L.A. Intentional: cyclist escapes serious injury after shocking hit and run; Ealing’s LTNs have gone, but the traffic hasn’t; Proviz on a Peloton; Rudi Selig’s lunchbox; An interesting bit of route design in France + more on the live blog
Remco’s gravel woes continue as Vlasov blasts off
Apologies for that headline, but I couldn’t resist…
Anyone who thought that Remco Evenepoel’s struggles on the sterrati at last year’s Giro were a one-off may start to reconsider after today’s frenetic finish at the Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana, won by Bora-Hansgrohe’s Aleksander Vlasov.
To be fair to the prodigious Belgian, who looked so convincing riding into yellow on Wednesday’s stage, Evenepoel held his own after a wobbly start on the gravel section of the final climb to Antenas del Maigmó. However, his efforts on the dirt roads soon appeared to take their toll as he quickly looked laboured and over geared during the frighteningly steep (but tarmacked) final kilometre to the finish.
There were no such problems for Vlasov, who finished 14 seconds ahead of Ineos Grenadiers’ Carlos Rodriquez and over 40 ahead of Evenepoel in eighth, ceding the Quick Step-Alpha Vinyl rider of the yellow jersey in the process.
As the first true summit finish of 2022, today’s exhilarating and unpredictable finale bodes well for this season’s stage races.
Today’s stage also bodes well for the grand old man of the World Tour, Alejandro Valverde. The 41-year-old looked strong while riding over the gravel in support of Movistar teammate Enric Mas, proving that there’s still life left in the old dog yet.
While the grizzled Spaniard insists he will retire at the end of this season, I’m convinced he’s trying to outdo 50-year-old can’t-believe-he’s-still-racing Davide Rebellin. But sure, that’s what cycling needs more of, riders who were knocking about the peloton in 2005. Right?
Last thoughts on the Highway Code?
Someone was telling me yesterday that the changes to the highway code are crazy and will lead to more cyclist deaths.
I’m quite hopeful that the opposite will be true. Cyclists do their best to stay alive anyway – now drivers have been told to keep them alive too.
— 🚲 That woman on the bike (@cyclingjudy) February 4, 2022
Team GB moves to temporary new home in Derby
With the Manchester velodrome currently undergoing renovation work, Team GB has upped sticks and moved 63 miles to the Derby Arena, the squad’s home for the next seven months as it prepares for the Commonwealth Games.
The squad will also use facilities at the University of Derby while it is based in the city.
“We are really excited to be setting up home in Derby for the coming months. For us there is a huge opportunity to supercharge the sport in the city and to put down some roots which leave a real legacy to be built upon,” said Tom Stanton, head of performance pathways at Team GB.
“The velodrome is a fantastic facility and we are hoping to enhance this further through upgrades of timing systems and further development of the arena’s staff.”
The Derby Arena opened in March 2015 and hosted its first major track event, the Revolution Series, in August that year.
Cycling writer and time trial specialist Michael Hutchinson had some ‘deep thoughts’ about the move:
The GB cycling team are moving to Derby for the next few months while Manchester Velodrome is refurbished. Always enjoyed the resemblance between Derby Velodrome and Deep Thought. pic.twitter.com/a1wQK5KJLO
— Michael Hutchinson (@Doctor_Hutch) February 4, 2022
2022 kit rankings, Pro Cycling Trumps style
With the 2022 road season now under way in earnest, we’re finally seeing all the shiny new kits and bikes in action, instead of the endless barrage of promotional material we were subjected to in January.
With that in mind, Pro Cycling Trumps – in its own inimitable style – has provided a handy guide for fans to get to grips with the new fashion trends in the peloton (as well as a generally accurate ranking system).
We can’t have anyone sitting down for Opening Weekend wondering why Cofidis are suddenly cool, and why Michael Matthews is wearing a jersey that looks like it was attacked by a massive blue felt tip…
2022 Men’s World Teams Kits and Bikes rated 😶➡️😍 pic.twitter.com/SoQU4036aj
— pro cycling trumps (@procycletrumps) February 4, 2022
So, who do you reckon is rocking the hottest threads this season? I’ll have another think over the weekend, so stay tuned for road.cc’s definitive, super official ‘best of 2022’ kit list… Or not, we’ll see how it goes.
4 February 2022, 09:26
4 February 2022, 09:26
Looks like Howard Cox has popped up again (no sniggering at the back...)
"Lunatic Highway Code" encourages road rage and gives cyclists carte blanche, Fair Fuel UK boss claims
Howard Cox claimed changes "must have been authored by an asylum inmate" and is a "cyclists' charter to ride any way they wish"
4 February 2022, 09:26
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.
72 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
10 years in prison for killing a cyclist should be the minimum sentence. The objective is to raise awareness and remind motorists they must remain vigilant at all times when behind the wheel. Drivers who harm people and/or damage properties shall be sent to retest. No excuses. No exceptions.
@wtjs No remorse from the 84 year old driver though. " He fully accepts responsibility and places no blame on the cyclist whatsoever". Which seems to imply he'd like to blame the cyclist if he could.
Hookless and yet still ‘just 1585’ grams. No and no . The only thing ‘industry leading’ is their marketing team that convinces folk to part with their money for this product.
@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.
@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.
@Andrewbanshee Its unbelievable how short sighted the business community is, they all want people to buy more of their product but can't see that giving them more money would enable that very outcome.
The geometry chart is interesting. The progression in stack and reach is quite normal from 52 to 61 cm, but looking at what they call the "49" and "44" sizes, the differences are pretty small. It would definitely be more appropriate to call them 50 and 48. When are the brands going to start realizing that smaller riders need smaller wheels so that the frame geometry isn't compromised due to squeezing in the big hoops?
Judge Martin Picton accepted Booth was remorseful... How often do we have to endure this tripe from judges? This pseudo-remorse is of no importance- the only time the matter should be mentioned is when there is obviously no remorse- likely very rare owing to coaching by the shyster defence lawyer. He's sorry that he was caught, but that remorse didn't stop him from repeating the offence all those times when he wasn't.
...adding "Sorry - this doesn't normally happen..."
My legs have at most about 3 speeds anyway.
72 thoughts on “L.A. Intentional: cyclist escapes serious injury after shocking hit and run; Ealing’s LTNs have gone, but the traffic hasn’t; Proviz on a Peloton; Rudi Selig’s lunchbox; An interesting bit of route design in France + more on the live blog”
The only question now is how
The only question now is how the people who demanded the LTNs removals will justify their position? This is going to take some weapons grade double speak to explain why their vision of sunny uplands and frolicking unicorns hasn’t come to pass.
Sorry, I got a bit into Brexit mode there.
eburtthebike wrote:
They won’t, though. They’ve won, they’ll just disappear.
If the Council has got any
If the Council has got any integrity, it should point out that the removal of the schemes has been unsucessful and has generated a number of anti-social effects. The right thing to do, having established the fallacies of the nay-sayers’ position, would be to to reinstate the LTNs.
I used to commute to Hanger Lane by bike. Initially, I thought it would be desperate, but I established that there were a large number of roads that were closed to thorugh traffic, specifcally to avoid them being rat runs for the North Circular. The principle is well-proven – put high volumes of traffic where it belongs.
PS: initial forays onto the north circular were traumatic – for one stretch, the best course for survival was drafting a skip lorry at just under 30mph in the rain. Not someting that I ever wish to repeat
Steve K wrote:
Sadly not. They’ll teleport a few miles to be “concerned residents” at the next front line
Captain Badger wrote:
Whassat? You’re saying that people complaining might not actually live there? Surely it can’t just be a minority of drivers irritated that they can’t drive through all the places that they want? But who would be so selfish as to repeatedly demand everyone else including non-motorists has to be inconvenienced and experience elevated risks just so the they can proceed with marginally more dispatch or disembark from their vehicle anywhere? Especially given that when multiple people do this you’ll be slower and hunting for a parking space anyway?
chrisonatrike wrote:
I can tell you’re shocked! I know that opponents of the Dulwich LTN were openly promising on Twitter to opponents of the Ealing LTNs that they would put in complaints about Ealing if their counterparts would do the same re Dulwich. With the Dulwich LTN Southwark Council sent information to all local residents who could conceivably be affected containing a registration number they were asked to quote when making any comments or objections: IIRC only 2000 of the 11000 responses to the consultation had such a number on them.
This probably explains why
This probably explains why many of the anti posters around Dulwich (as well as banners at the tiny protest) are/were against things that aren’t even happening in Dulwich. The lack of local knowledge certainly gives the impression they were printed up for a different campaign.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I suppose when you put it like that..
Feel a bit silly now….
Steve K wrote:
This 100%.. they’ll just fade into the background until someone else comes along trying to change the status quo. It’ll take a brave ‘councillor’ to try and implement LTN again in Ealing.
eburtthebike wrote:
Why wouldn’t you. They’re exactly the same people.
Miller wrote:
I’m not so sure, all the Brexiteers told me to shut up “remoaning” because I had lost. They can’t possibly be the same guys that elected a cycle friendly PM, failed to respond to a consultation about the HC and now want the changes revoked. Surely those guys would shut up because they lost.
IanMK wrote:
The difference between remainers and man-in-the-street* brextremists is not that remainers have lost – we’ve all lost – it’s that remainers realise that we’ve all lost.
(* obviously, ERG members, Farage, etc, have not lost, because they have the wherewithal to ensure they float to the surface when the toilet is flushed.)
GMBasix wrote:
Floating to the surface is often a sign of too much fibre (or possibly pancreatitis) – add it to your diet gradually so that your gut can adjust to it.
I see we’ve gone to the
I see we’ve gone to the talking crap stage of the thread even earlier than usual.
mdavidford wrote:
It’s Friday – some people will want to leave early
hawkinspeter wrote:
So they can get stuck in traffic…
GMBasix wrote:
— GMBasixOh, we all realise we’ve lost, even the most rabid Brexiteer knows that; they just can’t admit it.
eburtthebike wrote:
If only that were true. The fact that Kent has been turned into a lorry park, businesses have moved overseas, stopped exporting/ importing are all fake news/ coincidence/ Covid related as we all know. Except that Covid is fake news too.
I read an article the other
I read an article the other day on Adam Tranter and the change to mobility credits in the West Midlands allowing up to £1500 of the £3000 trade in to be spent on a cycle. Entirely sensible you would have thought, the whole idea of the scheme is to give people choice and break dependence on the car as their primary source of transport, whilst removing the most polluting vehicles from the streets of Coventry. Not according to some of the comments. You’d think that people were being forced to give up their car and buy a bike, one even suggested (WTAF) that the £3000 could be given to people without a car to fund buying a car.
Some people will go to any length to defend car usage and bash any other alternative. The conclusion can only be that these commentators are actually genocidal lunatics hell bent of planetry destruction.
Well just look how a local
Well just look how a local paper reports recent traffic congestion here, its everyone elses fault bar the traffic actually causing the congestion. The council have now fined Anglian water for the roadworks,for not implementing an all day manual traffic control as specified, as im sure that will totally fix the problem.
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/business/frustrations-over-standstill-traffic-in-ipswich-town-centre-8666760
It’s difficult to comprehend
It’s difficult to comprehend the lack of imagination combined with entirely selfish motives.
Although, I confess, when I go to the chippy I drive as I don’t want them cold and if the wine shops customers only buy wine in such quantities that they would need a car to pick them up then it’s unlikely they are in to active travel
Ah – you must have one of
Ah – you must have one of those cars with the thermostat at 180 C!
The wine solution’s simple. Why schlep four wine bottles home? Just buy grape concentrate and a litre of vodka. Hey preso! You can carry your night in * home under your arm!
* As alluded to by IanMK if you are likely to want to do this it might not be a good idea to actually carry your shopping under your arm. Or ride a bicycle. Certainly not drive!
chrisonatrike wrote:
No need to carry said shopping, given bottle cages are designed to hold a bottle of wine am sure a bottle of vodka would fit equally well.
Grahamd wrote:
Doesn’t work, mine are already holding my beer.
I went to the liquor store
I went to the liquor store yesterday on my bicycle, bought a bottle of whisky and put it in the bicycle basket.
As I was about to leave, I thought to myself that if I fell off the bicycle, the bottle would break. So I drank all the whisky before I cycled home.
Finally, it turned out to be a very good decision, because I fell off my bicycle seven times on the way home. Imagine what would have happened to the bottle!….
Now there’s a subject worth
Now there’s a subject worth consideration.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Obviously not. Put it in a suitcase instead.
IanMK wrote:
No need for a car if you’re buying wine in large quantities, just a large suitcase (with wheels).
True.
True.
s/ Surely the only logical
s/ Surely the only logical next step is to reinstate them after a few weeks as the “experiment” wasn’t working. I mean that’s what happened with High Street Kensington wasn’t it /s
alexb wrote:
EDIT That’s what they sed! sed ‘s/a number of residents and local businesses/most cyclists, pedestrians, people living there etc/g’ pressrelease
…for better sense.
Surely we all know that after
Surely we all know that after the removal of the LTN’s in Ealing the sole reason for the traffic now grinding to a halt is the fault of cyclists.
Some cyclist is holding up a car in Hammersmith and Fulham and it is causing gridlock throughout the whole of the borough of Ealing
C’mn it’s the new HC with one
C’mn it’s the new HC with one cyclist cycling in the middle of the road causing all that.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Maybe they should provide a separate lane to help get cyclists out of the way of the drivers?
On the roads?! We just told
On the roads?! We just told you there was no space (because cars) or money (because building more lanes) for that!
Meanwhile… the Good Idea fairy will see you now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyCycle_(proposed_transport_project)
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/05/bike-paths-abandoned-tube-tunnels-london-underline
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/first-look-at-artist-s-ps600m-plan-for-floating-cycle-path-on-the-river-thames-9779298.html
Transport Select Committee
Transport Select Committee backing the introduction of dynamic road pricing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60251046
bbc wrote:
Yep – that’s exactly what everyone always refers to it as.
That’s an awful lot of extra
That’s an awful lot of extra electronic hardware we’ll have to start fitting into our cars, then…
There are no details on how
There are no details on how it would be implemented, but I can’t see that you would need any technology beyond that found in a basic smartphone.
When it has been talked about
When it has been talked about in the past it was only going to be for high usage routes, and it would work like the London congestion charge, Dartford crossing etc. using pre-registration and ANPR. Which does make you think it is even more important to get LTNs etc. with a permanant, legal basis before it comes into force as it will make the residential rat runs even more appealing.
I wonder if you need much
I wonder if you need much more technology than is being made mandatory with the introduction of Intelligent Speed Assist. “The system will become mandatory on new cars in 2022 uses a forward-facing camera mounted on the car and the vehicle’s satellite navigation system to identify the speed limit and, if the car is exceeding it, to restrict the fuel flowing to the engine until the vehicle is at the limit speed.” I realise that not everyone is driving new cars, but it could be a way of phasing the introduction of road pricing as many new vehicles would pay £0 VED.
Is the BBCs headline
Is the BBCs headline misleading (quelle surprise)? I haven’t read anything to suggest that VED and fuel duty will be replaced by road pricing. Road Pricing will surely be a supplimentary tax.
In 50 years time if you’re driving a “classic” car you will presumably still be paying fuel duty and possibly VED.
Actually cars older than 40
Actually cars older than 40 years old are already exempt from VED, LEZs, the requirement for an MOT…
The upshot of this is that my 10 year old diesel Toyota would cost me a fortune to drive within the London ULEZ because it is only Euro 4 compliant, but if I swapped it for a 40 year old V8 Range Rover I would be exempt from not only the charge, but also the requirement to check the emissions being produced complied with the required standards, and would likely be pumping out high levels of carbon monoxide which damages people straight away, rather than a relatively low level of particulates that increases the risk of developing an illness in the future.
To be clear I am fully in favour of the ULEZ principle, it is just the classic car exemption that makes no logical sense.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
The logic (I think) was that generally these cars would only be used on special occasions – vintage car rallies and the like – and therefore have very low mileage, and that therefore the expense of VED wouldn’t be proportionate, especially as the owner would almost certainly also have an ‘every day’ car.
Not saying I agree with that, just that I think that was the reasoning.
Only poorly tuned cars
Only poorly tuned cars produce significant levels of carbon monoxide, which in the case of one old vehicle amongst mainly modern cars today, which only produce minute amounts of the gas, would not damage anyones health in the open air; diesel particulate matter on the other hand, is a far worse pollutant for human health; so bad, that diesels should never have been allowed as an engine outside of heavy vehicle use.
IanMK wrote:
Actually the full report does suggest scrapping VED and Fueld Duty: see para #9 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmtrans/789/report.html
Strange extra characters at
Strange extra characters at the end of the link – try
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmtrans/789/report.html
And heaven forbid motorists
And heaven forbid motorists might have to pay more than they do now, maybe they should even pay less…..
“Motorists should pay the same or less than they do currently, the MPs said.”
Road pricing is an ideal opportunity to manage demand by charging more for driving at peak times and in residential areas. But there is fat chance the government will alienate motorists in this way.
OnYerBike wrote:
Bikes could be fitted with the chip that triggers road pricing, that would end the complaints that cyclists don’t pay “road tax”.
The 1p per 1,000 miles or whatever is fair for a bike v a SUV would be a literal small price to pay.
It wouldn’t end the
It wouldn’t end the complaints at all, it’s simply being used currently as a shorthand way of out grouping people, its basically “they dont pay as much as me to use this road, so its unfair,waah”.
Even if you paid the same as a car, there would just be people claiming you dont pay enough.
Apparently all new cars will end up with GPS tracking speed limiters within the next decade, so the means to apply it will soon be available and it could just be run alongside a VED regime till the tipping point means VED is not required anymore.
Nice recovery from that
Nice recovery from that American cyclist, on the hit and run story.
I wonder if the Hyundai driver was even looking, or (given the brake lights) even noticed the cyclist until they hit them…
What do they say – never attribute to malice something that can be explained by incompetence?
My money would be on mobile phone use. Not an excuse, mind.
I know it’s not the done
I know it’s not the done thing here to put any of the blame on the poor mistreated cyclist…
But (you knew there was a but coming, didn’t you?) It looks like it’s going to be a “Near Miss Of The Day candidate” close pass (or a very close pass) until about the 4 second mark when the cyclist veers to the left, away from the white line and in front of the car.
Not that that excuses the run part of the hit and run, of course.
Except that (a) given the
Except that (a) given the line the driver was taking, they would have hit the cyclist regardless of the little wobble, and (b) when passing a cyclist they should be giving enough room that a small deviation like that can be made without it causing a collision.
Edit: This is the moment of collision. I can’t see any position on the road there where the cyclist would have avoided being hit.
About half a second before
About half a second before impact. If he’d stayed there he might have/probably would have been hit but might have got away with a very close pass. He moved a foot or so to the left which made the collision inevitable.
Ah well, as long as it was
Ah well, as long as it was only probably…
Although the wing mirror looks on collision course.
Where exactly are you going with this ?
Hardly veers and would have
Hardly veers and would have been hit anyway.
If you look back at previous nmotds, people will point out where the cyclist was at fault or where they could have improved.
In addition, if I am aware of
In addition, if I am aware of the approach of a car from behind and there is no space for a safe pass I would deliberately take a dominant/ primary position to head off a close pass, with the thought always being “what if they don’t see me?” My actions generally lead to me not being injured but subject to verbal abuse, engine revving and a close pass with a much lower speed differential.
My assumption is always that even the biggest @rsehole on the road would not appreciate having me as a bonnet ornament.
FrankH wrote:
Really?? Do you drive light that around riders Frank?
I spotted the same thing; the
I spotted the same thing; the cyclist also looked to his right at the other road lanes, which gave me the impression he was going to merge across to the right, which might have also given the car driver that impression. Given the pre-existing crash damage, perhaps the car driver wasn’t that skilled a driver to avoid the cyclist when he veered left; I noted the car driver braked at the same time the cyclist veered into his path, so it doesn’t look like a deliberate ramming to me.
grOg wrote:
I agree that the cyclist definitely looked like he was planning to merge onto the lane in which the cammer was occupying. But the car driver braked at the point they hit the cyclist as a brief reaction to the impact then just sped off.
Given the pre-existing damage I would hazard a guess that the reason for them speeding off is going to be the fact that they probably dont have insurance and or a licence or both
It takes a lot to shock us
It takes a lot to shock us over here at road.cc.
LA: “Hold my beer.”
Hmm… a magnetic mount… as
Hmm… a magnetic mount… as long as you’re not interested in using your phone’s built-in compass, I suppose.
First close pass under the
First close pass under the new HC although I don’t expect any difference from Essex Police if I submit as the number plate was very unfortunately and how could I know dirty.
Re: the Proviz advert. I saw
Re: the Proviz advert. I saw one last night on the way home at 8pm. All in black, no lights. Do they do something the right size and shape for a 68 reg Kia Sportage?
Surely wearing Proviz gear
Surely wearing Proviz gear while using a Peloton mitigates the problem of someone’s partner hanging clothing to dry on it while they’re using it, because they didn’t see them on it.
Imo as a consumer, my view of
Imo as a consumer, my view of Proviz is they are a bit one note, in that unless you wanted a super hi-viz jacket, they werent offering much else. The super hi-viz jacket market I suspect is finite, and small given I probably only see a handful of examples per year.
So it makes sense to me,for them to be wanting to offer something else, which feels more Chapeau/StolenGoat styled to me, as an extra string to their bow and maybe it will boost sales,increase turnover & profit and lead to upselling to super hi-viz jackets too.
As for a Peloton tie up,well duh its a marketing sponsorship deal, and what else are people going to wear riding even a pretend bike indoors, cycling kit is still the most comfortable & most suitable because its designed for exactly the kind of workout you do riding a bike.
I bought a Proviz jacket, as
I bought a Proviz jacket, as you infer it is very good at being visible. Apart from that it is utter shit. Rips if I fart near it, totally non existent waterproof properties. I never wear it any more.
Just need to get this bloke
Just need to get this bloke signed up to clear the cycle lanes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-60260155
Had a look at the Twitter
Had a look at the Twitter thread and the “I’m a bicycle rider too”…
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=keen%20cyclist
The Grauniad has a story that
The Grauniad has a story that Amazon is reportedly considering buying up Peloton
Will I get one free with my
Will I get one free with my Prime membership?
Quote:
I don’t think that’s how ceding works.