Work on next stage of controversial cycle lane which some traders claimed would “kill” village set to continue, months on from Dame Sarah Storey defending project and stating “a bike lane doesn’t close a village”; Viral MTB crash + more on the live blog

I'm sure Scribe will be chuffed to bits referencing a pair of 3 year old wheels, another problem with hunts is you just never know what the prices are with the stupid sales it puts me off

Ards and North Down Cycling Campaign earlier this week held an event with local police encouraging drivers to leave a safe passing distance of 1.5m when overtaking cyclists This will achieve nothing whatsoever, because the drivers and the discouraged potential cyclists all know that the police postscript to the pretend encouragement is: 'but if you choose not to, don't worry because we have no intention of even thinking about enforcing the 1.5m distance, just like all the other UK police forces, and it doesn't matter if it's only 10% of that. Try not to hit them unless you have to get them out of the way, but if you do, scarper and you'll probably get away with it. If you've been drinking, just say you had a few drinks after you got home to calm your nerves after hitting what you thought was a fridge or a sack of potatoes, if they show up at your door.

Sadly, I feel that the reaction to this will be the same as the many multiple shootings that the US endures, every year - shock, tears and platitudes, swiftly returning to the status quo (untill the next time)

@Velo-drone I did not submit reports of either of the two heinous close passes I experienced with my daughter while on holiday there in half term But you could show them to us! I sent one to upRide today: it's the silver Kuga above, and will likely be viewable in a couple of days, and the long holdup on here can be sidestepped by simply omitting the 'h' from the https at the beginning of the link. It's all very easy to do. Other hosting sites are available.

.

@matthewn5 On which - I've not been there (and I've heard from a couple of cyclists online who say that they *are* good...) but I suspect the following blog post (from 2012 - As Easy As Riding A Bike) nails it: "They built it, and they didn’t come – the lesson of Milton Keynes" Verdict: the place was designed (1) for very convenient driving (not surprising - aspirational driving was the thing at the time, they had a blank canvas etc). (2) While the designer genuinely tried to provide for cyclists that comes across as "we need to get the cyclists off the roads because we fixed it for the cars to move fast". As is common (across the decades) in the UK it's nominal safety from motor vehicles but at major cost to convenience. Not to mention lack of social safety. FWIW there's also videos online by Alexei Sayle of him cycling around giant car parks there...

@mitsky Doesn't matter ..... Insurance / No insurance, License / No license These types will drive anyway!

@VIPcyclist Agree regarding cycle lanes, but the article is referring to cycle _tracks_ in Milton Keynes, which if I remember rightly are segregated but also don't run next to roads, so they're often quiet, dimly lit and secluded.

First, the actual change from issuing a bunch of "warning letters" to basically taking no action on anything is more or less no change to be honest. There is no evidence that sending a warning letter does anything. Not all forces even keep a record of warning letters. I'm aware of no actual empirical study of outcomes from sending a warning letter. Its main purpose therefore can only be to say that something has been done, rather than to actually improve road safety outcomes, because nobody cares enough to check if it achieves any outcome. It's the equivalent of finding a bike thief, and popping in a note through the door saying "please don't do that", and considering it an effective response. The apparent discrepancy between the NPCC position given early in the article, and the judgment later on that the Derbyshire policy "appears in line with the guidance" muddies the water considerably. There is a gaping lack of clarity over what police forces can and can't (or will and won't) do under the NPCC guidance. The suggestion for cyclists to provide speed measurements is silly - most cyclists don't have that capability, or won't be using it on e.g commuting rides. It's not clear why the speed of the cyclist is particularly relevant in any case? The Highway Code guidance relating to passing cyclists refers only to the speed of the motor vehicle. Saying you'll only take action in "exceptional circumstances" but not giving any indication what those circumstances might be is tantamount to saying "don't bother reporting, because it's 99% likely to be a complete waste of your and our time and we're not going to tell you how you might assess whether your case might be in the 1%" So, unsurprisingly the Derbyshire Police policy does seem to have at least one clear impact. I did not submit reports of either of the two heinous close passes I experienced with my daughter while on holiday there in half term. Why would I? Why would anyone? And why would it be a surprise that some drivers in Derbyshire choose to drive as if they have a free rein to endanger cyclists lives without fear of any consequence - because in fact they do. The notion that "forensic analysis" is needed to determine if a close pass is actionable or not is nonsensical. I would say laughable, but it's not really a laughing matter. It is not necessary to determine if the car is 140cm vs 151cm away. It is generally perfectly obvious whether the car is less than a car's width away, or more than a car's width away. That's sufficient to make a reasonable judgement on whether the driving could be considered careless or not - bearing in mind that the vast majority of actioned cases would be easily visually identifiable as substantially below that distance.

@Pub bike 10,000 men find out a year they’ve got prostate cancer too late. We need to get those numbers down. There’s no screening unfortunately in the UK There's no blanket overall prostate cancer screening because the experts in the UK National Screening Committee have decided that it would do more harm than good. It's not because of cost, it's because the PSA test is not that good. There are big trials in progress to improve testing. When it comes down to PSA testing of specific groups, such as those with a genuine family history, the risk-benefit balance may well be different. I suspect thar Sir Chris has had at least tacit approval of his "just google ‘prostate cancer UK risk checker’ and there’s three questions, it takes you 30 seconds and that will help you assess your individual risk. If you’re high risk, go to your GP and ask for a PSA, a blood test" advice so it's probably reasonable. I am 74 and have never taken a PSA test. I have no family history I know about. 'Better to be safe than sorry' is bad advice when it comes to prostate cancer screening.