"I'd get rid of every bloody bicycle lane – they drive me mad": Christopher Biggins' Radio 2 rant; Global warming on show at Flanders; Deliveroo strike; Fasted 500; Cycling boom: bicycle journeys up 47 per cent; Buoyancy Bikes + more on the live blog

hawkinspeter wrote:

What's with the body/fat-shaming of Biggins?

It wouldn't make any difference if he were skinny and super-fit - he's still talking rubbish.

Absolutely, there's a rich enough seam of material to criticise him for being a tw4t. His BMI is utterly irrelevant

If an obviously obese person suggests to a mass audience that they would get rid of all active travel infrastructure which has been implemented to encourage people to get fit and reduce obesity, then their obesity is relevant in any response to their comment.

Muddy Ford wrote:

If an obviously obese person suggests to a mass audience that they would get rid of all active travel infrastructure which has been implemented to encourage people to get fit and reduce obesity, then their obesity is relevant in any response to their comment.

No. Actually it's not

Abusing an individual over a physical condition is not acceptable. As I said, there is plenty of relevant material to criticise him for.

Their body-shape has nothing to do with it. Would you oppose an obese person who wanted to encourage cycling? Would you similarly support a skinny person that wanted to get rid of active travel infrastructure?

React to what they're saying and not whether they're fat, thin, tall, short, black or white.

Why did you feel the need to bring colour into this conversation? Being fat or thin are predominently a result of lifestyle choices. We have learned that a poor lifestyle choice that leads to obesity has contributed to the severity of the impact of Covid, and even now with vaccination there is growing evidence that being obese reduces the effect of any vaccine. So when an obviously obese person uses his large audience forum to suggest removal of active travel infrastructure that is being implemented to help tackle obesity I think it's relevant to mention their obesity is the problem. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, and of course I wouldn't oppose an obese person encouraging cycling as that is precisely what Biggins would be better doing.

I could just as easily mentioned male/female, hair colour or colour of eyes. They're all irrelevant to what he was saying.

I'm not saying that being obese is healthy or desirable but I just don't see why it should be relevant to the discussion of active travel. I've seen obese people cycling around and I've seen thin people sat in cars. It's just not helpful to discriminate against him because of his weight - argue against his views instead.

Just think about it - if he was thin would you suddenly start agreeing with him? If not then it's not his weight that's relevant, is it?

Muddy Ford wrote:

Why did you feel the need to bring colour into this conversation? Being fat or thin are predominently a result of lifestyle choices.

Citation please

Muddy Ford wrote:

We have learned that a poor lifestyle choice that leads to obesity has contributed to the severity of the impact of Covid, and even now with vaccination there is growing evidence that being obese reduces the effect of any vaccine. So when an obviously obese person uses his large audience forum to suggest removal of active travel infrastructure that is being implemented to help tackle obesity I think it's relevant to mention their obesity is the problem. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, and of course I wouldn't oppose an obese person encouraging cycling as that is precisely what Biggins would be better doing.

You are trying to squeeze morality judgements now into what people should or shouldn't express (in your opinion) based on no more than their physical appearance.

Dude, it doesn't look good, and I'd stick to attacking the idea (relevant), not the individual (aka ad hominem)

So Muddy, what did you think of the Shimano video of a few days ago?

Nincompoop. (Him not you).

Well, he's clearly just stuck in a bit of a time warp...

City drivers 'should think twice' before buying SUVs

The sort of "city driver" who buys a large SUV is unlikely to think even once.

brooksby wrote:

City drivers 'should think twice' before buying SUVs motor vehicles

Quote:

"It is right to question if suburban drivers need a car capable of ploughing over rivers, across fields and up steep hills just to pop to the shops."

TBH the AA quote shows far more awareness of the subject matter than the RAC one does.  Very few modern SUV's have any offroad capability, and they include diddy ones like the Juke to monsters like the Audi Q8, and electric cars like the iPace to pollution nightmares like the Nissan Qashqai - whose official emissions data appears to be "optimised" compared to IRL.   Saying SUV's are bad is about as useful as saying all cyclists jump traffic lights. 

The elevated driving position on an SUV may give greater situational awareness for example.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

TBH the AA quote shows far more awareness of the subject matter than the RAC one does.  Very few modern SUV's have any offroad capability, and they include diddy ones like the Juke to monsters like the Audi Q8, and electric cars like the iPace to pollution nightmares like the Nissan Qashqai - whose official emissions data appears to be "optimised" compared to IRL.   Saying SUV's are bad is about as useful as saying all cyclists jump traffic lights. 

SUV's are all bad in that they are vehicles that pollute in both manufacture and use. As such when compared like for like they are very much worse than other vehicles that are smaller and lighter.

The question is need - what use are they filling? For most people none at all, they are a status symbol whose journeys would be adequately covered by active transport, public transport or a smaller lighter safer vehicle

Secret_squirrel wrote:

The elevated driving position on an SUV may give greater situational awareness for example.

Course it does. We all know how well SUV drivers are aware of their surroundings (see picture). In addition their "elevated position" blocks lines of sight, and their size, weight and design seriously increase risk to other road users.

They are absolutely not justifiable for the vast majority of users based on the resources required for manufacture, for the space they take up in use, for the damage they do to roads, for the injuries they cause other people. 

My two cents: 

It's clear that "SUV" is a catch-all term that covers a wide range of cars, some of which are larger than others, and some of which are more polluting than others (not necessarily correlated).

Even small SUVs tend to have quite high bonnets - I would be interested to know what impact that has on pedestrian safety in the event of a collision. Car safety tends to be very much focused on the occupants, although I appreciate there has been some movement towards also considering the other party.

Emissions aren't the only factor at play. While I think fully electric is better than ICE, a vehicle contributes just as much to congestion, storage space issues and risk to other road users whether or not it is also polluting at the same time. "many large SUVs are too big for a standard UK parking" isn't going to be solved by putting an electric motor in.

Even small SUVs tend to have quite high bonnets - I would be interested to know what impact that has on pedestrian safety in the event of a collision.

I have read that it is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians, as they are more likely to be hit on the chest and knocked down/run over.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Even small SUVs tend to have quite high bonnets - I would be interested to know what impact that has on pedestrian safety in the event of a collision.

I have read that it is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians, as they are more likely to be hit on the chest and knocked down/run over.

Exactly, a sloping front is safer in the event of a collision as it directs fall towards the vehicle and some impact is taken up by the bonnet and/or windscreen. This is before considering the poorer visibility from SUVs due to their design.

A high bonnet is bad, especially for children as the impact is at head height, and the victim is then thrown forward for a secondary impact on the tarmac.

My understadniong is that SUV 3rd party safety requirements are lower than ordinary cars, due to them being essentially classed as vans. 

So there we have it. SUVs being aggressively marketed by manufacturers so that they can bypass the safety regs that are incumbent on ordinary cars, thereby deliberately putting a larger number more dangerous (yet unnecessary) vehicles on the road. Classy.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

The elevated driving position on an SUV may give greater situational awareness for example.

Which aids the driver of that vehicle; but, unless you have incrementally larger vehicles lined up in order of height, the advantage to one immediately disadvantages the one behind, negating any collective benefit.

I would suggest that "situational awareness" is a product of attitude of your skill, not the altitude of your skull

Regardless of which, the purpose of many Ridiculowagen SUVs is not to provide any safety advantage:  it is to convey internal comfort and outward status, and to make money for the manufacturers who profile them on that basis.

Maybe we need a new bike category - tall bikes

GMBasix wrote:

Which aids the driver of that vehicle; but, unless you have incrementally larger vehicles...

But of course you do, each year's model is bigger than the last one.

As to the better situational awareness, Land Rover love calling it the "Command Driving Position", and come up with self aggrandising strap lines like "Above and Beyond", with all the puerile connotations of military achievement, duty and valour. Truly, the people with whom this chimes must be so far up their own arsenal.
https://www.landrover.com/vehicles/range-rover-sport/overlays/key-comman...

If customers want a higher vantage point, and also want to seem pseudo-military, just start equipping them with periscopes.