“Why do certain MAMILs think they’re too important to use the cycle path?” asks fuming driver… only to get told to have some “patience and self control” rather than “coming on Facebook to cry about it” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"Putting in a cycleway isn't a 'war on motorists', it's a space to keep children safe": Fears "hostile" media coverage is stopping parents let their kids cycle
IT'S BACK! XDS Astana mark the start of a new season with their latest rap video
Because there’s nothing that gets you pumped up quite like 30 skinny pro cyclists rapping from a training camp in sunny Spain…
Government announces Road Safety Strategy, including consultations on lowering drink drive limit and introducing mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70
Following on from yesterday’s speculation, the government’s first Road Safety Strategy in over a decade was this morning officially published. The Department for Transport says the goal is to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads by 65 per cent by 2035.
The announcement includes new consultations on minimum learning periods for learner drivers, eye tests for older drivers, and lowering the alcohol limit for driving to help prevent causes of collisions.
This could see the drink drive limit lowered for the first time since 1967, the government noting the UK’s is currently “the highest in Europe” and one in six road fatalities involved drink driving.
The consultation will also “explore the use of preventative technology, such as alcohol interlock devices, and new powers to suspend driving licences for those suspected of drink or drug driving offences”.
Elsewhere, the government “will consult on introducing a 3 or 6 month minimum learning period, giving learner drivers more time to develop their skills in varied conditions such as night driving, adverse weather, and heavy traffic”. This, it is said, comes as drivers aged 17-24 represent just 6 per cent of licence holders but are involved in 24 per cent of fatal and serious collisions.
The DfT also announced a consultation on mandatory eyesight testing for those over 70, as well as developing options for cognitive testing too. It also said new measures will “target the growing problem of illegal number plates, including ‘ghost’ plates designed to fool camera systems, while also cracking down on uninsured drivers and vehicles without a valid MOT”.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: “Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy that devastates families and communities. For too long, progress on road safety has stalled. This strategy marks a turning point.
“We are taking decisive action to make our roads safer for everyone, from new drivers taking their first lessons to older motorists wanting to maintain their independence. The measures we are announcing today will save thousands of lives over the coming decade.”
Thoughts? Positive steps? What else would you have liked to see included?
YouGov: 90% of Britons support government proposals to require drivers over the age of 70 to have their vision checked every three years
90% of Britons support government proposals to require drivers over the age of 70 to have their vision checked every three years – including 89% of the over-65s yougov.co.uk/topics/trave…
— YouGov (@yougov.co.uk) 7 January 2026 at 07:54
"It really sucks what happened to Wout": Mathieu van der Poel on Van Aert's cyclocross crash
Mathieu van der Poel is like the rest of cycling fans, feeling sorry for Wout van Aert’s latest bad luck story. The Belgian underwent surgery at the weekend having fractured his ankle in a crash during a cyclocross race in Mol on Friday, Van Aert riding with Van der Poel and set to challenge for the victory when the fall happened.
“I was subconsciously thinking about it during the cyclocross,” Van der Poel admitted to Wielerflits. “It really sucks what happened to Wout. He’s already had so much adversity, and of course, you wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Let’s just hope that his road season preparations aren’t jeopardised.
“It just goes to show that every fall, no matter how innocent it seems, can have serious consequences.”
The crash has ended Van Aert’s cyclocross season, the Visma-Lease a Bike rider now recovering in the hope of being back to full fitness in time for the classics this spring.
Tom Dumoulin appointed Amstel Gold Race director
Just a quick bit of racing news this lunchtime, Tom Dumoulin is set to succeed Leo van Vliet as the director of Amstel Gold Race after this year’s edition. He’ll become only the third person to run the race, Van Vliet having held his post for 30 years and having taken over from Amstel Gold Race’s founder Herman Krott way back in 1996. Keep things simple, Tom… more hills and more podium pints (or half pints)…
"Why do certain MAMILs think they're too important to use the cycle path?" asks fuming driver... only to get told to have some "patience and self control" rather than "coming on Facebook to cry about it"
It’s an all-timer of the ‘people wildly ranting about cyclists on Facebook for no reason’ genre, this picture shared anonymously to a discussion board for residents of the Essex city Southend-on-Sea…
You can probably guess where this is going just from the picture. Here we’ve got a group of four cyclists riding, perfectly legally, two-abreast on a road. If anything, their positioning is probably too close to the kerb, the rider at the back on the double yellow lines. Next to the riders is a shared-use path where there are people walking and the surface looks a bit bumpy with some cracks.
So, as per the Highway Code, these riders are of course perfectly fine to stick with the road and give the cycle route a miss. Remember, while there’s no legal requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes, the Highway Code recommends their use where it makes a journey “safer and easier”. In this case, given that this quartet are almost certainly riding faster than 20km/h (12mph) and probably a fair bit faster than that, the shared-use path with pedestrians walking, isn’t going to be the safest or easiest option.
> Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes?
Why are we sharing the picture? Well, it was anonymously posted on Facebook by a disgruntled motorist/passenger who was so incensed by the sight of road users displaying perfectly legal behaviour that they felt the need to post three ranting paragraphs… only to get shut down deliciously by the replies.
“Why do certain MAMILs think they’re too important to use the cycle path and ride two-wide along the sea front in the road instead?” the post began. “Yes the cycle path might not suit your use but if that’s where you want to ride then that’s the rules – use the cycle lane and stop blocking traffic. If you’re not a fan of the cycle path then ask the council to change it or find a new route that better suits your purpose.”
Hmmm, as we’ve already established, no, that’s not “the rules”…
Anyway, the other members of this local Facebook page couldn’t get their heads around the ranting either and the most-liked ones are, refreshingly, mic-drop corrections of the anti-cycling frothing. Some also questioned from what seat of the car that photo was taken, after all there would be a certain irony if someone on their phone behind the wheel was taking issue with road users abiding by the law… let’s have some replies…
“Imagine having zero patience and self control, then coming onto Facebook to cry about it… over three paragraphs… anonymously […] the cyclists aren’t doing anything illegal. Keep crying.”
“Sorry, but if I am cycling at 20mph along there, which my legs are capable of, then I’m cycling way too fast for the cycle lane, but also at a speed that legally you don’t need to overtake me. So, sorry but I’ll ride where it’s most appropriate. Have a great day.”
> The Highway Code for cyclists — all the rules you need to know for riding on the road explained
“There isn’t a rule that says you have to use the cycle path if you’re a cyclist. Which might be a nuisance but c’est la vie. Besides this is a 20 zone, it’s not like you’re going anywhere quickly anyway.”
We’re not sure about the nuisance bit, but the rest was enjoyable.
“They’re not actually doing anything illegal, it’s legal to ride two up in this country. Also the cycle lane is not safe for cyclists that are keen and riding at a faster speed. Motorists, pedestrians and children constantly step into it without understanding. I’ve witnessed it first hand. Also just leave them be, they’re getting fresh air and exercise. I love cars myself but motorists also need to start seeing cyclists as human beings as well. You’d soon change your tune if someone you knew had a fatal accident [collision] because of an impatient Karen like this plonker of a motorist. Pisses me off.”
7 January 2026, 09:00
It's awards season...
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.
52 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I think they're trolling me now - the story has been updated with this pic
@quiff Fair point (that was a long way back up thread!). Although as well as saying that she thought she would be safe because she was on a crossing, that comment also said "she was carelessly crossing on a red man", which is straying perilously close to introducing 'jaywalking' to the discussion.
@mdavidford yes, of course the signals are advisory etc - but I think this tangent started in reference to the victim's reported comment "I was on a crossing. I thought it was safe, you just don't expect it".
I think anyone 'looking for a serious relationship' with Torstein Træen is going to be out of luck anyway - he looks pretty attached to that lion.
Just checked Continentals own data here: https://www.continental-tires.com/tire-knowledge/tire-rim-combinations-etrto-standards/#text-f52364d480) As expected, a 28mm tire only becomes 28.8mm wide on a 21mm rim.
You know the article has gone live when Surreyrider arrives to explain why it shouldn't be on road.cc.
"ETRTO requires that 28mm (stated) tyres should measure 28mm on a 19mm internal rim width, and 30mm (stated) tyres should measure 30mm on a 21mm internal rim width. If you take these requirements to real life, you will find that the casing width on a 28mm tyre can be close to, if not identical to, a 30mm tyre of the same make/model." This sounds like BS to me. The thickest part of the tyre is not at the bead, but more than halfway up the side of the tyre. Moving the bead 2 mm (or, 1 mm each side) should move the thickest part of the tyre less than 1 mm (0.5 mm each side). So a 30mm tyre would be at least 1mm wider before installation than a 28mm tire, probably more.
In any case, though, the signalling is entirely advisory for the pedestrians, and regardless of whether or not they have a green light there is a responsibility on other road users to take due care for their safety, just as there would be if they were crossing at any other part of the road where there was no crossing.
@ROOTminus1 The BBC video doesn't show the moment the pedestrians started crossing, but at the start of the video (below) it's on red when they are halfway across, and a car has just passed through. Not conclusive, but seems likely they crossed on red. Obviously doesn't absolve the scrote on the scoot, who absconded.
@HoarseMann RE: the pedestrian, a still image isn't conclusive in this circumstance as pedestrians don't get a yellow indication. It is perfectly reasonable that they began crossing on a green man, and the incident occurred in the period when a red light is displayed at all points, to ensure no road traffic begins moving and peds in motion can complete their transit, and new peds should not begin to cross. Similarly, the peds are equally plausible to have moved into the junction on a red, just as much as the convicted e-scooter rider. Though if both parties had equally disobeyed the signalling, the rider is still more at fault for being present on an illegal vehicle.
52 thoughts on ““Why do certain MAMILs think they’re too important to use the cycle path?” asks fuming driver… only to get told to have some “patience and self control” rather than “coming on Facebook to cry about it” + more on the live blog”
Quote:
Don’t think those are cracks. Looks more like a ‘design feature’ (possibly drainage-related?).
RE Southend cyclists:
RE Southend cyclists:
Just a quick point of information: as far as I can tell, based from snooping around on google maps, the pavement to the left is just that – a pavement, not a shared use path.
There is a bi-directional cycle track on the otherside of the parking area (off to the right of the picture provided). It’s unclear if that is the cycle path the anonymous dimwit was referring to, or if they thought the pavement is a shared path. Either way, it doesn’t change the argument – the cyclists were still perfectly entitled to use the road, and it was a perfectly sensible choice to do so.
Excellent well – argued
Excellent well – argued commentary showing up the anonymous dimwit as what he is
I always suggest these people
I always suggest these people who complain about cyclists provide the stats that cyclists significantly slow down drivers.
The comparison would be how much are they delayed in their total journey time by cyclists and then also by volume of motorists ie rush hour/school drop off/pick up times/school holidays.
We all know there is a huge difference in driving times between these.
But as a cyclist, my journey times are barely 10% longer during rush hour etc.
Better cycling infrastructure = more people cycling rather than driving = less delays for anyone who HAS to drive.
It is not rocket science.
This driver is probably still
This driver is probably still hurting about the fact that Southend removed the dual carriage way race track a decade or more ago to make the seafront environment a much more pleasent place for visitors.
There is a 5 mile cycle path running the sea side of the road for the length of the seafront (it is 5 miles). It is well used by those taking a steady plod and families/less experienced cyclists. Totally unsuitable for those riding at 12mph upward.
A large section of the seafront road is 20mph; absolutely no issues for most people and as a cyclist I often got held up on that road by cars, as they manouvered in to parking bays, that activity causes the majority of “delays” on that road.
On a sunny summers day the usual speed on that section is about 5mph!
With the government’s
With the government’s announcement about the Road Safety Strategy, are they looking to scrap the “exceptional hardship” loophole for drivers reaching 12 points?
Also, stiffer sentences for KSIs or any forms of dangerous driving?
Will the police/courts look to prosecute/strip licences if the bad driving would have led to a practical test failure?
My wishlist:
My wishlist:
Yes, good point on OpSnap.
Yes, good point on OpSnap.
Government to ensure each police force has the resources required to enable the public to easily submit reports with evidence and for the force to action suitably rather than bin them.
lesterama wrote:
I’d like to see cars that don’t turn unless the indicator is used.
I see several cars with that
I see several cars with that feature fitted: the driver has to point their left forefinger out as they start to turn the wheel so it clicks the indicator as they corner.
What’s the point if currently
What’s the point if currently a flashing indicator, apparently, only means the bulb is working. The driver can choose to go in opposite direction, and if they have a priority, be immune of any wrongdoing should that led to a crash. I have had this almost happen three times last year at various roundabouts with drivers indicating a left turn, but going straight instead.
Increase totting up ban to 12
Increase totting up ban to 12 months or 24 months.
The aim being to change it from “my disabled mother is a human shield to protect me from the consequences of my offending behaviour” to “my disabled mother is the reason I should not indulge myself in offending behaviour”.
Well that would require a
Well that would require a fundamental change in how these things are treated. Literally a 180 degree turn.
Currently, everything you say that should incriminate you and increase your punishment is instead taken as mitigation against both.
Admitting you aren’t a safe driver should incur a higher penalty. Suggesting that care so little about anyone, even people who depend on you that you will happily put others at risk to save a few seconds or a few minutes should count against you.
Thats ignoring the fact that you don’t have the right to put others lives at risks over their right to travel safely. Thats the point that really pisses me off. Thats what it says when someone isn’t banned after 12 points. Your right to get to work easily is more important than everyone elses right to live.
I would love to see people suing when they are hurt or their loved ones killed when someone involved wasn’t banned who should have been. Its about the only thing that would make them take the idea of banning people seriously.
mctrials23 wrote:
Maybe sue the judges and insurance company that let the driver continue on untill the KSI?
Was it just me cringing in
Was it just me cringing in anticpation that John Barnes was going to turn up as a bonus rap in that Astana video?
Telegraph going with drink
Telegraph going with drink driving should be supported
Hirsute wrote:
Better kill off a few rustic mechanicals than kill off the quaint, delightful rural inn!
Or better – cyclists! Another pint, landlord!
On bluesky, someone pointed
On bluesky, someone pointed out the only restrictions the DT wants to see for road users is on rogue cyclists…
“Labour government trying to
“Labour government trying to kill off boozy lunches for Telegraph hacks”
Hirsute wrote:
I’m genuinely interested in who all these people are who currently are driving to rural pubs to have just one pint (and then presumably either leave or go to soft drinks) and now will just stay at home.
Really? Because you dont
Really? Because you dont sound that genuinely interested at all, and you dont sound like you ever visit that many pubs.
you dont sound like you ever
you dont sound like you ever visit that many pubs
Wow! Another Super Sense, detecting that from a distance with just a few words! Try it out on me
Typical of the Telegraph. Any
Typical of the Telegraph. Any policy change is for the worst if it can be argued that it will reduce profit for somebody somewhere. TBH it is scaremongering cobblers.
Most law abiding people drive to pubs to have meals maybe with 1 pint or a soft drink, or have soft drinks while their travelling companions have alcoholic drinks.
Soft drinks have much higher profit margins, so if more are sold, it is better for the pub.
A work contact once told me in the 90s that a 1000 litre container of cola concentrate, which was mixed with water in the pub dispensing gun, cost a few thousand pounds but generated product sales in the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Quite correct. Most law
See below. I thought of a better argument and thought I had deleted my original comment.?
Today’s Telegraph has the
Today’s Telegraph has the claim that drug drivers should be the target rather than drink drivers. To back up this stance they (mis)use a statement that more drivers die with illegal levels of drugs in their system than illegal levels of alcohol. I checked and this stat is right but as everyone is probably shouting out as they read this, drunk drivers don’t only kill themselves. When you re-run the stats for all deaths where the incident involved a drink or drug driver, drink still “wins” easily. I am sure the Torygraph know that only too well but it doesn’t suit their argument or the views of their readers I suspect.
Every time a driver opens
Every time a driver opens their mouth to talk about cyclists at least one of the following things happens, usually more.
“Sorry, but if I am cycling
“Sorry, but if I am cycling at 20mph along there, which my legs are capable of… also at a speed that legally you don’t need to overtake me.”
Exactly, legally, but we all know 20mph speed limits are, in the view of so many drivers, a leftist, woke non-sense and a war on motorists, etc., and “common sense” is to go faster to get to that next traffic light 10s quicker than the cyclist, who will then get in front and will need to be overtaken again and doing so over and over again is so much fun. Besides, using the pejorative term MAMIL when referring to male cyclists clearly indicates general antipathy towards cyclists regardless of where they ride.
https://assets.publishing
Road safety strategy here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695e2cff8832ab3a48513809/road-safety-strategy.pdf
EDIT p37 “Insuring infrastructure is safe” Oh dear, that doesn’t give me confidence: if they can’t even proof read such an important document, how committed are they?
But this is promising:
‘Theme 4
Robust enforcement to protect all road users’
First time I’ve seen references called ‘Endnotes’?
Hmm… only thing that sounds
Hmm… skim read but only thing that sounds like “infra” is “publish new ‘guidelines’ (Manual For Streets)”
Not nothing, but it’s paper… it would be so much better if this was being tied to things like funding Active Travel England and thoughts on motor traffic volume reduction (although the latter is clearly wishing for beyond-miracles).
Also the second point:
Yeah… important and we can do multiple things, but … isn’t it much, much better to focus on avoid the collisions in the first place, over patching things up after the fact?
Eburt Potter and the Triumph
Road safety strategy here
Eburt Potter and the Triumph of Hope over Experience!
wtjs wrote:
To be fair, there is a lot of good stuff in there, but as always, many a slip twixt cup and lip. There are already reports, Nick Ferrari this morning on LBC, blaming the proposed new alcohol driving limits for closing rural pubs.
I’m pretty sure the msm will be rolling out the ‘war on motorists’ meme.
The same Nick Ferrari (funny
The same Nick Ferrari (funny how people who’s names have those specific initials lean a certain way)… who complains about “chaos on the roads” whenever there is a climate protest or cycling issue?
I wonder if he can point out where the chaos is now.
eburtthebike wrote:
That’s a lot of words to basically say that, despite the fact that there is already plenty of evidence for adopting certain strategies, we are going to carry on consulting and do sweet ** apart from bring in death by dangerous cycling.
Thank you Sir Humphrey.
The quote below is from the
The quote below is from the following link and is the response to a question asking for a timetable to be set for implementing the “Road Safety Strategy”. It comes towards the end of the debate.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2026-01-08a.469.0
I can provide my hon. Friend with the assurance that we are going to do this. We will establish a new road safety board, which I will chair, to ensure that we make progress on the measures we have set out in the strategy and that we look at how soon we can act to ensure that those people see change happening.
Straight out of the Sir Humphrey play book.
My take on the debate is that Lilian Greenwood is saying all the right things but committing to absolutely nothing. About half way down the debate is a statement referring to a tragedy 13 years ago. A committment was made to change the law as a result but we are still waiting.
We will establish a new road
We will establish a new road safety board, which I will chair, to ensure that we make progress on the measures we have set out in the strategy and that we look at how soon we can act
The Road Safety Strategy is Doomed!, I Tell Ye, Doomed!!
eburtthebike wrote:
Is the wait almost over burt?
Is the wait almost over burt?…
gather feedback on taking
Theme 4
Robust enforcement to protect all road users
gather feedback on taking tougher action on those who fail to stop and report collisions, those who choose to drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT- ho, ho! You’d need to replace several generations of police officers before any of that is going to change
That’s another couple of years gone for a start- Lancashire Constabulary will consider that a victory The only way they could have spun it out for longer woud have been “set up a committee to consider beginning a review process for gathering feedback..
Below is WU13 RYU on New Years Day. It’s passed by all police vehicles going to Garstang Police Station through Catterall, except when it’s out. It was elsewhere over Christmas. MOT expired 5.9.25, first reported by me 17.10.25. It will stay ‘no MOT’ until March, or possibly far longer if the owner realises that DVLA and the police couldn’t care less whether VED is paid either, so the vehicle may as well go completely bare
introduce a new Roads Policing Innovation Programme
The only such innovation the police are interested in is stopping roads policing altogether
Theme 4
Theme 4
Robust enforcement to protect all road users
It’s now over 3 weeks since the photo shown below. It’s 2 weeks since the Garstang Neighbourhood Policing Team were given the full details of WU13 RYT and the resident PC said he was going there that day. It’s over 3 months since the vehicle was first reported to the police. The police are still condoning the daily criminal offence of driving the car without MOT for 4 1/2 months
So much for robust enforcement!
Hmm, a bit wishy-washy.
Hmm, a bit wishy-washy.
Hmm, a bit wishy-washy
Hmm, a bit wishy-washy
That’s like calling Trump ‘a bit daft’. DfT and the police have no intention of any of this being enforced, even if it did make into statute by 2050
gather feedback on introducing penalty points for failure to wear a seat belt
More hilarity, although LancsRoz did fine PM Sunak for not wearing a rear seatbelt during an ‘election broadcast’. Below is PO64 AUR– no VED for over 10 years- no MOT either, but there may be a dodge for that. Passenger not wearing seatbelt- observed and reported by me, no response from the police. PCC says ‘it’s an operational decision of the police’
Yes, probably a dodge for
Yes, probably a dodge for that, either a) or f) I would think…
Except that it’s not ‘a’, as
Except that it’s not ‘a’, as that would apply to the complete class of those John Deere runabouts and I’ve seen one of them parked which had VED and MOT; and if they’ve got it under ‘f’ they’re lying- it’s used to go to the shops in Garstang at least occasionally. It was taxed for the first year
Partly for the minute number of people who are interested, but mostly because I use links to some topics in my ceaseless battle with the DarkSide of The Force, here is my last view of PO64 AUR on 14.8.25 – same girl passenger, same 10 years absence of VED just like today, same absence of seatbelt, same absence of response from the police. The driver doesn’t wear a seatbelt either. Both of them highly identifiable due to extensive hideous tattoos
You would expect that even
You would expect that even the hopelessly inept DVLA would have been able to work out a system for displaying ‘MOT Exempt’ on their vehicle page, since the first presentation of the V112 form at the Post Office is said to lead to the form being ‘processed’ by the PO, which means the information must be received and approved by DVLA. This omission crops up most often with taxis- there’s no means of knowing for a member of the public whether a taxi is legal when DVLA and DVSA both declare an absence of MOT.
the government will establish a new Road Safety Board, chaired by the Minister for
Local Transport
Oh dear! That’s Lilian Greenwood, the one who was informed 7 months ago by my MP about BF64 TGE– the vehicle with no VED for over 4 years (admittedly not really remarkable for the VED-Evader’s paradise, Lancashire, but one where I know the address and the company Lux Developments and Electrical is listed at Companies House and runs a big page on Facebook)- back in June. Her response was ‘DVLA makes VED easy to pay and difficult to avoid’ and nothing else. The Road Safety Board is Doomed!
If you drink, don’t drive!
If you drink, don’t drive! should be the official message. People over the age of 65 should obtain a certificate of fitness from their GP every 3 years. People over the age of 70 should take both theory and practice tests every 3 years.
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
Given that younger drivers are far more likely to be involved in crashes, shouldn’t all this apply to them, rather than us oldies?
eburtthebike wrote:
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The higher crash rate among young drivers is caused by factors such as lack of experience and excessive risk-taking (the latter particularly applies to male drivers).
The higher crash rate amongst older drivers is due to deteriorating eyesight and longer reaction times.
I’m fine with tackling both but they’re fundamentally not the same.
Eton Rifle wrote:
A wonderful opportunity to bridge the generational disconnect – if you are under 21 or over 70 you must pair up with someone in the opposite category to jointly operate a motor vehicle, getting the best of both, surely?
“jointly operate”
“jointly operate”
I’ve seen that, one sits on the floor & the other one steers.
Wheel chairs x mobility
Wheel chairs x mobility scooters may be allowed to use cycle lanes. Why not as people walk their dogs on them ?
Coolkitty wrote:
Why not? Because people walk their dogs in them.
Rule H2
Rule H2
Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.