclist”
Hit by a driver: “knocked off bike by car”
Please read your industry guidelines https://t.co/WQQOlf9W1r https://t.co/AGLLXtcYu9
— Dr Johnny Bananas (@barbedquill) April 24, 2023
Now, this is awkward…
Proving the old (alright 21st century) adage that ‘there’s always a tweet’, someone unearthed one of Rachel Cunliffe’s posts from 2021 which – despite her recent inclination to castigate all cyclists after being hit by a person on a bike – seems to suggest that she believes being killed by a motorist is just one of those things…
“Getting killed by motorists is part of life”
🤝
“Cyclists are responsible for me getting hit by a bike whether it was them or not” https://t.co/qzATz3g4Cm pic.twitter.com/G7BoxdnXgo
— Stew Elliott (@StewCElliott) April 24, 2023
It’s interesting how people can barely bring themselves to ascribe responsibility to the actual, single motorist who causes harm but will happily regard all cyclists as guilty until proven innocent because they saw one do a naughty thing.
— Stew Elliott (@StewCElliott) April 24, 2023
Alejandro Valverde and his brown shorts win on racing comeback
Guess who’s back, back again… And he’s already back to winning ways.
Cycling’s very own Dorian Gray, Alejandro Valverde marked his return to racing following his long, long six-month spell in retirement by winning La Indomable on his gravel racing debut for Movistar’s new off-road team.
The 42-year-old decided to take a leaf out of those young whippersnappers Remco and Pog by attacking early on, eventually soloing to an impressive victory at the first UCI Gravel World Series event of the season in Berja at the weekend.
Valverde’s lone foray over the Andalusian gravel saw him beat fellow Spaniard Ismael Esteban Aguero and British cyclocross ace Cameron Mason by around five minutes.
Not bad for a retiree looking for a hobby. And it goes to show, those (terrible, awful, stinking) brown shorts didn’t hold him back…
Are gravel bikes old-school mountain bikes?
Speaking of gravel, over on off-road.cc today Liam Mercer is asking the question scholars have been pondering for centuries: Are gravel bikes really just old-school mountain bikes?
And, if so, is that such a bad thing?
For more of Liam’s musings, and why he believes gravel is the best thing to happen to cycling in decades (decades!), read on:
Has Bridge Bike Works reinvented the bottom bracket? Here’s what you had to say…
The new ‘Integrally Threaded Carbon Bottom Bracket’ from Bridge Bike Works – which the Toronto-based component manufacturer says will result in no more dreaded creaks as the threads are moulded directly into the frame – prompted us to go all Jon Landau and ask an unsurprisingly controversial question: Does this new tech represent the future of bottom brackets?
Judging by some of your comments, the jury’s still out.
“This… will not age well,” wrote road.cc reader Paul J. “Or these even. These BB threads.”
— Jon (@Jontafkasi) April 24, 2023
“I’m not understanding how this combats corrosion between metal and carbon fibre – haven’t they just moved the interface between the two to be the threads?” asked hawkinspeter.
“I would think that would increase the surface area for corrosion and also the threads are much thinner than the traditional interface between push-fit BBs and carbon fibre frames.
“I’m also wondering how long the threads last as they don’t appear to be replaceable.”
“Bagsy not being an early adopter,” said a very pessimistic check12.
Rich_cb was a little more positive, however.
“If this works, and lasts, it sounds like big progress,” they said. “It’s included on Bridge’s latest bike the Surveyor which, strange name aside, is a beautiful bit of kit in its own right. Not sure it’s beautiful enough for me to risk a few grand on an unproven BB though!
“Maybe it is impossible to create a threaded BB shell out of CF, maybe in a few years everyone will be doing it. Time will tell but kudos to Bridge for trying something different.”
All this engineering and carbon fibre talk is making my head hurt – is it nearly time for lunch?
Hipsters, hipsters everywhere...
> Rapha and Paul Smith unveil new limited edition collection
“They are literally driving at cyclists!” Changes to Richmond Park road layout branded “unusable” as cyclists call for motorists to be banned
It’s time for another visit to a live blog favourite, Richmond Park, where a recent road layout change – designed to provide pedestrians with a safe, segregated walkway across a bridge – has seemed to have instead created carnage, queues of motorists, and lots of horn beeping.
> Cyclists blast proposals to introduce 10mph speed limit on Richmond Park hill
One video posted on Twitter today shows, according to cycling activists in London, the potential dangers posed to cyclists by the new narrow layout (and impatient drivers using the park as a cut-through)…
Ok, so here’s what it’s like to cycle through the new chicane in @theroyalparks Richmond Park. The sign says I have priority, but motorists drive straight at me. This new added danger will see someone injured soon. Time to ban cars. @RichmondCycling @RichmondPkCycle pic.twitter.com/tVXhmPzQ5P
— Abraham LinkedIn 🎩 (@ukgaragefan) April 22, 2023
While in another clip, captured by cyclist and road safety campaigner Lauren in the London park, two motorists can also be seen failing to give way to a cyclist already crossing the bridge:
Richmond Park even more unusable for everyone now, thanks @theroyalparks.
The recent changes are laughable, especially when you see the confusion it’s created in the below video.
There was never an issue with this area of the park so why make things unnecessarily confusing? pic.twitter.com/I4Ubq9UkLX
— Lauren O’Brien (@laurencyclist) April 25, 2023
The changes have, unsurprisingly, been heavily criticised online today, with one cycle lane campaigner claiming that the new layout “doesn’t work for anyone and increases the danger for people cycling”:
It’s a total joke. I rode through that and got totally ignored by a driver even though I had RoW.
— 🚴🏻♂️Ralpha (aka Phil)🚴🏻♂️ (@2wheelsnot4) April 25, 2023
These are awful changes for cyclists. Car users often just plough ahead when it’s cyclist right of way.
— stonks (@HeadwindStonks) April 25, 2023
they are literally driving at cyclists!
— RobbieC…🚴♂️🌊☔️🚉 (@dahontr3) April 25, 2023
We think it’s to allow pedestrian crossing both sides of Beverly Brook, but it looks like traffic mgmt needs thinking about a bit more.
— Richmond Cycling Campaign (@RichmondCycling) April 25, 2023
It works fine for those that enter, park their car and enjoy the park. It’s not supposed to be convenient for those who want to use it instead of the proper roads. Might take time though for message to get through.
— Jake CBE, OBE, MBE, KNOB (@JakeJK666) April 25, 2023
Stupidity, lack of proper consultation, poor signage, lack of monitoring, mistaken prioritisation hierarchy, failure to adequately assess road risk. But it will change ‘once there’s a fatality (aka ‘too late)’.
— Danny Maertens (@MaertensDanny) April 25, 2023
Others, however, proffered a rather simple and elegant solution to the whole mess:
Stop cars using it.
— Simon Warren (@100Climbs) April 25, 2023
Just stop motor vehicles using the park
— London Tweetnik (@londontweetnik) April 25, 2023
@theroyalparks & @MPSRoyal_Parks:
JUST BAN MOTOR VEHICLES! https://t.co/lAAvud0SP9— The waving mechanical roadgoat™ (@silvergoatish) April 25, 2023
‘Stop giving them so much material then!’
Spare a thought for poor Matt here, who appears to be struggling with both how the law works and the definition of a ‘victim’:
There’s enough Tweeters on here, who’s sole aim is to catch everyone they can. And they’re proud of it!
— Matt Crooke (@MattCrooke3) April 25, 2023
If you think cyclists are only out to get you on their YouTube channel, STOP GIVING THEM SO MUCH MATERIAL! pic.twitter.com/JwjiC2IKdo
— 🌱Carrie Purdom (@CarriePurdom) April 25, 2023
Ahh so that’s ok is it? It’s the victims fault?
— Matt Crooke (@MattCrooke3) April 25, 2023
Victim?
If you don’t want your law-breaking driving to be reported to the police, then don’t break the law.
It really is that simple.— 🌱Carrie Purdom (@CarriePurdom) April 25, 2023
Oh dear, talk about having a mare…
Ashley Neal does cycling
Thoughts/comments?
Disaster for Rui Costa as chainring comes off on start ramp of Tour de Romandie prologue
There are few worse ways to start a week-long stage race than ripping your chainring off with your very first pedal stroke, before you’ve even descended the start ramp of the opening time trial.
But that’s how former world champion Rui Costa inauspiciously began his Tour de Romandie campaign this afternoon.
Disaster for Rui Costa in Switzerland #TourdeRomandie pic.twitter.com/uOJtkN44uB
— Mark Contador (@MarkContador80) April 25, 2023
The Portuguese rider – who has finished on the Romandie podium three times during his career – also appeared to hurt his knee during his bike’s bizarre technical malfunction, which forced him to cruise in on his road bike, forlornly finishing over five minutes down on the frontrunners.
With the pan-flat 6.82km course around Port-Valais being completed by the powerhouse time trialists in around seven and a half minutes, it is highly unlikely that the Intermarché veteran will make the time cut.
OH…S**T!! Rui Costa´s chain set went off completely when he set off the ramp – and now he´s holding his knee as well!!😟 #TDR2023 pic.twitter.com/jiZY378DnF
— Cycling_Eve (@CyclingEve) April 25, 2023
Bad news all round for Costa then, who started 2023 with a bang, winning the Volta a Valenciana before taking top tens at the Volta ao Algarve and Strade Bianche. Unfortunately it looks like he won’t be able to add to that run in Switzerland this week.
Although at least he proved he had the watts to rip his chainring off anyway…
Josef Černý narrowly beats world champion Tobias Foss in Tour de Romandie prologue
🏅🇨🇿Josef Černý (Soudal-QuickStep) Gana el Prologo del Tour de Romandía 2023🇨🇭 #TDR2023 #TDR #TourdeRomandie #Noticiclismo #Ciclismo pic.twitter.com/LV0Yo6BAPm
— NotiCiclismo ➡ 🇨🇭 #TDR2023 (@Noticiclismo1) April 25, 2023
The bright sunshine that has finally managed to break through Soudal-Quick Step’s unhappy spring continued today in Switzerland, as Josef Černý added to Remco Evenepoel’s stunning Liege-Bastoge-Liege victory at the weekend by blitzing the Tour de Romandie’s opening prologue.
Černý, decked out in the Belgian team’s now obligatory Star Trek helmet plus snood attire, smashed his way around the flat 6.82km course in Port-Valais to beat Jumbo-Visma’s world TT champion Tobias Foss by the narrowest of margins.
The good news continued for Soudal-Quick Step, as Rémi Cavagna rounded off the podium, just behind his Czech teammate and Foss. Meanwhile, Ineos Grenadier Ethan Hayter, who won the opening TT at Romandie last year, finished in sixth, five seconds down.
Cycling and collective responsibility: Who’s to blame?
Call off the search party, ladies and gentlemen, as road.cc reader Clem Fandango reckons they’ve found the cyclist accused of hitting New Statesman journalist Rachel Cunliffe on a pedestrian crossing, before swearing at her and riding off:
Makes sense…
However, IanMK has other ideas: “Was it an Uber Eats delivery cyclist? Surely if Amazon drivers are allowed to park where they want because ‘everybody needs Amazon deliveries’ then Uber Eats cyclists should be allowed to run through red lights because ‘nobody wants a cold McDonalds’.”
Looks like the investigation is set to drag on and on an on… But at least we’re all at fault this time, right?
“This should be raised at the next London Cyclists Committee meeting”: Cyclists blast journalist’s call to “please do better” after “one of your number” jumped red light and hit her
It looks like the fortnightly meeting of all London cyclists will have to be moved forward a few days, following an unsavoury incident involving a New Statesman journalist yesterday:
London cyclists: I have nothing against 99% of you, but one of your number just sped through a red light and hit me on a pedestrian crossing, then swore at me and sped into the distance as I stood there in shock. Please do better
— Rachel Cunliffe (@RMCunliffe) April 24, 2023
Rachel Cunliffe, the New Statesman’s senior associate editor, tweeted that a cyclist in the capital “just sped through a red light and hit me on a pedestrian crossing, then swore at me and sped into the distance as I stood there in shock.”
Now, obviously that particular cyclist is completely at fault here, and should be condemned for putting a pedestrian in danger.
However, it’s Cunliffe’s claim that, despite having “nothing against 99 percent” of London cyclists, the fact that “one of your number” put her in danger means they should all “please do better”, that has drawn the ire of cyclists online.
Oh, and she also noted in a separate tweet that “traffic lights are for bicycles too”.
Traffic lights are for bicycles too
— Rachel Cunliffe (@RMCunliffe) April 24, 2023
While it seems to be waning in recent years in the halls of Westminster, as a politics journo Cunliffe should be well aware of the concept of collective responsibility – and how it can’t possibly apply to groups of road users.
As individual cyclist after individual cyclist lined up to tell her on Twitter, with varying degrees of wit, as we’re all individuals of course (cue Monty Python clip…).
I’m sorry that happened to you, and you have my sympathies. Please don’t treat us as all the same. I don’t hold you responsible for Kenneth Noye, the road rage murderer just because you’re also a driver. Don’t hold me responsible for the specific cyclist you encountered.
— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) April 24, 2023
“But what has it got to do with the 99 percent of cyclists who haven’t hit you?” wrote Stephen. “We aren’t some grand organisation who are responsible for each other.
“We’re just a bunch of people who share the same mode of transport – some legally, some not – just like any other cross section of society.”
Drivers: I have nothing against 99% of you, but some of your number kill 5 people a day. Please do Better. https://t.co/TgWIrwteJE
— David 🚴♂️ (@HaaaaWords) April 25, 2023
“This type of behaviour is unacceptable by any road user,” noted Paul. “However I’ve had a word with every cyclist so everything should be good from now on.”
Fair play.
London journalists, I have nothing against 99% of you, but you may want to rethink this approach to collective blame.
— Owler Nook (@Owler_Nook) April 24, 2023
Others, meanwhile, noted the potential repercussions of Cunliffe’s call for cyclists to “do better”, following the actions of one.
“Thanks. My daughter is cycling home from school at this minute, and you’ve just made her journey more dangerous,” said Michael.
“Look at the replies. You are egging on the anti-cycling nutters, and they’re armed with two tonne vehicles. My daughter is only armed with a school uniform.
“I vent about dangerous driving when I encounter it but invoking collective responsibility puts other people on bikes at risk.”
Meanwhile, others wondered whether the New Statesman journo had actually encountered the new five-abreast cavalcade of cyclists now accompanying Our Dear Leader – sorry, I mean Rishi Sunak.
was this one of them? https://t.co/RxO84PQoZH
— Sascha O’Sullivan (@saschaosullivan) April 24, 2023
Alright cyclists, time to stand in the corner and think about what we’ve done…
25 April 2023, 08:21
25 April 2023, 08:21
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.
51 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Genuine question, how much of that increased likelihood is attributable to the fact that less confident/ more nervous riders might be more likely to wear a helmet and also more likely to have a crash, and also to the fact that people are more likely to wear helmets in a perceived-risk environment? If all urban commuters wear helmets and nobody who rides on quiet country roads wears a helmet, obviously the urban commuters are going to be have more collisions and so the figures would show riders with helmets have more collisions but it would be primarily attributable to the environment, not the helmets. Is there any research that shows that amongst a cohort of riders of similar experience and ability, riding in the same type of environment, those wearing helmets will have more collisions?
They really aren't that tough, researchers have found that a simple skull fracture can be caused by a force as low as 10kgs; it has been known for people to fracture their skulls simply by walking into a door frame, and a very significant proportion of fractured skulls come from simple low-impact falls when walking. The idea that hair can protect you from abrasions is pretty risible, maybe if it was woven into a mat it might but on your head it's in individual strands; try running your fingernails over your scalp, does the hair protect you? No, it parts. Now imagine your fingernails are a rough road surface, the same thing would happen. None of this particularly is meant as a pro-helmet argument, but if you think you can rely on your skull and your hair to get you out of a crash undamaged I'm afraid you might well end up severely disappointed.
If there's one thing for sure, you don't anything about her crash. Her helmet shows a crack, and that's significant. Maybe you think it's no big deal. That's your right, but don't think you're making any informed decision or that you know anything about potential consequences. After having had a closed head injury and going through everything that followed, I can safely say I don't want to ever go through that again. As a result, I do what I can to make sure I get home safe and intact. I understand the physics behind how a helmet works, and I further understand the limitations of helmets. With that said, I'm willing to pay for the possibility that a helmet might dissipate enough energy to keep me alive if for whatever I have to exchange energy and momentum with a car, road, or whatever. As for your handwaving statistics, come back when you understand statistics and all the factors that influence statistical outcomes.
Person who gains financially from the support of a helmet company makes superlative claims for the product they are financially rewarded to wear and promote. Shocker.
If you strap something to your head, and you fall, and the thing strapped to your head is damaged, you can NOT infer you would have died if not for that thing. Particularly when that thing is itself fairly fragile. To make the flaw in such logic clear, if you strapped eggs to your head, fell and the eggs broke, would you seriously be able to claim "The eggs saved my life!!!"? Skulls are already pretty tough things. Hair is also a pretty good abrasion resistant material protecting your skin.
Fast forward to 2050. MTBers and gravelers are riding bikes with tyres compatible with the olde Penny Farthings.
Wasn't the parrot some random parrot that just happened to regularly join Scarponi on his local training ride - not Scarponi's own parrot?
"Helmets save lives in certain types of accidents." They also increase the risk of the most dangerous injury, Diffuse Axonal Injury, caused by rapid rotation of the head. After thirty years of denying that helmets increased that risk, the helmet industry realised that there was even more money to be made by producing helmets that might possibly reduce that risk, MIPS etc. Helmets were sold because people were endlessly told that a helmet would save their life, not by the manufacturers, but by helmet zealots. Since it has been proved beyond doubt that helmets don't save lives, the helmet zealots have switched to saving injury, which they probably do. But they also increase the likelihood of a collision, as helmetted riders have more. The biggest reasons that I oppose such misleading, inaccurate stories like this are that they deter people from cycling because they show it as dangerous, they distract from measures that actually make cycling safer, and the whole cycle helmet promotion thing started out from the worst of bad science, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, 1989 https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
I'll bow to your superior knowledge of facebook and twitter as I don't use them (and I'm not going to start if your description is accurate) and I'm not accusing anyone of campaigning for mandatory helmets but I do believe we have to reject the regular unsubstantiated claims of their effectiveness.
I got one of the Dynamic air blasters recently, and coincidentally I also use it for getting the difficult to reach coffee grinds out of my hand-grinder!
51 thoughts on ““We’ll raise it at the next AGM”: Cyclists blast journalist’s call to “please do better” after “one of your number” jumped red light and hit her; New Richmond Park layout “increases danger for cyclists”; Brown shorts Valverde wins + more on the live blog”
The video of the police
The video of the police running alongside the PM motorcade is remarkably similar to this North Korean equivalent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM40H9yAPvo
Now in Turkey too https:/
Now in Turkey too https://twitter.com/hulyademiral07/status/1650737500825047040
It’s nowhere near as bad as
It’s nowhere near as bad as Kim Jong Sunak’s example!
A cyclist does something
A cyclist does something wrong: “we are all individuals”.
A car driver does something wrong: “all car drivers are a danger to more vulnerable road users”.
Hilarious.
ITK2012 wrote:
You can say that while still saying that the idea that all users of a mode of transport come together for their AGM is ludicrous.
I sort of agree with you, but
I sort of agree with you, but it’s a pretty natural reaction. Cyclists/drivers/men/white people/others are constantly being told to “do better” by other people who (often reasonably) feel let down/threatened/oppressed by a noticeable minority of each group. I got close-passed by a cyclist while running on a shared-use path yesterday, and my first thought was “fucking cyclists” just as it is often “fucking drivers”.
The more rational way to address policy is to consider the frequency and severity of the potential harm, but that’s not how our primitive brains work in the heat of the moment. It’s almost as if giving everyone the ability to broadcast their thoughts to the world in real time is not in fact a very good idea.
Brauchsel wrote:
Really?? If it was a black person, would your thought be “***** black people”? If it was a woman, would it be “**** women”?
This isn’t about “cyclists” or “drivers” or “women” or “black people” … it’s about idiots. The person who hit the journalist is an idiot. The person who close-passed you is an idiot – or at best inconsiderate and/or ignorant of the the impact of their actions. The people who close pass me with their cars are the same (albeit their inconsideration/ignorance is much more dangerous).
This is not reliant on their status as cyclist, or driver, or woman/black person/Spaniard/accountant etc. etc. Nasty/foolish/inconsiderate people are represented in all of these categories.
The point is that is incumbent on all of us to resist any urge we might feel to judge a whole group of people based on an encounter with one who has behaved badly to us. If your first thought is “f****** cyclists/drivers/women/black people/whatever group” then you should recognise that it’s an inappropriate and unhelpful reaction, and be working on changing it.
But yes, it is telling that a “senior editor” at a major publication not only has apparently not undertaken this reflection at all, but they have not considered why it is that had they been hit by a car driver that they would undoubtedly NOT have been tweeting about not having a problem “with 99% of drivers” or that “one of your number” had done wrong, or telling London drivers to “do better”.
Velo-drone wrote:
Yes, her tweet from July 2021, said that we accept road deaths by drivers as normal.
Brauchsel wrote:
There is something wrong with you if you react like that.
A normal response would be more like “bloody inconsiderate cyclist” and “f*ckig dangerous driver(s)!”
Brauchsel wrote:
Whilst cycling at the weekend, I got very close passed by one of the arse up head down brigade (aka a man on a bicycle) and my first thought was ‘you thoughtless bastard’. That’s all.
If he’s a club cyclist he’ll
If he’s a club cyclist he’ll just be used to riding elbow to elbow and forget that’s not how everyone does it. While out on a country ride one day I was suddenly surrounded by a training group – annoying, I had to drag my back brake on the descent (something I usually only do to make it squeal so pedestrians notice me) but I imagine it would have been pretty intimidating for someone who’s not accustomed to group rides.
ITK2012 wrote:
Jog on with your straw man and collective responsibility.
It’s patently obvious that any 2t chunk of highly powered steel driven by a fallible human is potentially dangerous to people.
ITK2012 wrote:
Exactly the opposite of reality, were you high when you typed that?
Every infection by a cyclist is met with “cyclists do x” but no one looks sees (smells) drug drivers or phone drivers and applies that to all drivers.
I’m explaining things from
I’m explaining things from the Twitter/Road.cc extremist viewpoint.
The fact that the car driving extremists do they exact same thing, but the otherway around changes nothing. The world would be a better place without either group.
Myaaaaaarrr
Myaaaaaarrr
I agree.
I agree.
ITK2012 wrote:
I think your Twitter/Road.cc extremist is a straw man.
Lets just remind ourselves
Lets just remind ourselves what the HC says:
“Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.”
So the hierachy accepts that car divers are “more” of a danger to vulnerable road users and that “they bear the greatest responsibilty”. That does not equate to collective responsibility when one idiot does something dangerous.
I generally don’t tar every
I generally don’t tar every driver with the same brush, i at least break them down in to what car they’re driving, that I say to myself if they put me in any danger – ‘fucking [insert car brand] cunt’.
Cars ARE 100 times more
Cars ARE 100 times more dangerous than bicycles, that’s just basic physics.
Exactly 100 times more
Exactly 100 times more dangerous? I’m sure that is a very scientific figure you didn’t just make up. Inanimate objects are not dangerous, the operators of them are.
Car 1,5t (many are heavier
Car 1,5t (many are heavier now) 50 kph: 147000J kinetic energy
Bike + rider 85 kg 20kph: 1333J
So, to be as precise as you ask, the car is 110.27757 times more dangerous, by simply being on the road, even before any dangerous driving is committed.
As I said basic physics.
I do think we should hold
I do think we should hold each other accountable, rather than devolving into infighting. I’ve never gone through a red light myself, but I have riding buddies who do and I have no problem telling them not to. We can’t pretend we’re infallible. We can all work together to improve our images as cyclists.
Sure, happy to speak to my
Sure, happy to speak to my budies. But not to some random person who is also on two wheels.
For the same reason as I would speak to my mate if they were driving badly, or pedestrianing or train-riding irresponsibly, but not to a random driver or pedestrian.
What’s up with ‘bi-weekly’?
What’s up with ‘bi-weekly’? Is that ‘fortnightly’? Anyway, I thought the meetings were oct-monthly (with the american ones being semi-annually) so they don’t clash with the drivist ones?
https://www.merriam-webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/on-biweekly-and-bimonthly
I would normally go with bi-weekly for twice a week and fortnightly for once every two weeks. “Semi-weekly” as suggested by the post linked sounds odd to me – and also suggests the event occurs at exactly half-weekly intervals, which (with seven days in a week) is rarely true.
London contains many
I give credit to this journalist for addressing her tweet to “London cyclists” and not just “Cyclists”. London contains a many arseholes. A minority of all Londoners, but a significant one. Some ride bikes selfishly, some drive cars selfishly, some use public transport selfishly. It is only my opinion, based on experience living there and elsewhere, that arseholes are drawn to London more than they are to cycling.
The difference is the selfish
The difference is the selfish cyclists and public transport users are not responsible for over three thousand people being killed or seriously injured on London’s roads. The drivers are.
Is that Sunak thing real? I
Is that Sunak thing real? I thought it was one of those deep fakes.
Kapelmuur wrote:
It could have been a body double, like Stalin used to do.
Are you saying that’s a fake
Are you saying that’s a fake Sunak there, or that the real Sunak is not genuine?
I certainly wonder about the latter, but then he’s only just started. They all look less glossy after a year or two. Even Tony went grey by the end.
Road.cc can you please
Road.cc can you please contact Essex police
https://twitter.com/SaferEssexRoads/status/1650800017798471682
We accept these if they are reported by cyclists who record it in passing while on their commute but not from those who proactively seek out examples of poor driving.
https://saferessexroads.org/extra-eyes/
Looks like Andy Cox has seen
Looks like Andy Cox has seen the tweet
https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/1650827136163299328
I’ve seen tweets today re public reporting road crime. My view; Danger is danger however it is identified & reported. We should consider each case and take action as appropriate. Ultimately the driver is accountable for their actions. Our purpose is to reduce danger & save life.
Seems to be a separate road
Seems to be a separate road safety group from the police, although partnered with them; as such I very much doubt they have the authority to say how the police will deal with video submissions?
This is the web page for
This is the web page for submissions !
https://saferessexroads.org/driving-complaints-2020/
There is certainly an overlap.
Worrying then, not only for
Worrying then, not only for the “we won’t process it if you were looking for it” but also the “we won’t process anything that’s been on social media” restriction as well, neither of which are valid.
Essex have form for ignoring
Essex have form for ignoring af much as possible. Report a dangerous close pass and they give the excuse, you can’t judge the distance from an action camera.
But if you’re very very lucky they might send a warning letter.
Irony is, that their reporting site via Extra Eyes is much better/simpler than Met Police, and you can look up the ref you were given to see the outcome offered, usually within a few days.
I wonder if Essex Police
I wonder if Essex Police apply the same rules to the vigilante groups that go looking for paedophiles
Was it an Uber Eats delivery
Was it an Uber Eats delivery cyclist? Surely if Amazon drivers are allowed to park where they want because “everybody needs Amazon deliveries” then Uber Eats cyclists should be allowed to run through red lights because “nobody wants a cold McDonalds”.
Does a cold McDonald’s taste
Does a cold McDonald’s taste better?
well the milkshakes do anyway
well the milkshakes do anyway
I’ll be honest, I am not a
I’ll be honest, I am not a fan of the idea of a carbon threaded bottom bracket shell. Any material that has poor resistance to abrasion or impact should not be tapped for threads. The probability of stripping the threads is much higher than in alloy and will also handle less torque as a result. It’s longevity is a definite concern.
From reading the article I’m
From reading the article I’m guessing the threads are ‘formed’ in to the frame when molding which in general produces a much stronger thread than if it had been ‘cut’. Again, I’m guessing, aluminium frames/inserts are finish machined once they’ve been welded up or bonded in place which will probably be a ‘cut’ thread. Not being a boffin on carbon fibre it would be interesting to know the differences in strength between a formed thread in carbon and a cut thread in aluminium.
Even when formed Carbon Fibre
Even when formed Carbon Fibre can rub away. People have put holes in carbon frames from poor maintenance where dirt sits between the frame and outer cables, which then grinds away at the frame. Or if your bike has carbon dropouts (for QRs) if you misalign or over/under tighten your axle, you can slowly rub away at the dropouts making them uneven and writing off your frame. Imagine getting dirt on the threads, or worse, cross-threading. Carbon is great for static loading and fatigue resistance. And yes, whilst metals are machined (Tapped) by cutting away material, it is much more forgiving and resistant to abrasion. Plus, if the threads do get damaged, your LBS will have the right tools to re-thread them easily and cheaply.
This will explain the lack of
This will explain the lack of ambulances in London. They’re all waiting to administer first aid to the protection detail when they finish. Especially the peeler at the end who looks like he’s about to have a coronary and mumbling wait for me as he’s trying to summon the energy to put one foot in front of the other. At least the Koreans looked fit and weren’t breaking a sweat.
Ashley N video …
Ashley N video …
Well, his road positioning sucks big time.
Domestic dual carriageway and he’s in the weeds … why not take primary or even at worse, secondary.
Filtering the static traffic… squeezing is fine, but there are times where the right lane is empty… and yet he still hogs the left hand car.
Ride your bike like it needs the same space as your car – if you don’t, sooner or later someone will have you off with a bad pass, or squeezing you out.
Terrible positioning at the
Terrible positioning at the start, then rides into danger by pulling and stopping alongside a bus indicating to pull out, quite possibly in the blind spot leaving the driver in an awkward position. Either stay behind the bus or filter past completely.
He doesn’t know how to cycle safely on the roads, refuses to listen to advice from anyone else, his ego frankly can’t accept he might not be right.
Notice how at the beginning
Notice how at the beginning he is breathless although he’s on an e-bike, he needs to get out of his car more
Just watched Points West, the
Just watched Points West, the local BBC news programme- apparently 7-8 people die each year in accidents involving mobility scooters. Where’s the tabloid outrage about that? (the article covered a fatal hit and run inside a supermarket…)
(edit) Found the story – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-65383596
and
https://www.judicialcareers.judiciary.uk/natalie-young-prevention-of-future-deaths-report/
Nearly sure I read somewhere
Nearly sure I read somewhere that mobility scooter users were now to have a small test to determine their abilities. I was always under the impression that they were to go no faster than walking pace. I’m a brisk walker and still get passed by them.
Supposed to be 4mph on a
Supposed to be 4mph on a pavement (still a pretty brisk walking pace). Class 2 scooters are limited to that and only allowed on pavements, Class 3 scooters that can do 8mph are allowed on the roads and pavements but users are supposed to flip the switch that limits them to 4mph when they join a pavement. Quite a lot seem to “forget” this requirement.