Jumbo-Visma sprinter crashes into ravine; Simon Cowell vows to wear a helmet after second fall; Must. Not. Wait. For. Bike; Highway Code sensibleness; ECHELONS; Are you a lentil-munching barista?; Team Qhubeka continues; FOI data + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"Bicycles deliver the freedom that car commercials promise"
In the same way banks only ever seem to do adverts of friendly branch staff waving at children, car advertisers love to fall back on the classic adventure ad. Cue scenes of a sparkly new motor (not a dot of dirt anywhere) traversing an epic mountain landscape to a vista where a couple inevitably starts a campfire while watching the sun set.
In the summer, Toyota went one step further and snapped a £27,000 adventure model next to a £70 bike that could be bought from Walmart, with the caption ‘Our Ideal Adventure’.
More positively, on the car ad topic, new legislation in France means car adverts will have to promote cycling and walking, as the Macron Government ups attempts to encourage people to swap four wheels for a pedal-powered two.
We’re biased, obviously. But I’m sure this quote we spotted this morning may resonate with a few of you…
“Bicycles deliver the freedom that car commercials promise”. pic.twitter.com/OKivbUaGyl
— ⛑️Car Helmets⛑️ (@CarHelmets) January 29, 2022
It’s why so many of us were attracted to taking up cycling in the first place: exploring new places, a sense of freedom etc. Ernest Hemmingway famously said, “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up hills and coast down them”…
Where’s your next adventure going to be? A new route this weekend? A long-awaited summer adventure? Give us some inspiration in the comments…
"I'm a bit of a nutter": Simon Cowell vows to wear a helmet after second crash
Simon Cowell has broken his arm in a bicycling accident. Luckily everyone is saying helmets which would have….protected….his…armhttps://t.co/4h5JxlMNPO
— Jon (@Jontafkasi) February 1, 2022
Simon Cowell has spoken about his second e-bike crash in 18 months, and promised to wear a helmet in future…(no promises were made about arm or knee pads, though)…
The reality TV mogul broke his arm, suffered facial cuts and sustained a suspected concussion after falling off an e-bike near his west London home…18 months ago Cowell broke his back after a crash in Malibu.
Speaking to MailOnline, Cowell said he’d definitely be donning a helmet next time…”I‘m a bit of a nutter. I’ll definitely wear a helmet next time,” he said. “I’m OK. I’m feeling much better thank you. It happened just round the corner.”
A workman renovating a house nearby told the online news outlet: “He nearly bumped into me the other day. You often see him racing about on his bike although I must admit I haven’t seen him on it for a few days. Now I know why.
“He dashes round the corner without stopping and he’s never wearing a helmet. The roads can get very busy round here so he’s taking a bit of a chance. You’d have thought he would have learned his lesson after what happened before.”
A source added: “Simon has been warned many times to wear a helmet but he doesn’t always take it on board.”
Keep ‘racing’ around, Simon. That helmet will keep you out of hospital for good…(maybe)…
ECHELONS (+ don't be like Bob at the pub)
This is what big Bob at the pub claims to have seen when he says he was stuck behind riders 27 abreast for 5 miles on the A303 on his way to work https://t.co/NWtoheYPdB
— Sam 🚴🌱🍻Ⓥ (@MCRCycleSam) February 3, 2022
Highway Code changes spark wave of bad publicity about cycling. But it is good for everyone, particularly motorists
Dr Paul Arnell has written a column for The Scotsman addressing the “wave of criticism” of cycling and the Highway Code changes…
In it he questions why some portions of the media choose to continue to peddle anti-cycling lines, while ignoring “the simple fact that increased cycling benefits everyone.”
It might make slightly easier reading than some of the opinion pieces we shared on road.cc last week…
Dr Arnell concludes that: “The changes to the Highway Code reflect the simple fact that all road users must compromise. It is not a matter of us and them, drivers against cyclists. It is a simple fact that increased cycling benefits everyone.”
In contrast to the previous post...are you a lentil-munching barista?
green cycling lentil munching baristas pic.twitter.com/MLclt3oAKO
— Thomas O. Cornwallis (@UrbanistTOC) February 2, 2022
I don’t eat lentils and rarely drink coffee…am I even a cyclist?
Team Qhubeka moving forward in 2022
Team Qhubeka NextHash might have folded as a WorldTour squad at the end of last season, but the team is continuing under the Team Qhubeka banner, it has been announced. The team will ride at UCI Continental level, and have managed to keep hold of Nicholas Dlamini, the South African pro who competed at last year’s Tour de France.
Doug Ryder stays on as principle, and says the goal remains the same — changing lives through bicycles.
“We will continue to move forwards,” he said in a team press release. “Changing people’s lives, providing hope, opportunity and mobility. Our team is about performance and racing, but it is equally about upliftment and community.”
West Yorkshire Police FOI request analysis: Motorists submit more videos, but cyclists are better judge of what constitutes a driving offence
Someone did an interesting FOI request to West Yorks Police it appears motorists are the biggest “Grass” but cyclists are the better judge of what actually constitutes a driving offence. It doesn’t include educational courses. @theJeremyVine @MikeyCycling pic.twitter.com/jhbKQFyK97
— Bikery (@Bikery1966) February 3, 2022
Some interesting Freedom of Information request data here, showing that perhaps unsurprisingly considering the respective numbers of road users, motorists in West Yorkshire submitted more than twice as many videos than cyclists between August 2020 and December 2021.
But when it comes to videos submitted leading to penalty points or a fine, videos by cyclists were significantly more likely to lead to action. 34 per cent of cyclists submissions resulted in action, compared to just 1.8 per cent of motorists’, 29 per cent of pedestrian submissions led to points and/or a fine.
What do you make of this? As expected? Surprised cyclists’ videos seem to be acted upon fairly often?
Amy Pieters "stable but not good" more than month on from training crash
Dutch road race national champion Amy Pieters is “breathing independently” but “currently not conscious”, according to SD Worx’s manager Danny Stam. Stam told Cycling Weekly there is “not very much difference” from the news we heard before that Pieters remains in a coma following a crash in training on December 23.
“The situation is still stable but not good,” Stam updated. “Amy is still in a deep coma and until now there are not so many improvements. Only when she wakes up can there be a prognosis for how she will be in the future.
“First she needs to wake up. It is a difficult time for everyone. I think for the parents and the boyfriend it’s the hardest time. For the moment, I’d love to tell you more but we don’t know anymore, but that is for everybody a pity. We hope [for] the best, that’s the only thing we can say at this point.”
Wonder if any Everton players have called on Mr Loophole's services since Frank's appointment?
But CPS don’t fine him for driving whilst holding a coffee in one hand and a mobile phone in the other @MikeyCycling pic.twitter.com/Ve5yYpHeWK
— CycleGaz™ (@cyclegaz) February 2, 2022
If you’ve no idea what we’re talking about: Prosecution of football star Frank Lampard filmed by CyclingMikey using mobile phone while driving dropped, CPS confirms
Hampshire councillor says budgeting for cycling improvements is not "money well spent"
.jpg)
The News in Portsmouth reports an outspoken councillor is vocally opposing council plans to invest millions into cycling infrastructure. Conservative member for Purbrook and States South, Cllr Gary Hughes said the council’s money would be better spent elsewhere after officials announced a £10 million budget for cycling improvements.
Cllr Hughes said: “I would contend that the money we’re getting is not being spent wisely. We’re using 10 per cent of our budget on cycling when only one per cent of people actually cycle regularly. Think of what we could do with £10m spent elsewhere on highways for the people of Hampshire. When we have such a small budget I don’t believe that £10m is money well spent.”
Hughes was opposed by other members, including his own party’s councillor Nick Adams-King, who argued “saying we shouldn’t do something isn’t the right approach”.
“I’m not sure about the figure that only one per cent of people cycle either,” he said.
Must. Not. Wait. For. Person. On. Bike...
“I’m turning. Your problem mate”. pic.twitter.com/LqYKdBW5sS
— BecBikeUser (@PavelPietrzak) February 2, 2022
Jumbo-Visma sprinter David Dekker crashes into ravine, thankfully emerges unhurt
😱😱😱 #LesRp #VCV2022 pic.twitter.com/hVXs3fdwxr
— Marc (@marcrp) February 3, 2022
Frightening moment here for Dutch sprinter David Dekker whose chances of winning the second stage of Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana ended with him scrambling out a ravine, having overshot a corner on a descent. Dekker was one of the pre-stage favourites for the day eventually won by compatriot Fabio Jakobsen.
The 24-year-old celebrated his birthday yesterday, but found himself heading straight down a ravine with 10km to go on today’s stage. Thankfully the TV pictures soon showed him back on the road, ready to remount his bike shortly after.
Jumbo-Visma then confirmed Dekker was back on his bike.
Jakobsen continued his fine return since a bad crash of his own at the Tour of Poland in 2020, winning the second stage of the race easily. The win suggests Jakobsen is well on track to fulfilling his touted pre-season role as Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl’s fast man for the Tour de France. It remains to be seen if a certain Manx Missile can do anything to change that…
Damn. The jury could even give Fabio Jakobsen one second there for that gap. 😅 That was easy. #VCV2022 pic.twitter.com/ZaE8Vwsvfl
— Mihai Simion (@faustocoppi60) February 3, 2022
3 February 2022, 09:07
3 February 2022, 09:07
3 February 2022, 09:07
3 February 2022, 09:07
3 February 2022, 09:07
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.
61 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@mdavidford "Hmm – the way you’ve edited your post to tone down the suggestion that they were saying something they weren’t suggests even you don’t believe that." Nope, and tbh, I couldn't care less about what you think. Anything positive to add? Nope! just your usual nonsense, so bore off.
@mdavidford OK. So maybe my question should be amended to: are those rates ring-fenced? ie, I'm not paying a lot more for my insurance due to drivers of larger/more dangerous/more expensive vehicles andor the drivers with points.
Hmm - did the people whose data is in that 'substantial database' agree to that? Nothing in their privacy statement says "we may flog off your data to a random third party".
Insurance cost already does vary with vehicle and associated risk profile though.
Hmm - the way you've edited your post to tone down the suggestion that they were saying something they weren't suggests even you don't believe that.
Thanks. I'd heard that there was a split in the community. Well in that case let's hope that he does do something about their opposition to cyclists. All for safe cycling measures, but not just because one group doesn't like cyclists.
Being fair, there are a few councillors of all shades who seem intent on not disturbing their preexisting opinions on certain topics with new facts or understanding. I do think the populist parties are more susceptible to this though. They seem to attract those with the idea that government is corrupt and it just needs some people with "common sense" to come in and fix it. They *are* right that there's inefficiency, inflexibility, self-serving and even some corruption there. The error is in thinking that a) those are the biggest issues and b) inexperienced people with strong opinions (and sometimes cloth ears) can quickly change it for the better...
They are selling off their tools and "Substantial customer database" too: https://bikebiz.com/job/bike-repair-servicing-business-for-sale/ At least the cafe is staying open...
@jackcycles If he was on the road, you can almost guarantee there would be an equally ignorant driver saying "why don't you ride on the cycle path"? No matter where he rode there will be someone who has a lack of common courtesy.
61 thoughts on “Jumbo-Visma sprinter crashes into ravine; Simon Cowell vows to wear a helmet after second fall; Must. Not. Wait. For. Bike; Highway Code sensibleness; ECHELONS; Are you a lentil-munching barista?; Team Qhubeka continues; FOI data + more on the live blog”
“You can’t see paradise if
“You can’t see paradise if you don’t pedal” https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ca3c8bae-51f6-4cc3-9da0-a08517fe1f33
“Bicycles deliver the freedom
“Bicycles deliver the freedom that car commercials promise” – well, they would if it wasn’t for all the cars blocking the road in front of you! 😉
brooksby wrote:
I am NOT about to allow a kid to sit on the back of my bike and fly a kite…
Quote:
Oh come on – next you’ll be telling me that they can deliver a sofa…
Assume this a challenge…
Assume this a challenge…
Sofa Bike !
Sofa Bike !
hirsute wrote:
Here’s a pic of it:
hirsute wrote:
Who needs a trailer or cargo bike?
hawkinspeter wrote:
…or friends
I once moved house by bicycle
I once moved house by bicycle. I wish I still had the photo showing our kitchen table secured (upside down) to my housemate’s bike, with a lot of our stuff piled on top and with three people wheeling it down the road, one holding the bars and the others at either side. And yep, we moved the sofa, two armchairs, our cooker and two heavy bed frames that way too.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Would have taken a lot of trips to move the actual house though
you say that, but…
you say that, but…
https://www.robgreenfield.org/tinyhomeliving/
mdavidford wrote:
That looks pretty cool from the outside, but the inside is a bit bare. Wouldn’t he be better off with a decent tent?
Sorted !
Sorted !
hirsute wrote:
Nice! And it has wings, so that when you come across a queue of cars you can just take to the air.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe it’d be easier to move furniture if it cames with embedded bikes?
hawkinspeter wrote:
How are you supposed to take a corner on that?!
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
You need to buy a separate corner table
Possibly.
Possibly.
But how would I reach the pedals? And that bike has no brakes.
(!!)
Flintshire Boy wrote:
I think it’s some kind of artist table – probably by Van Gogh as if you look closely you can see a bit of veneer missing
hawkinspeter wrote:
Typical divisive cycle infra – it’s just building walls between people.
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s mortar it than that
hawkinspeter wrote:
Particularly if you build it in the door zone.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Hod on, hawk can you leave that there without further support?
Pffffffft! Lentils?
Pffffffft! Lentils?
Some of us are more interested in low carbon cuisine: https://www.utilitycentre.co.uk/forget-lentils-low-carbon-cuisine-is-all-about-squirrel-lasagne/
Acorn arrabiata? Chestnut
Acorn arrabiata? Chestnut cannelloni?
chrisonatrike wrote:
https://www.realtree.com/timber-2-table-wild-game-recipes/squirrel-and-mushrooms-in-cream-sauce
hawkinspeter wrote:
Do most pressure cookers come with instructions for cooking squirrel?
mdavidford wrote:
I was going to write some brief instructions, but I started off with arranging the squirrels in height from tallest to shortest. Then I realised I was just critter sizing.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I always hope people will avoid bad squirrel jokes, but drey never do.
stomec wrote:
Nowadays, everybody wanna talk
Like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
hawkinspeter wrote:
Personally, I woodchuck them in any old how.
hawkinspeter wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
I had no idea squirrels were canabalistic.
Steve K wrote:
https://www.businessinsider.com/animals-that-are-cannibals-2018-12?r=US&IR=T
Steve K wrote:
Only their nuts.
An elderly man with a pattern
An elderly man with a pattern of falling probably needs to consider whether it’s time for assisted living. A helmet isn’t really going to cut it.
Bit harsh. I’d say it’s more
Bit harsh. I’d say it’s more a case of Briton Lacks Talent.
HoarseMann wrote:
Ah, but he is a bit of a nutter
“Highway Code changes spark
“Highway Code changes spark wave of bad publicity about cycling.”
The stories about the HC changes are so prevalent and so inaccurate, that it appears to be a deliberate campaign to misrepresent them. The only accurate reports appear to be from cycling organisations, but even then, one cycle insurance specialist also got it very wrong.
The overwhelming majority of reports are not just slightly wrong, they have no relation to what the new rules say, they are literally fiction, deliberately designed to mislead and to foster hatred of cyclists.
I’ve been having an email exchange with one of the people responsible for the almost completely wrong video featured on the Bristol Post website and others, this is her latest response:
“Hello,
I have spoken to our video team and they said:
The specific section is: “The code has been updated to clarify that people driving or riding a motorcycle should give priority to people cycling on roundabouts. The new guidance will say people driving and or riding a motorcycle should: not attempt to overtake people cycling within that person’s lane allow people cycling to move across their path as they travel around the roundabout
“The code already explained that people cycling, riding a horse and driving a horse-drawn vehicle may stay in the left-hand lane of a roundabout when they intend to continue across or around the roundabout. Guidance has been added to explain that people driving should take extra care when entering a roundabout to make sure they do not cut across people cycling, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle who are continuing around the roundabout in the left-hand lane.”
“We will change the wording in the video from ‘are to stay’ to ‘may stay’.
“It clearly states that people driving or riding a motorcycle should give priority to people cycling on roundabouts.””
Judge for yourselves whether that addresses the inaccuracies in the video;
“The rule previously saw drivers given priority at a roundabout but that has now changed”
followed by “now, cyclists will have priority over road users, in force of the new section under rule 186”
“cyclists, horseriders and horsedrawn vehicles are to stay in the left hand lane when attempting to cross a roundabout”
I’ve written back suggesting that it needs much more change and that they should apologise for misleading their readers. I look forward to the response.
eburtthebike wrote:
You realise that they’re (eventually) going to come back by referring you to Arkell vs Pressdram? 😉
I had a similar conversation
I had a similar conversation with the team at my “local” Reach plc publication, to no avail. Unsurprisingly, they couldn’t tell me how or by whom “drivers had previously been given priority on roundabouts”, but refused to acknowledge it was inaccurate. Appears to be written centrally, with local team able to make insignificant changes, e.g. to decide if drivers in their area are “enraged”, “confused” or “frustrated” about the changes.
quiff wrote:
I have always had the feeling that all the anti-cycling rhetoric has come from a central group. I notice that the same wording appears, that the wording breaks in UK, Australia and the East Coast of USA. It also appears to me that these come out in groups of three.
The thing I find most
The thing I find most confusing about the coverage of the changes in the press is why they don’t just tell people to read the Highway Code? Or even quote the rule and then if necessary add some clarification. Let’s be honest the HC isn’t always that clear. This way I can apply my own “critical thinking”. Why do I need a third party to explain it to me incorrectly? It’s a basic premise of passing your driving test that you understand it, so just do that. READ THE FUCKING HIGHWAY CODE.
I like a dhansak, even a dahl
I like a dhansak, even a dahl. Sometimes even lentils in a veg stew. However, I’m no veggie, let alone vegan. I do drink coffee, but don’t know how to use those machines, so not a barista. I’m also not a green, and not completely anti car. I’m more anti dickhead, and if that means making safe spaces to keep away from them, then all the better
Pyro Tim wrote:
I agree with you on the anti-car position. I think the vast majority of people who post on here are not anti-car just against idiots who will risk our lives to save a few seconds.
There is one – can you guess?
There is one – can you guess? – who is on record as stating that the motorcar is “humanity’s greatest achievement.” Mind you they have also stated that Donald Trump is “the greatest President in the history of the world” so they may be a dick or desperate troll or both…
How is Simon Cowell not going
How is Simon Cowell not going to break an arm if he wears a helmet next time? Or is he a ‘bit of a nutter’ because he thought he could crash without wearing a helmet, and no one might criticise him?
‘Cos that is, truly, nuts.
“Because wearing a helmet
“Because wearing a helmet reduces your chance of having an accident by 80%.”
Advice from BHIT. The same wording formed the official advice from UK Gov until 2010 when there was a consultation into the effectivness of helmets and if they should be mandatory. The result was a change in the wording of the advice that was hidden in a leaflet that was released just after the election without any press release.
I’m fairly familiar with the
I’m fairly familiar with the BS of BHIT, but I haven’t heard that particularly noxious statement before; have you got a reference for it?
So not only will it protect
So not only will it protect your head. It actually subliminally communicates to motorists to not drive through you. That’s amazing.
I appreciate the evidence is
I appreciate the evidence is disputed, but if anything doesn’t the evidence show that wearing a helmet increases your chance of having an accident?
Most of the folk I know who
Most of the folk I know who have unfortunately been hit. All have been wearing a helmet. So there is some substance to your point.
Quote:
You know, I was sure that they had updated the Highway Code so as to provide guidance on how to deal with a situation/incident like that…
That one looks very familiar
That one looks very familiar – unless it is the junction that is familiar.
brooksby wrote:
Maybe we need a literacy test for drivers; if they can’t read the HC, how can they follow it?
Next time you get a “but
Next time you get a “but cyclists” give them a link to this video… https://youtu.be/qDQEkByp9OM UK dodgy motorists. It’s a quick fire collection of UK driving – the sort you see on a daily basis. Remember that this is only a small selection of incidents as most drivers don’t have cameras. Having been addicted to Russian car crash videos in the past, I hadn’t realised that the British had upped their game to compete (though there aren’t quite as many driving straight into oncoming lorry on snowy road incidents). If cyclists rode like drivers drive, Mr Loophole might have more of a point.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Only got through half of that compilation before I’d heard enough ‘F…ing Hells’ to last me a while. Seemed to be shot by the same man saying the same magic phrase every time. A lot of the shots were the fault of the motorist with the camera travelling too fast, failing to read the road ahead and making a situation out of an otherwise normal road manoeuvre.
Re Portsmouth cycling
Re Portsmouth cycling infrastructure
“Cllr Hughes said: “I would contend that the money we’re getting is not being spent wisely. We’re using 10 per cent of our budget on cycling when only one per cent of people actually cycle regularly. Think of what we could do with £10m spent elsewhere on highways for the people of Hampshire. When we have such a small budget I don’t believe that £10m is money well spent.””
Surely if only 1% cycle a great deal needs to be done to get more people on a bike so may be more than 10% is needed.
“spent elsewhere on highways.” Does he mean more road space for cars which will increase damage to the environment and fill up in a very short space of time. This is the approach Gloucestershire have taken.
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/anger-cycle-path-cash-being-6531172
and
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/gloucestershire-cycle-lane-probe-could-5995647
Spot on. “spent elsewhere on
Spot on. “spent elsewhere on highways.” = No money for cycling -> because no-one cycles -> because there’s insufficent safe space -> because it’s taken up by “highways” infra -> because we added extra roads and lanes -> because the old ones were crowded with motor vehicles -> because no-one cycles.
Therefore we must spend this money on motor infra for motorists.
This is the letter we sent to
This is the letter we sent to The News in Portsmouth:
If there’s a row over Hampshire’s £10m cycling improvement budget (The News, 3-Feb), it’s over how out of touch Havant’s Councillor Gary Hughes is.
If he thinks cycling is only 1% around Purbrook and Stakes South, it’s because for years, all the road investment has been for cars – we spend billions on spaces “for cars” every year.
It’s way, way up wherever we’ve invested in safe, easy and pleasant cycle paths. And that cuts road traffic, parking and congestion for everyone else: If kids and adults can cycle safely to school, work , shops or the park instead of being driven, they’ll all be healthier, happier, and it would reduce traffic congestion for those who need to drive (rather than those who are forced to drive because no safe, viable alternative has been provided)
According to YouGov, 77% of Brits support local measures to encourage cycling and walking. 51% say they would then cycle more. What if 51% of local journeys were by bike? Less traffic, less air pollution, less noise and healthier neighbourhoods.
Which is a better investment – one roundabout that shaves a few seconds off a journey (only for 2 years or so), but encourages more vehicular traffic, or a few miles of high quality cycle path network, enabling that alternative? Cycle paths cost peanuts in comparison, and last longer.
At least it reminds us that it’s mostly local councils that pay for local roads of Council tax, not Vehicle Excise Duty (or ‘road tax’) which goes straight to the government: people who cycle and leave their car at home (or don’t own a car at all) pay MORE than their share.
Shame the accompanying photo showed a lone sports cyclist on the road – next time can we see lots of smiling kids and parents, in normal clothes, cycling independently to school and to the shops, in their own safe space, instead of being delivered by Chelsea tractor?