[brooksby]

[quote]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering wants a law change so cyclists are prosecuted for the offence of using a phone, in the same way that car drivers are.

…

Lady McIntosh questioned why Rule 149 of the code, requiring motorists to “exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times” and banning use of a mobile phone while driving, did not apply to cyclists and other road users.

To illustrate her point, she said she had recently been walking to the Houses of Parliament and as she was crossing the road, she suddenly became aware of a cyclist travelling towards her using a mobile phone, “one hand bicycling, one hand on the mobile phone, on the wrong side of the road”.

She added: “I wasn’t clear whether he was going to stop or not.”

[/quote]

Ahhhh – legislation based on anecdata 😉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61018584

Topic

[AlsoSomniloquism]

With a name like Rockhopper,

With a name like Rockhopper, I suspect your “out on your bike” is on trails* and well away from roads so you don’t experience them apart from as a car driver. Hence you having to swerve across the road into the paths of oncoming vehicles because you were just approaching acyclist without thinking about giving room etc. 

I’m also judging this because one of your “against cycling” was on a NMOTD claiming the cyclist moved out deliberately into the path of the vehicle over taking without you even noticing the van parked on the road the cyclist needed to move out to overtake. 

Assuming the two instances you quoted were real, it sounded like a similar manouvre linked in the comments on yesterdays blog. Pretty much all apportioned the lions share of the blame to the cyclist, however for a driver bragging about seeing the cyclist ahead, and being ready, he didn’t seem to have planned to slow down so he could pass the cyclist safely and with room if the swerve didn’t happen. 

* And I’m not having ago at MTB here, just that daily commuting gives a greater understanding of road dangers just as I would be quite crap on understanding the best and safest way around trails.

[wycombewheeler]

ktache wrote:

There was a bit in the graun yesterday on the new electric hummer, four and a half tons.

Are us tons different to our tons?

us Ton = 907 kg, as opposed to 1000kg, so the 4.5tons is just over 4 tonnes

[hawkinspeter]

ktache wrote:

Small, light and more efficient cars are just not wanted anymore, or so it seems.

Because of “range anxiety” car owners seem to want 2-300 mile range, or that is what the car company seem to sell them.  That means transporting huge weight of batteries meaning more weight which then needs more batteries.  When most journeys are only a few miles, and even 50 miles would be a huge amount to drive on a daily basis.  Perhaps removable battery packs for that very rare occasion that the really need the range would work.

I think it might be in Singapore, they did an emoped scheme that you never charged the battery, when getting flat you’d visit a hub remove the old battery and pick up a fully charged one, shove it in and away you went.  Negating the problems of charging in apartment complexes.

That kind of thing works great in cities where people are doing lots of short journeys (e.g. pizza deliveries). There’s an advantage to having smaller nimble vehicles as they don’t need so much juice and thus the battery can be small enough to make it easy enough to swap out.

Just had a quick search and there’s e-scooters available with removable batteries and 150km range. Considering that they cost a lot less than a car, I can see them becoming popular (I read somewhere that they’re becoming very popular in India).

[lonpfrb]

ktache wrote:

ktache wrote:

; Perhaps removable battery packs for that very rare occasion that the really need the range would work.

Honda of Japan have been working on a standard battery spec for the interchangeable value that you mentioned.

As you say, range anxiety and mass disappear if you can just swap in a fully charged standard battery, and go.

[chrisonabike]

None because their other bike

None because their other bike is also a car – and motorists don’t kill people, they’re throwing themselves into the road. (Sorry, I just love that clip).

[Hirsute]

Why would you swerve across
Why would you swerve across the road into oncoming traffic? How is that being responsible?

[brooksby]

How many motorists have you

How many motorists have you endangered or killed with your poor cycling, rockhopper?

[Rockhopper229]

Oh no. Some one has a
Oh no. Some one has a different point of view to me. Can’t have that can we!!!

[Rendel Harris]

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Rockhopper229 wrote:

I am definitely not against cycling but get fed up with the car drivers are always at fault angle from a lot on here. When I am out on my bike I am just as much responsible for my safety as others on the road. If we all took that view things would be so much better for all. I have recently had 2 instances where I have had to swerve accross the road due to idiot cyclists with me nearly going into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Cyclists can be just as bigger idiots as everyone else but you wouldn’t think that from some comments on here. I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

18 anti-cyclist posts and counting…

 

[Sniffer]

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Rockhopper229 wrote:

I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

No, it is pro-cycling.  Surprised?

[Rockhopper229]

I am definitely not against
I am definitely not against cycling but get fed up with the car drivers are always at fault angle from a lot on here. When I am out on my bike I am just as much responsible for my safety as others on the road. If we all took that view things would be so much better for all. I have recently had 2 instances where I have had to swerve accross the road due to idiot cyclists with me nearly going into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Cyclists can be just as bigger idiots as everyone else but you wouldn’t think that from some comments on here. I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

[Sriracha]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

with electic cars – there’s a major opportunity to reduce size

That’s what I love about you hawkinspeter, you come up with some corkers. And such a dry delivery too; [I]smaller[/i] cars – as if!
? ?

[Rendel Harris]

This x1000.

This x1000.

[Adam Sutton]

IMHO it’s pretty stupid using
IMHO it’s pretty stupid using a phone while cycling. Having had to venture into the office again though, I’d rather see phones banned on public transport. Jesus wept, why people have to spend an hour journey on a train talking shit to someone on the phone is beyond me. I’m 42 and wanna sleep dammit!

[chrisonabike]

Interesting.  I think you’re

Interesting.  I think you’re right – who’s going to buy a car that “only” does 100 miles when I can sell you one that won’t leave you on the hard shoulder… (Yeah, what was that average journey distance / weekly mileage again?)  It’s the normal up-selling via fear / anxiety mostly.

The removable battery idea – if only we had light enough ones – would seem to have a lot going for it.  Mentally it’s similar to the present – we’re used to checking the dial, going to a central location, waiting a couple of minutes and then driving off again.  As expected charging arrangements turn out to be the hard part for electric cars. It’s not the technology, it’s the logistics.

[Author]

Replies