Campaigners say Labour’s new homes plan “shouldn’t be granted” without cycling measures; Pro cyclist kicked off race for racist gesture; National road safety group slammed for “dangerous” mandatory bike helmet poll; Crocodile Ewan + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Live coverage of Caleb Ewan and Lotto Dstny’s “mutual agreement”
Im not sure they parted as friends https://t.co/kL5zLpqXii pic.twitter.com/Xd7FvLuQwa
— Anna Mac 👑🪱 🌈🖤 (@AnnamacB) October 11, 2023
Tanfield brothers auction off skinsuit signed by Team GB members for charity
🌟Charity Auction🌟
To raise money for @YorkshireAirAmb and @yorkshirecancer we are auctioning off a skinsuit signed by the GB Cycling TeamTo be in with a chance of winning, donate on our justgiving page https://t.co/oBc2b1xrSZ – the highest donation will win!
Good luck 🚲 pic.twitter.com/9kCEyQKRFw— Charlie Tanfield (@CharlieTanfield) October 10, 2023
Ahead of their second annual charity sportive in the North York Moors, British racing brothers Harry and Charlie Tanfield are auctioning off a skinsuit signed by members of the Team GB squad to raise money for Yorkshire Cancer Research and Yorkshire Air Ambulance.
The highest donation will win the scrawled-over skinsuit (I wonder if pen marks will make it more aero?), with all the money raised being split evenly between the two charities.
The Tanfield brothers are both ambassadors for Yorkshire Cancer Research, following the passing of their mother in 2019, while their father required the services of Yorkshire Air Ambulance after a “life-changing” fall while riding his bike in 2016.
You can donate to both charities, and try to win the signed Team GB skinsuit, at the sportive’s Just Giving page.
Intermarché-Circus-Wanty update statement to include Gerben Thijssen, confirming that Belgian rider has also been withdrawn from Tour of Guangxi
After belatedly remembering that it takes two to post an offensive social media photo, Intermarché-Circus-Wanty have updated their statement to confirm that Belgian sprinter Gerben Thijssen – whose Instagram account hosted Madis Mihkels’ racist gesture – has also been withdrawn from the Tour of Guangxi, pending further “necessary disciplinary steps”.
Updated statement on Madis Mihkels and Gerben Thijssen. https://t.co/MhNnkfIBbl pic.twitter.com/End82rGbtD
— Intermarché-Circus-Wanty (@IntermarcheCW) October 11, 2023
Better late than never, I suppose…
Pro cyclist withdrawn from race in China after posting racist gesture on social media
Intermarché-Circus-Wanty have withdrawn their rider Madis Mihkels from the Tour of Guangxi, which starts tomorrow in the south of China, after a photo showing the Estonian making a racist gesture was posted on social media by teammate Gerben Thijsen.
The 20-year-old neo-pro, who took his first professional win at the Tour of Germany in August, made a crude, offensive gesture with his eyes as part of an Instagram story on Thijsen’s account, taken in Beihai, where the six-stage race begins tomorrow, images of which are circulating on social media.
**Warning: The following material contains a racist, offensive gesture**
In a statement released this morning, Intermarché-Circus-Wanty say they have pulled Mihkels out of the race and “necessary disciplinary steps” will be taken. However, there was no mention of Thijssen in the statement, though the 25-year-old Belgian’s Instagram story and account has since been removed.
“We sincerely regret the behaviour of our rider Madis Mihkels and the image shown on the social media,” the team said.
“We would like to apologise to the Chinese people and fans, to the government of Guangxi, to the Chinese Cycling Association, and all parties involved in the organization of Tour of Guangxi for the image given of our sport.
“For ever, our team Intermarché-Circus-Wanty, composed of more than 15 nationalities in our project, and our partners always defend firmly equal opportunities and fight daily against racism.
“We will withdraw Madis Mihkels from the race and take necessary disciplinary steps to close this incident.”
“If all you’re pushing is bike helmets and hi-vis, you’re not really interested in the safety of the most vulnerable road users”: National road safety group accused of “dangerous framing” over mandatory helmet poll
A national road safety organisation has become the subject of scathing criticism from cyclists for the third time in two weeks, for conducting an online poll on whether the use of cycle helmets should be mandatory, with social media users accusing the group of framing the question in a “dangerous” manner and ignoring the primary cause for cycling injuries and fatalities on the UK’s roads.
Road Safety GB, the national road safety organisation that is run in association with THINK! and representatives from groups across the UK, including local government road safety teams, was criticised at the end of September for sharing a “victim-blaming” campaign from the Bedfordshire Road Safety Partnership.
> Road safety organisation accused of “victim-blaming” over cycling helmet campaign
The organisation said that they hope the campaign, which urges cyclists to wear helmets, would make helmet wearing the “norm” like in Australia – where helmets have been mandatory for over 30 years, yet where injuries for cyclists have increased, where fines for not wearing a helmet are handed out “aggressively and disproportionately”, where cyclists believe that riding a bike is “discouraged”, and where recent studies have found that cyclists wearing helmets are viewed by drivers as “less human”…
Ah, great comparison.
> Conservative MP cites “safety” and attempts to reignite cyclist helmet debate
Undeterred by the backlash to that particular campaign, Road Safety GB has again come under fire this week for publishing on its website an opinion piece by Conservative MP for Rugby, Mark Pawsey, who has campaigned for making wearing a helmet while cycling a legal requirement, despite his on government insisting that it has “no intention” of introducing such a law.
And now, Road Safety GB is conducting a poll with the single question: “Should the usage of cycle helmets be mandatory?”, with respondents allowed to choose from three answers, Yes, No, and Not Sure (a box in which respondents can expand on their choice is optional).
Have your say 🗣️
Our latest reader survey asks whether the use of cycle helmets should be mandatory.
Vote here 👇https://t.co/k6byRXoFO2#RSGB pic.twitter.com/cx9slUFzTQ
— Road Safety GB (@Road_Safety_GB) October 10, 2023
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the poll – described as a “clickbait survey” by one social media user – has only added to the din of disapproval emanating from the cycling world in response to Road Safety GB’s stance on, ahem, road safety issues in GB.
“So you’re basically asking for an opinion rather than citing any scientific or statistical reason as to why helmets may make the roads safer for cyclists who may potentially sustain a head injury. Jeez, who thought this up?” asked cycling lawyer Rory McCarron on X/Twitter.
Referring to the group’s “interesting” decision to include a photo of a child cycling on a country road alongside the poll, Eric said: “Do you really think that helmet will do a better job than a protected bike lane when a speeding SUV comes over the horizon?
“If all you’re pushing is bike helmets and hi-vis, you’re not really interested in the safety of the most vulnerable road users.”
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
“The framing of your question is dangerous as it doesn’t even venture to name the main reason for cyclist fatalities,” added Bike and Bow.
“I’ll give a hint: Comes with four seats and a steering wheel.”
“I thought you were an organisation interested in and charged with helping to make our roads safer?” asked Jonathan. “What does wearing a cycle helmet, or not, have to do with road safety? Wearing a cycle helmet does not make our roads any safer and you should know this! Strange indeed!”
“Following this reasoning we should extend this to people who drive as even with modern safety devices you are more likely to have a head injury in a motor vehicle,” says Gary. “Also with the rate of spinal injuries in motor vehicles I’d suggest adding a neck brace.”
Dr Robert Davis, the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, also responded to the poll by arguing that Road Safety GB shows “how so much of the ‘road safety’ industry (set up by auto industry and government committed to more and more motor traffic 100 years ago) are part of the problem.”
Davis also said that these organisations, “representing hundreds of ‘Road Safety Officers’ paid for by us in local government”, are “either failing to address road danger at source or exacerbating it, with non-evidence-based victim blaming red herrings thrown in”.
Regardless of the outcome of Road Safety GB’s poll, such a change in cycling legislation appears unlikely for the foreseeable future, with the government admitting in December that the matter had been considered “at length” during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, with the Department for Transport holding “no intention” to making cycle helmets mandatory.
But that doesn’t seem to ever stop some ‘road safety’ groups, does it?
“Planning permission shouldn’t be granted without active travel elements designed in”: Cycling campaigners call for Labour to “demonstrate bravery” by making new homes plan active travel-focused, ditching “roads-only network” and reliance on cars
Sir Keir Starmer’s promise to build the “next generation” of new towns, and 1.5 million homes, as part of a “decade of renewal under Labour”, must be designed and implemented alongside “transport options fit for the future”, which will allow people living in these new homes to cycle, walk, or use public transport easily, Cycling UK says.
Yesterday at the Labour party conference, the glitter-covered leader of the opposition pledged to accelerate building on unused urban land to create a swathe of new towns close to “good jobs and infrastructure”, similar to those built by the Labour government in the wake of World War Two.
Starmer also promised to build 1.5 million new homes during the five years of what he hopes will be the next Labour-dominated parliament.
However, Cycling UK has called on the Labour leader to ditch the “roads-only network” typical of recent large-scale housing developments and to “demonstrate bravery” by setting out a transport plan that gives people “real opportunities” to walk and cycle short journeys, ending the reliance on cars.
“Labour has promised a decade of national renewal, including building 1.5 million new homes,” Sarah McMonagle, director of external affairs at Cycling UK, said in a statement following Starmer’s speech.
“These new neighbourhoods will also need transport options fit for the future, not the roads-only network that typifies so many recent large housing developments, leaving people with no option but to rely on cars.
“These new homes must have excellent links to public transport, be close to the services people need, and designed and planned so that walking or cycling for short journeys are obvious, safe, and attractive options for most people. Planning permission shouldn’t be granted without these elements designed in.”
She continued: “But we needed to hear more from [Shadow Transport Secretary] Louise Haigh about Labour’s long-term plans for transport – in particular, taking into account the needs of people and families who don’t have access to a car.
“Keir Starmer mentioned the need for bravery, and we now need Labour to demonstrate that bravery by setting out the party’s plans for a transport future that gives more people real opportunities to walk or cycle short journeys. That’s a far better way to tackle the cost-of-living and climate crises, but also to massively improve our health, wealth, and well-being.”
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.
48 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
So ' Priority of Road Users' and 1.5 metre clearance at 30mph has been been reduced to 'sharing'? NCN route 2 here in South Hams is an absolute scream with white vans, tractors and total idiots who refuse,or are totally incapable,to reverse on high Devon banked lanes ...means you have to get off and pedal back to a passing place....could be at that all day...so I don't bother...
@MaxiMinimalist Agreed. The big problem I see now is today's parents grew up being driven to their schools, and therefore, see private motor vehicles as the only viable form of transport. The vast majority of UK infant and primary schools have a catchment area that is within easy walking distance from home to school. Yet, the traffic caused by pupils being driven to/from school is astonishing. Banishing the "School Run" should be a priority for all schools.
When I was a kid (that was during the previous millenium when phones were connected to a plug in the wall), I rode my bicycle to school, music academy, sport grounds, parties even during the winter. The government didn't have to spend, correct that, didn't have to think of spending massive amounts of money to build cycling specific infrastructures. Over the past 3 or 4 decades, cars have grown bigger, taller, safer (for their drivers) and faster. Meanwhile, motorists have become abusive, aggressive, hypersensitive to people moving on two wheels, aka cyclists. Spending billions upon billions on new infrastructure won't address the crux of the matter. Sadly.
Obree had some actual talent in his legs though, in addition to his bike/aero engineering talent.
Малко като опит за доказване е излязло... Никой няма нужда от толкова голям въртящ момент и мощност на шосеен велосипед с тънки гуми, които дори трудно ще предават тази мощност върху пътя. А ако има и ограничение от 25 км/час е още по-безмислено.
Not sure how informative that is. I imagine for all most of us know it could be Europe's only 'volumetric modular building'. 🤷♂️
Yes, but they're copying the adults of today...
Indeed - but alas I think this is an effective argument for very few folks indeed. As for push-back, what else could we expect *? I think there are ways of selling this but we're far more likely to see headlines about the problems, while the successes are relegated to footnotes, because at that point it just works and there's nothing to see... * Given that this time there aren't politicians being persuaded to overlook thousands of deaths and the demolition of property by the billions from the motoring trades (and the excitement of being able to drive out with the bright things for a party at a roadhouse). Nor are we as tolerant of "accidents". (And noting that publicity about the cases of a handful of people killed by cyclists continues to reach the media; deaths related to motor vehicles not so much).
That rather ignores that the children of today are the adults of tomorrow.
@belugabob Arguably it's easier this way - we don't actually need to do anything to the streets except stop drivers driving down every scrap of tarmac. Where I live, a few well-placed bollards would make walking/cycling/scooting the quicker option and safer, while maintaining 100% vehicular access - just not allowing through routes in every direction.
48 thoughts on “Campaigners say Labour’s new homes plan “shouldn’t be granted” without cycling measures; Pro cyclist kicked off race for racist gesture; National road safety group slammed for “dangerous” mandatory bike helmet poll; Crocodile Ewan + more on the live blog”
Re Labour’s new towns – given
Re Labour’s new towns – given that Starmer essentially endorsed 15 minute neighbourhoods in his speech, there are grounds for optimism
The problem is that if Labour
The problem is that if Labour go too hard on these things before the election there is a real problem with the vast number of idiots in this country will forget completely about the last 13 years of shit show under the Tories and vote for them again because they don’t want ULEZ and these 15 minutes neighbourhood. Won’t something think of the poor suffering motorist. “Its OK, the Tories hear you, we will make sure big bike loses their grip on the country’s infrastructure.”
.
.
‘Idiot’ = ‘someone who dares to have a different opinion to my lefty one’.
.
Are you Trendy in disguise?
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
“Idiot” – meaning someone that has been misled by right-wing mainstream media (and maybe a bunch of right-wing conspiracy focussed media too) into not understanding what a “15 minute” neighbourhood entails.
I can understand non-idiots wanting to push the motor agenda due to lack of critical thinking and understanding of counter-intuitive concepts such as induced demands, but why on earth would people want to always have facilities more than a 15 minute journey away? How does that even work – if you live next door to a doctor’s surgery, would you then insist on attending one that’s further away, or would you go for demolishing all residences within that 15 minute boundary?
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Eejit – someone who trawls The Daily Eejit for potted bald opinions ranted out by the swivel-eyed tightrighty ex public school journo-yob then regurgitates them like a gone-off meaty pie as their own. Which particular Ejit-rag is your, er, choice? 🙂
I don’t think labour need to
I don’t think labour need to say anything. Gear Change is still a DfT policy document and Active Travel England is a statutory consultee for these developments.
Active Travel England to be consulted on all large planning applications – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
If Labour want to say anything they just say they will adopt current Tory active travel policies.
I think you’re overestimating
I think you’re overestimating the number of people who reject ULEZ – most vehicles (more than 9 out of 10) are compliant. Granted in a borough.constituency with a tiny majority it may play a role but generally there is a loud shouty minority in my experience (although I don’t doubt that there are inconveniences attached to the scheme).
Unfortunately the Media
Unfortunately the Media sensationalism around Anti-ULEZ claims they are a violation of our freedom and must be stopped. They are an enemy to all along side 20mph zones, LTNs and speed limits in general, after all…
New towns could be an
New towns could be an opportunity to build something exceptionally good on a large scale. There are plenty engineers, architects and planners who’d love to do it. I hope they’ll be given the chance but…
[replying to myself…] there
[replying to myself…] there does also need to be a big push on regenerating existing urban cores too, with lots more housing and active travel amenability. Our existing-but-struggling town and city centres are well-suited to being attractive 15 minute neighbourhoods – but there needs to be a concerted effort to repurpose and revitalise them.
Exactly. Before building new,
Exactly. Before building new, focus on regenerating what is already there in disrepair.
I don’t want to offend anyone from Milton Keynes but it’s not to my liking!
And – the difficult point –
And – the difficult point – choosing not to drive some trips must be relatively attractive compared to driving them.
Milton Keynes is the example (also Stevenage). The cycling infra certainly isn’t perfect at all but would still be considered “good” for much of the UK (even places that have some…) BUT the town was designed to be superbly convenient to drive.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
I’m a firm believer that we’d have to get really lucky to have a designer or design team create something better than mediocre… at the risk of creating more Le Corbusier style atrocities.
We’ve known for at least thousands of years how to build great walkable places, mostly organically with some ground rules, as settlements became villages, then towns, then cities, and buildings got repurposed or replaced as needs changed.
andystow wrote:
There’s the name for the new towns design competition: “come and help us design the UK’s next Atro-cities!”
quiff wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywaBOMvYLI
I hear what they are saying,
I hear what they are saying, but the same could be said for a lot of things a bit more important than active travel. There are far too many large housing estate projects being built in the last decade that have next to zero local infrastructure in the way of schools, shops, doctors surgeries. Getting about is great to go other places but most of these new housing projects should have amenities within walking distance first and foremost.
Active travel is vital.
Active travel is vital.
It’s funny how people on
It’s funny how people on these developments moan that there are no amenities and young people are bored but so many are against the 15-minute city/town idea.
Smoggysteve wrote:
Two sides of the same coin. Not either/or – both!
Given than cycling is a bit like super efficient walking (same effort, much faster and/or further – plus much easier to carry stuff) AND that it neatly bridges the kind of gaps that you get in a decent public transport system (yeah, we don’t all have one…) adding in first class support for cycling (not just “it’s … possible” or “just use the path”) is rather important in addition to making places more human-scaled.
Plus – if you provide (properly) for cycling you’ve provided for wheelchair users, many other mobility vehicles, people with other limits to their mobility, safer travel for children, it’s much safer for the partially sighted etc. Active travel shouldn’t be “…and those less able can just drive / call taxis / wait in hope for a community bus”.
Old faves: who else benefits from decent cycle infra, inclusive cycling.
Maybe CyclingUK could give
Maybe CyclingUK could give some examples of where this hasn’t been happening already?
Every major housing development I’m aware of locally, and its at least 10,000 plus new homes across multiple developments, has had active travel consideration as a planning condition and developers wouldnt get planning permission without it, because it would go against the local planning strategies at the very least, if not central government policy too.
Now whether whats delivered is much use is a wholly different question,to stating active travel is an element that isn’t covered currently.
Developers will generally do
Developers will generally do the least possible to get permission (and sometimes actually deliver less than that). It’s not entirely their fault though: it’s also not uncommon to see cycle lanes or decent pavements on new estates leading to an existing main road which is entirely unsuitable for walking or cycling…
Exactly this. Councils pass
Exactly this. Councils pass the buck. Developers may see “hurdles to clear” rather than “things which could add value to us”. Especially if they’ve been granted a nice site in the middle of nowhere, with no plans (or no immediate plans, or coherent ones) to have active travel infra to connect to.
Likely to remain this way for some time. OTOH it’s not a given that it should always be this way. Developers do what is in their financial interest. (Sometimes applicable to councils too e.g. things not just in the councillors’ financial interest!) In NL you sometimes see cycle infra go in ahead of the main development. Like, y’know, roads.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
“Sometimes”?
Same as with affordable or social housing, or green space or playgrounds, developers will say whatever it takes to get their planning permission approved and then once they;’ve dug everything up and started building – so its essentially irreversible – they will announce that unless these ‘social’ conditions are removed then they’ll have to walk away and leave the site for now…
brooksby wrote:
Counter example: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2023/sep/27/london-apartment-block-that-deviates-from-plans-must-be-torn-down-says-council
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m afraid that’s a bit of a “Man bites Squirrel” situation, peter.
It’s only in the news because it is so very unusual…
brooksby wrote:
Absolutely – that’s why I noticed it in the first place. I wish more councils were willing to flex their power against piss-taking developers.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Guess who can afford the better consultancy and legal advice….
hawkinspeter wrote:
Wait – your name is Peter? I though Speter was a small town in England and you were a hawk – hence the squirrel images…..
HoldingOn wrote:
That’s absurd. How could a hawk use a computer?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I need to go back through some conversations – the context has definitely changed.
HoldingOn wrote:
But your name is still “Gon”, right?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I thought it was “Hold” from Gon, a small island off the north east coast.
mark1a wrote:
Plot twist – its actually No from Gnidloh (the G is silent)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Those cases are very rare – although so is the scale of the breach. In most cases, it’ll be smaller things that councils can’t or won’t pick a fight over. That one’s also in London, where (often better-resourced) councils will occasionally face down developers in court (see Islington’s Parkhurst Road case, which led to national policy on affordable housing being changed http://www.islingtoncitizen.co.uk/2018/04/30/islington-wins-landmark-court-battle-affordable-homes).
Which ultimately is a
Which ultimately is a different issue
Come to Harrogate and you’ll
Come to Harrogate and you’ll see that there is NO useful active travel provision at ANY of the recent housing developments.
All we get is a token shared use path to nowhere.
The local authority is totally failing to make worthwhile cycle provision a condition of planning permission.
Useful is subjective though,
Useful is subjective though, what you or I might think is useful is rarely what’s delivered, but were those housing developments subject to any planning conditions involving active travel?
stonojnr wrote:
I bet you don’t live in Shropshire.
Active travel is anathema to developers and council planners, and councillors* too. Shropshire council can’t even be arsed to try to make kids getting to school safer, never mind grown-ups travelling to work!
* though this is slowly changing, as the Tory puppets who’ve run it so badly for decades are gradually being replaced by people who seem to actually seem to care, which is a very welcome change.
No I don’t, but as I said all
No I don’t, but as I said all the housing developments locally near me, alot in majority Tory held council areas, have had active travel considerations enforced as planning constraints on those sites being developed, which were contingent on gaining planning permission.
Here’s an example https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/asset-library/imported/2020-01-30-s106-ipswich-garden-suburb-henley-gate-16-00608-out-part-5.pdf
Apparently the picture in the
Apparently the picture in the DSM story is of Jacobs Bush. Looks like a cyclist to me.
A lot of recent arrivals at
A lot of recent arrivals at Cycling UK are linked to CPRE. No organisation has done more to create the housing crisis than CPRE – hope the Cycling UK trustees aren’t going to fall into that trap
There’s quite a Brit
There’s quite a Brit production line at DSM – Lewis Askey (still a junior) finished second at Paris Tours last weekend after a 40km mostly solo effort. Even had a French teammate riding on the front to form a break which stayed away once he was caught.
kil0ran wrote:
Yes and I will remember Onley going coming to the fore when he went toe to toe with Vingegaard last year at the CRO race and so nearly coming out on top.
Good news Lads, Kier sid
Good news Peeps , Kier sid Labour are going to Build 17million and six hundredy thousand and 876 houses if they win. CAST IRON GURANTEE. Gets ma vote. His da was a toolmaker. He knows whats hes takin aboot.
I wouldn’t know if you can
I wouldn’t know if you can buy speed anymore but I do get it on prescription from the NHS
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Trying to understand that… so … do you just sell or not at random, or rigidly stick to a particular decision making process (perhaps stringent background checks like “they actually have the money and aren’t a narc”) ?
I don’t know where you got
I don’t know where you got the idea I was selling anything.
It was just a joke about my ADHD meds.
Did the Road Safety GB poll,
I did the Road Safety GB poll, no of course, but they have a text box where you can tell them why you voted that way, so I did:
“Because everywhere it’s been tried it has been a public health disaster, with an increase in risk and a reduction in the number of cyclists. Cycle helmets do not reduce the risk of death, and if anything, they increase it. Have you informed people of these facts before they vote? If not, this poll has no validity at all: none, zero, zilch, so please don’t present it as such.”
Just looked that Pawsey’s article and he’s getting a roasting in the comments https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/opinion-cycle-helmets-should-be-mandatory-particularly-for-children/