If Frosties did cycling jerseys — pro team’s tiger stripes set a new standard for garish cycling kits; “The obsession with MGIF is just bizarre”; Last Christmas I gave you…a £250 sculpture made of bike chains; Chopper Everesting + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
A Christmas Everesting: Cyclists riding Raleigh Choppers aiming to hill repeat their way to 8,848m... dressed in Santa suits
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town… and he’s just done a three-day Everesting challenge on a Raleigh Chopper, riding 211km in the pissing rain, so just accept what’s he’s got you with a smile and a thank you, you ungrateful little….
Day one done ✅ It started soggy but we didn’t let that stop us! 🙌 Finished the day with just over 2000m of elevation in the bag…only 6848m to go until we reach the top of Everest! 😳Back at it tomorrow – please donate to help kids with cancer across the UK – thank you- Santa’s… pic.twitter.com/mf0HJnDY1a
— Cyclists Fighting Cancer (@CyclistsvCancer) December 19, 2023
The Cyclists Fighting Cancer team are back raising money for a great cause, “helping getting more children living with cancer to get pedalling and conquer their own mountain”. The guys have set a £1,000 target for this Everesting challenge and are more than halfway there… there can be no doubt they’ve picked a proper epic effort worthy of support either.
Three days, three Santa suits, three Raleigh Choppers, 211km and hill repeats until 8,848m is ticked off. Those roast potatoes and pigs in blankets will be well-earned…
Day one yesterday saw the first 2,000m on the board… “It started soggy but we didn’t let that stop us!” the team explained. “Finished the day with just over 2,000m of elevation in the bag…only 6,848m to go until we reach the top of Everest. Back at it tomorrow — please donate to help kids with cancer across the UK — thank you!”
The challenge comes after a 12-year hiatus for the CFC team, who in 2011 completed a coast to coast ride from Liverpool to Grimsby over two days. 160 miles, in Santa costumes of course… oh, and including a cheeky time trial up Snake Pass, because why not?
Cyclists Fighting Cancer has provided over 9,500 new bikes and specially adapted trikes to children living with cancer and their families throughout the UK since the charity began in 2005.
Check out the team’s Just Giving page here for more information…
Vuelta unleashes savage route packed with climbing
A TT to start, a TT to finish, and in between basically all up or down…
🇪🇸 2024 VUELTA A ESPAÑA (17/8 – 8/9) | #LaVuelta24
🖼️ All stage profiles in 1 pic pic.twitter.com/3VnaBJIwUx
— ammattipyöräily (@ammattipyoraily) December 19, 2023
Or in a simpler format for us to understand…
Breaking news!
The route of the 2024 @lavuelta has been revealed and this is the profile of the penultimate stage, between Villarcayo and Picon Blanco! pic.twitter.com/9OJq250q3a
— Soudal Quick-Step Pro Cycling Team (@soudalquickstep) December 19, 2023
Starting in Lisbon with a short TT, the sprinters brave enough (or simply disliked by their teams enough to be selected for this one) will get a couple of opportunities at stage victory in the opening days, but might as well pack up and head home after week one.
There’s a summit finish on stage four which sets the tone, one of NINE on next year’s route, including a trip to Lagos de Covadonga in week three and an abysmally spiky sufferfest on the final stage, featuring seven climbs. Ironically, the climbing chaos ends with a pan-flat 22km TT in Madrid…
😍 El mapa de #LaVuelta24 😍
😍 Here’s the official route of #LaVuelta24! 😍 pic.twitter.com/563vAPzVUe
— La Vuelta (@lavuelta) December 19, 2023
"The obsession with must get in front is just bizarre": Cyclists call for more patience on the roads when drivers overtake
The notorious must get in front (MGIF) overtake is one well-known to anyone who’s ridden a bike on the road for even a short length of time. We’re talking about the overtake from another road user displaying a level of impatience that’ll make you laugh, cry, or just give a worn-down shake of your head, apathetic at its frequency.
The MGIF overtake is normally accompanied by the road user responsible sitting at a traffic light or road junction just seconds later while the cyclist freewheels up behind, begging the question — why? Why bother? Why bother rushing an overtake only to ‘save’ a couple of seconds? I say ‘save’ in quotes because much of the time you’ll end up at the exact same spot, at the exact same time as you would have done without the impatient overtake.
There’s the context you probably already knew if you’re a regular here. A MGIF overtake will often be accompanied by the inevitable aborted pass when the perpetrator realises they can’t actually pull it off safely. Ahem…
The obsession with Must Get In Front is just bizarre, this person started an overtake on a speed bump and then had to abandon it because.
1. They didn’t pay attention to how long the cargobike is
2. They didn’t pay attention to the bikes width
3. I was indicating to turn right pic.twitter.com/xgqZgO80j0— Cycling In Kilkenny 🚲 (@CyclingInKK) December 20, 2023
This video from Cycling in Kilkenny, a “person that walks, drives, cycles a bike and runs very long distances”, was accompanied with a post questioning the logic of such manoeuvres.
“The obsession with Must Get In Front is just bizarre,” they said. “This person started an overtake on a speed bump and then had to abandon it because. 1. They didn’t pay attention to how long the cargo bike is 2. They didn’t pay attention to the bikes width 3. I was indicating to turn right.”
Elsewhere in Ireland…
Behind every impatient idiot you’ll find another. Cycling 2 abreast along the Douglas Road, first one overtakes only to hit the brakes and indicate/turn right. Second plays follow my leader and gets the hump withe everyone else for his own impatience pic.twitter.com/ltaTbBcZfY
— Righttobikeit 🇺🇦 (@righttobikeit) December 13, 2023
Another live blog classic of the genre…
A 2020 study from the United States found that cyclists don’t hold up drivers. Researchers from Portland State University’s Transportation, Technology & People Laboratory sought to look into the idea that motorists believe cyclists riding on the road hold them up, but found that: “Bicycles are not likely to lead to reduced passenger car travel speed”, and “In most cases, the differences in speed were not significant from a practical standpoint.”
The study was carried out on six streets in Portland, Oregon, and involved two scenarios – the first where a cyclist rode in front of a passenger car, the second where it was another car in front of a car. While “a few statistically significant differences” between those two scenarios were identified, “the actual speed differences were generally in the order of one mph or less”.
Waiting a few seconds might just be that, a few seconds, and anyway… it’ll save you looking like a wally sat waiting at the next red light when the road user rolls up next to you…
Preaching to the choir and all that, I know, anyone got any ideas of how to spread the MGIF gospel?
Fancy a £250 bike chain sculpture for Christmas?
Jo’s channelled his early Friday Facebook Fancy energy into finding this… eye-catching, we’ll go with eye-catching… last-minute gift idea…
For £250 you can own a handmade metalwork torso sculpture, made from recycled and upcycled bike chains. “Currently untreated and unpainted so it naturally patinas, however if you would like I can either shine/polish this or powder coat it for you,” the Facebook Marketplace listing states.
I’ve got no idea which of our Christmas gift guides this should get a mention in. I’ll leave that to you:
> Christmas gifts for discerning cyclists — what to buy for the pernickety pedaller in your life
> All I want for Christmas is… not this. Gifts not to buy for cyclists to avoid a festive faux pas
Cycling tech innovations that never took off: Bright ideas consigned to the cycling scrapheap, from Spinaci bars to shoe-based power meters
Police's "road safety culture" questioned as motorist escapes punishment for allegedly abusing and swerving at female cyclist
POLL: A grrrrrrreat effort or one of the worst cycling kits you've ever seen?
New gambling-based pro keirin series classified as a "forbidden event" by UCI, as participating riders threatened with sanctions
The results of the most important democratic exercise of the century
Drumroll please…
Mario Cipollini's skinsuit? Tony the Tiger? Continental-level cycling team pen another chapter in the illustrious history of dodgy cycling kits
How on earth did this slip through the wider cycling world’s net? New Zealand-based Continental outfit MitoQ–NZ Cycling Project backing up their wonderfully obscure name (even by third-tier cycling teams’ standards) with a bold, impossible to miss, attention-grabbing kit… (other adjectives are available)…
Mario Cipollini eat your heart out…
you can’t deny cipollini has style. rt if you love his muscle skinsuit, “like” if the tiger is your fave! pic.twitter.com/8UCPZ7dn4Y
— Nuun Hydration (@nuunhydration) July 8, 2016
The NZ Cycling Project boys wore the stripes during last month’s Tour of Southland… I can’t even begin to imagine the hassle getting stopped at the lights next to a white van full of tradies would be in this. Thankfully, it seems this was a one-race special and the team’s poor riders haven’t been subjected to it year-round in training.
And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they’ve got previous, the Tour of Southam having been previously graced by leopard-print, zebra-stripes and some sort of reptilian, perhaps snakey, green… brace yourselves…
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.
33 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
"~15% of the riding time that I’m forced to use the road(because the infrastructure for cycling is insufficient or nonexistent) " Amsterdam?
Same here. I have a helmet with built in front and rear lights and have a red light clipped onto my bag plus lights attached to my bike front and rear but still have drivers putting me in danger. My commute is about two miles and I normally have around four incidents a week where I have to brake hard or take other evasive action to avoid being hit by distracted drivers. A big percentage of these are drivers coming on to roundabouts when I am already on them.
Glasgow's South City Way sounds great, does it not? As a user from before and after I wholeheartedly welcome the construction of the segregated route, but so much of the detailed construction is poor, if not unsafe. I provide a link to a presentation I made when construction was half complete (a personal view) and the construction errors remain outstanding to this day: crossed by high speed flared road junctions, poor colour differentiation, car door zone risks and so on. And yet cyclists come because they feel safe. It's a complex subject but IMHO the feeling of safety (or lack of) is a critical component. https://drive.proton.me/urls/B67AK44G90#CFueBGjscoWr
I can only conclude that you haven't been into a city in the last few years. Food delivery riders in particular are riding overpowered "eBikes" that are basically mopeds ... powered only via the throttle without pedalling at significantly more than 15mph. Problem is they look like normal bikes/ebikes and not like mopeds so that is what people describe them as. My reading of the article is that it is those vehicles that are being talked about here.
I have the Trace and Tracer, which have essentially the same design, albeit smaller and less powerful. The controls are a little complicated but only because there are loads of options. In reality, once you've chosen your level of brightness, you'll only cycle through 1 or 2 options and it's dead simple. The lights are rock solid, bright, with good runtimes. The only thing I find annoying is charging them - if your fingers are slightly wet or greasy, getting the rubber out of the way of the charging port is a pain in the arse.
Dance and padel is all very well, but when is Strava going to let me record my gardening?
You can use it to check whether it's raining.
If it's dusk, i.e. post-sunset, then the cyclists should have lights on and thus the colour of their top is irrelevant. If you want to complain about cyclists not having lights when it's mandatory then by all means do but their top has nothing to do with it.
All of my Exposure lights with a button allow cycling through the modes with a short press. I have five of those; it would be odd if Exposure didn’t allow this functionality with the Boost 3. I also have two Exposure Burners if I remember correctly: they are rear lights for joysticks that clip on and are powered through the joystick charging port. They don’t have a button. None of my Exposure lights have failed. I looked at the Boost 3 review photos but none showed the button, so far as I could tell. I also have Moon lights. Good experience generally. One did fail, possibly because it was so thin it used to fall through the holes in my helmet onto the ground. Also, the UI and charge indicators vary for my Moon lights. Perhaps the latest ones are more consistent. My worst lights ever were from See.Sense.
Steve really doesnt like exposure products does he? Boost and Strada marked down for being too complicated. While the Zenith and Six Pack reviewed by his colleagues give them rave reviews (as most exposure products have on road.cc), the Zenith even touted as 'even more intuitive to use' with the same controls.
33 thoughts on “If Frosties did cycling jerseys — pro team’s tiger stripes set a new standard for garish cycling kits; “The obsession with MGIF is just bizarre”; Last Christmas I gave you…a £250 sculpture made of bike chains; Chopper Everesting + more on the live blog”
From the MK News Desk:
From the MK News Desk:
https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-its-135-santas-on-bikes-cycling-through-milton-keynes-4451254
“Shoppers stopped to cheer and wave as residents, MK’s deputy mayor and senior councillors cycled through the city “. That’ll be a first!
Anyway next year there’s supposed to be some cycling Santa world record attempt so I might have to get involved
Khan Out !
Khan Out !
And stop those cyclists doing wheelies !
Someone’s Christmas gift for
Someone’s Christmas gift for the Nigels…
But yes, it does remind me of “but those cycle lanes barely have anyone in them” aka “spacial efficiency”.
chrisonabike wrote:
It’s totally twisted that some people think the correct metric to measure the success of a road/lane is how many vehicles are stuck in traffic there.
Someone posted this response
Someone posted this response – a video from the 80s about driving in london.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_edMYN_zM&t=560s
Also – motor vehicles don’t
Also – motor vehicles don’t cause congestion – it’s not providing for motor vehicles (in increasing numbers) what done it…
That’s a little unfair as although this is all just human “loss aversion” that is often focussed – or misdirected – by our search for a simple “why?”. A slightly ludicrous example but have heard the like: “I’ve not been there for years, but when I went back recently the traffic was insane! The idiots have added a cycle path and now no-one can get through…”
Even our planners and politicians don’t seem to understand induced demand or traffic evaporation though. Or don’t want to – maybe because the shared ideology of “growth” and “driving literally drives the economy” (plus “congestion costs money“) and “traffic is the lifeblood of the city“. Obviously providing for cycling is therefore a drain on the public purse in two ways!
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s worse than that. If a motor traffic is not completely free flowing all the time, then we need more roads. But if a cycle lane is not completely congested all the time, then we didn’t need it.
Q: What’s the difference
Q: What’s the difference between an airliner and a London drivist?
A: With an airliner the whining noise stops when they turn the engine off.
Unrealistic, there’s a
Unrealistic, there’s a cyclist riding in the rain…
‘Behind every impatient idiot
‘Behind every impatient idiot…’. To add to that I find that for every patient motorist who waits for the right time to pass you there is usually an impatient idiot behind them who has had the choice to overtake you earlier taken out of their hands by said patient motorist.
All I want for Christmas is
All I want for Christmas is another D Lock
“If you’ve ever had your bike stolen or borrowed without your permission, you’ll know how upsetting it can be. When locking up your bike, lock the frame and both wheels to the cycle parking stand.” – Essex Police
“… because we won’t bother
“… because we won’t bother doing anything about theft.”
Difficult to represent
Difficult to represent graphically, but I favour the point where the seatstay crosses with the rim and tyre, uses up the space within the lock and hopefull makes “jacking” more difficult, and maybe, just maybe means that the double angle grinding cut needed more inconvenient.
Because of the plussness of my tyres I’m waiting for the larger angle grinding resistant hiplock to be released.
And I’ve heard that a good chain and d-lock can be a better combination.
Quote:
Fnarr-fnarr! 😉
Riding in night 2 in a row
Riding in night 2 in a row seems too dangerous.
I know it is somehow legal in UK, it is not here where I ride (it doesn’t matter where) and I believe for a good reason. I have heard all the theory and seen many beautiful illustrations why it is better to ride 2 in a row, but in practice it just blocks traffic and given that drivers will always MGIF, it creates dangerous situations.
It is super cool riding with a buddy, have done it too, but only at super remote roads.
‘always MGIF’ is not a given
As to night and safety –
As to night and safety – surely at night having a pair of lights / reflective moving things spread out is more visible than one hiding behind another one?
cyclisto wrote:
You state that you’ve heard all the theory, but you obviously don’t understand it.
Riding side-by-side doesn’t block traffic, but it does block dangerous overtakes and makes safe overtakes (i.e. crossing into the other lane) quicker and easier. Also, I think you’ll find that it doesn’t create dangerous situations, anymore than banks create robbers – if you want to blame someone, pick on the people who are actually creating the danger.
You mean ??”two abreast” ??-
You mean ??”two abreast” ??- AKA side-by-side?
Like this?
TBH MGIF applies as soon as you’re stood next to a bicycle, never mind riding one. Yes – I would feel less comfortable in many places cycling side-by-side on the roads* but I don’t think it really changes the safety.
Why? A driver should give you at least another cyclist’s worth of space when overtaking.
If they won’t do it with the width of two people side-by-side you can be sure they will also fail to do so safely with them one-behind-the-other. If they’ll get irritated about cyclists “being in their way” with two people they’ll be just as angry with one.
Blocking traffic? Things are always blocking traffic, it’s called “other traffic”.
As the UK highway code points out (Rule 66):
You should avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle
be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.
* Actually this applies on “cycle infra” in the UK normally also. We don’t build cycle infra wide enough either and mostly it’s not separate cycle infra but cycle lanes or (if separate) “shared use paths” anyway (so pedestrians and dogs will want the *same* space).
Yes right two abreast,
Yes right two abreast,
Also yes I mean blocked motor traffic.
But regarding safety, this couple of cyclists, are neither a large group or less experienced, and usually the couple of experienced roadies is the most common two abreast example. And I wrote riding two abreast is somehow legal about riding two abreast because it says that you should allow drivers to overtake by moving into single file.
We all know that despite that we want speed limits to be enforced, some people will exceed them, and it is accepted even at road design https://telraam.helpspace-docs.io/article/14/speed-measurement-v85-explained .
The ones that will exceed speed limits, may have also other problems. Maybe a bit drunk, maybe looking their phone, maybe in an argument or just overstimating his driving abilities.
Bad drivers? Yes
Still on our roads? Still yes
This combination may cause them to see you at the last moment. If you are inline with your cycling buddy, the speeding and distracted driver, may squeeze between you and the car on the other side of the road and nobody gets hurt and face a nasty close pass. If you are on the outside of the row though it will probably lead to a crash. That’s how I firmly see it, please don’t start the alternate scenarios because we will never end.
I know in an ideal world such poor driving wouldn’t occur, but unfortunately it does. Until only reliable fully autonomous cars are allowed on roads, or extreme policing its better to protect yourself from bad driving.
“that you should allow
“that you should allow drivers to overtake by moving into single file”
NO
Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.
Also 213
It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.
“please don’t start the alternate scenarios”
as this might undermine my argument completely.
Hirsute wrote:
You may start mate, I just cannot answer because it can get really endless.
Interesting that you choose
Interesting that you choose to write that rather than acknowledge that you left out 2 significant parts of the HC.
cyclisto wrote:
It actually states in Rule 66:
Note that the important point is that it is when the cyclists think that a safe overtake can be performed – not just because the driver is impatient.
So much to unpack there.
So much to unpack there. Questions:
How many times are you “blocked” by cyclists? For how long? How does that compare with e.g. sitting at traffic lights (they’re blocking you!) or waiting for other motor vehicles to move (because they’re blocked by other motor vehicles?)
Is cycling on the roads justified at all?
How far would you go to protect yourself? What makes you think that simply being in tandem with another rider (as opposed to side-by-side) will make you safer, given there are such poor / homicidal drivers out there?
Again my take is “defensive cycling” – but that does NOT mean “never be in the way of a motorist” (whether single or in a group). It’s a balance, to try to reduce some risks (at costs of “being in the way” more) while remaining considerate of other road users. And realising that for some drivers (I believe relatively few – wrong’uns / just not looking / competent to drive) nothing I do myself short of not cycling will improve my safety.
That might mean just avoiding some roads (or at some times). Mostly because cycling along fast / busy roads can be very unpleasant. It might not be considerate either – any more than some driver taking a traction engine on such a route.
There is no need for “ideal
There is no need for “ideal worlds” either.
Neither autonomous cars NOR “extreme policing” account for the safety of the increased numbers cycling in NL, Denmark, Sweden, Swizerland, Finland… The UK has “safe roads” but that has come at the cost of de-facto – and sometimes deliberately – excluding people not in cars from using them. The con here comes from failing to provide decent alternatives.
So different ways are possible and countries have done it and are doing it. It doesn’t even require every single street to have separate infra.
Why it’s not “better drivers” – humans are more or less humans wherever. Having friends and relatives doing an activity – or doing it yourself – can give you some empathy. Plus people learn by repetition. If you’re seeing people cycling every day you’ll expect them. If whenever you interact with them you do so in one of a very limited range of standard ways (residential street, side street, roundabout) you will master that – even when you’re tired etc.
Hi car-brain,
Hi car-brain,
You are incorrectly thinking of the cyclists as ‘a problem’ rather than road users that every right to ride 2 abreast.
Try watching this short video by Chris Boardman and Blaine Walsh that explains some of the reasons why it is preferable to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pmw2ckQSU
In the vast majority of collisions and near miss incidents the driver is at fault.
And don’t forget the Highway Code’s hierarchy of road users.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/safer-highway-code-cyclists
Isn’t the issue that this is
Isn’t the issue that this is the ideal but currently it’s more often the wrong way up in reality (look at how much we spend and on what)?
So even “cyclists” aren’t going to think of themselves as “traffic” in the UK because that’s not how we are all raised / “normal”. And if we do we’ll quickly be disabused of that by most people. Even if in a sympathetic manner e.g. “but you’re being inconsiderate, look at all these motor vehicles with all their occupants who have places to go. (And you’re just out for a jolly, else you wouldn’t have chosen to cycle).”
I do still believe cycling can become a mainstream transport option in the UK. So “mass cycling” e.g. say > 10% – 15% of trips. That’s simply because it’s happening / happened in several other car-dependent places.
I no longer believe that this can happen without all the expensive, controversial and time-consuming “fixing the infra” / “changing the laws” though. It would be great, but … won’t happen. Because those difficult things I listed were required in all the other places which have moved to or towards mass cycling.
(Some outliers: Germany, Japan and China. I don’t know much about Germany but it seems to have stalled somewhat – perhaps the motor industry is still sacred? Japan has lots of cycling in places, often on the footway; that country has a culture of social cohesiveness and consequent rule-following which is extremely different from the UK’s. I know little about China – I assume cycling there is where they’re still transitioning towards the car / motorbike. Also cultural / state differences too!)
Totally agree with your graph
Totally agree with your graph with the Spiderman law. But there is also the Darwin law, and I wouldn’t like to win a Darwin award, so I do anything to prevent it.
The Boardman video is really nice, but we live in the real world with irresponsible drivers. I really don’t care if I get run over by a car and the driver gets covicted for a 50 years and then hanged, drawn and quartered, all cars scraped for campagnolo quick releases and I become the Saint of commuter cycling. I just want to go to my work and shopping safely. And this video is full of bad driving happening right now.
I understand chrisonabike’s argument in safety of autonomous vehicles and policing, but even in Netherlands cyclists still get killed. I would definitely feel more safe there, but to be honest on my predominant routes, there are already mostly cycle paths, that are bad, making me search after midnight for suspension seatposts, yet separated from traffic and in general very little motor traffic. Hadn’t it been for that infra and low car density and I would probably not cycle.
All this issues that we are discussing in this video would have been evaded if there were more dedicated cycle routes.
cyclisto wrote:
…
but even in Netherlands cyclists still get killed
…— cyclisto
No-one wants to die on the roads. I also agree that the idea that someone will be held accountable is extremely cold comfort (but necessary – and sadly this is deficient or even absent in the UK). I bet people on here agree on more than you’d think and the noisiest arguments are about “how much”?
So how much inconvenience do you tolerate for “safety” / how much risk is too much? Stay in your house? Less fun but mostly safe – though occasionally vehicles still find their way to you. You can stay off the roads apart from walking/wheeling to the car / bus / train – but tens of people get killed on the footway by drivers every year in the UK. And you probably need to cross roads.
My own “justifiable” risk profile includes cycling on some roads. However I’m increasingly aware that I’m choosing to mostly cycle on routes completely separate from traffic or very quiet low-speed streets (I’m fortunate for the UK [1] [2] etc.) Mostly because it’s just more pleasant. Again I’m lucky – routes I use are somewhat maintained, which means sometimes muck and vegetation but overall better surfaces than our (dire) roads.
Would I recommend cycling to vulnerable people – say kids or the elderly? On the separated and quiet parts – yes, even in the UK. I hope I can do so with more conviction in the future. I’d obviously recommend it in NL or parts of Scandinavia. Note that while cars do indeed kill people in NL and this may need some remedial work, the main incident type leading to deaths and injuries is “single cycle crashes” [recent report here in Dutch] – with “person over 55 fell over” looming large. Similar to people on foot I suspect.
Try watching this short video
Try watching this short video by Chris Boardman and Blaine Walsh that explains some of the reasons why it is preferable to do so
Excellent. The important thing is to persuade extremely hostile police forces to accept and believe what’s in it
cyclisto wrote:
I know that I’ve dabated this with you plenty of times and I’ll probably never convince you otherwise, but I’ll never wrap my head around why you think that preventing dangerous overtakes with 2-abreast/primary is less safe than literally encouraging them by hugging the kerb. If I followed your advice, I wouldn’t be alive to have this conversation right now.
Yes, that’s literally the point. It’s objectively safer to force a driver to hold back than to allow them to squeeze you through a pinch-point. And if it’s not a pinch-point, then it makes literally no difference to a driver’s ability to overtake because the distance a cyclist is advised to ride from the kerb, plus the width of the bike, plus the minimum safe passing distance is the same as a regulation lane width – so a driver overtaking a single cyclist in secondary should be using the opposite lane ayway.
Lancashire Police .. called
Lancashire Police .. called in to question.
And their answer will be “No Comment’