“Absolutely unacceptable”: HGV driver blocks protected cycle lane… at dangerous junction where urgent safety works followed cyclist’s death; £1 donation to charity for every photo of bike lane parking; Cancellara sells a PS5 + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Cyclist donates £1 to charity for every photo of a driver parked in a bike lane
I’ve got mixed feelings about sharing this one… on the one hand it’s a great story, on the other — with the sheer volume of donation-worthy evidence we all have — this bill could get out of hand very quickly…
For every photo posted here of a vehicle parked in a bike lane in the UK I’ll donate £1 to @Wheels4Well. OK go. I’m deadly serious https://t.co/3VXq5UCwJQ pic.twitter.com/zQ84E8EMX3
— Hannah 🚲😈 (@theeyecollector) November 13, 2022
Thankfully, as it turns out, this has now closed and the donation of 100 submissions rounded up to £150 made to Wheels for Wellbeing, an award-winning charity supporting disabled people of all ages and abilities to enjoy the benefits of cycling.
Finally did this! Got about 100 submissions which I rounded up to £150 as an apology to the social media person who had to read the subsequent argument about cycle lanes and historical materialism https://t.co/LEEvLOhIsV pic.twitter.com/Dm3MGf0rBT
— Hannah 🚲😈 (@theeyecollector) November 20, 2022
BUT this isn’t where our story ends… after ‘Steve’ replied: “This sums them up. No wonder you have the cyclists reporting everyone”…
Hey everyone. If anyone wants to post a photo of a car parked in a cycle lane over on Steve’s tweet I’ll also donate a £1 for every photo to @Wheels4Well to the limit of £150.
Don’t let on, let’s keep it positive and fun @theeyecollector pic.twitter.com/oPKVTDvnpf
— Bike Rogers (@bike_rogers) November 24, 2022
We go again!
Thought I’d add in some of the original pound-worthy submissions…
As it’s for a wonderful charity. pic.twitter.com/SYH5jjnzr5
— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) November 13, 2022
— Paul Player (@paulmplayer) November 13, 2022
— Chris Pearson (@zebra100cp) November 13, 2022
My deepest apologies to @Wheels4Well I forgot that by tagging them they will now have to wade through mountains of photos of vehicles in cycle lanes. Sorry folks
— Hannah 🚲😈 (@theeyecollector) November 13, 2022
Fabian Cancellara sells a PS5 (+ will chuck in a bike for free)
Not a headline I expected to write this morning…
Hey everyone, I went holiday shopping and got this for nephew to find out he already has one, i have this for retail price If someone could buy this from me it would be awesome, I will additionally ship out one of my bikes with the console, all funds will go to charity ! pic.twitter.com/dIIOJIZ6Hy
— Fabian Cancellara (@f_cancellara) November 25, 2022
Tour de France protesters likely to receive a fine
[📷: Protesters also blocked the road on stage 10]
The climate protesters who blocked the road on the 19th stage of the Tour de France have appeared in court this week for obstructing traffic.
According to L’Equipe the group could have faced two years in prison, but instead prosecutor Jacques-Edouard Andrault has asked for the four men and two women to be fined a joint €500, with €300 suspended.
Does your fridge look like a pro cyclist's? (Spoiler alert: probably not)
Silly, but seeing a full fridge is very satisfying for me pic.twitter.com/zvtDTmontC
— Toms Skujiņš (@Tomashuuns) November 24, 2022
Where’s the beer?
Comment of the day...
Sadly, Playstation 5 takes up too much headline real estate…
Just 27 per cent of people feel cycling infrastructure has improved in last year
Shimano’s State of the Nation report, based on YouGov polling of more than 15,500 people across Europe, showed that — of the UK residents surveyed — just 27 per cent believe infrastructure has improved in their local area in the last year.
Despite mixed attempts to improve cycling infra in the UK, the lack of perceived progress is stark in comparison to other countries such as Poland and France, where 56 per cent and 49 per cent of people respectively feel that infrastructure has improved.
Elsewhere in the report, across Europe, economic reasons such as cost of living (47 per cent) and e-bike subsidies (41per cent), were found to be considerably more likely to be chosen than Covid as a ‘push’ factor towards increasing e-bike use (18 per cent).
This is in contrast to last year, where 39 per cent of respondents across Europe said they would consider buying or using an e-bike to avoid public transport due to Covid concerns.
Cycling in Bristol
Bristol mayor Marvin Rees: “Bristol has a clear transport hierarchy which prioritises pedestrians and then cyclists.”
Bristol: pic.twitter.com/05oBZSJ0Sa
— Martin Booth (@beardedjourno) November 25, 2022
British cyclists least likely to get their bikes serviced
Elsewhere in the Shimano State of the Nation report we shared earlier is the finding that UK bike owners are the least likely in Europe to seek a service for their bicycle, with just 10 per cent saying they planned to do so in the next six months.
Just 30 per cent of UK bike owners surveyed said they regularly get their bikes serviced, while 12 per cent only book a mechanic’s expertise when something goes wrong.
If the World Cup was pro cycling... (Ecuador vs Netherlands / England vs USA)
Commiserations to any Welsh with us on today’s live blog… thankfully for you my Procyclingstats digging didn’t find any evidence of G or Luke Rowe being pipped by an Iranian pro…
At 4pm it’s Ecuador vs Netherlands — can the team of Van der Poel and Van Baarle get revenge for Carapaz’s third stage win at the Vuelta?
Then there’s the small matter of England vs USA…
Surely US coach Gregg Berhalter will be playing stage two of last year’s Tour of Britain to get the lads in the mood…
More on Amazon...
We’re told Amazon is investigating the video of a driver taking a cycle lane shortcut before parking on the pavement…
However, in more positive news…
Amazon marks Black Friday by doubling its UK e-cargo bike delivery capacity #ecargobikehttps://t.co/JumalAxDsr pic.twitter.com/jzUM0Pvz8o
— ebiketips (@ebiketips) November 25, 2022
> Cyclist despairs as Amazon van driver takes cycle lane shortcut before parking on pavement
You can never be too sure
Whew. Thank goodness for that @Strava ! pic.twitter.com/ff3gikq8MJ
— 🚴🏻♂️Ralpha (aka Phil)🚴🏻♂️ (@2wheelsnot4) November 24, 2022
Emily Bridges documentary 'Race To Be Mẹ'
📺🚴🏻♀️🏳️⚧️ On Tuesday 29 November, elite trans cyclist Emily Bridges’ documentary ‘Race To Be Mẹ’ will be aired on @ITVWales .
It details her battle to represent Wales at the #CommonwealthGames, which found herself at the centre of an international storm. pic.twitter.com/SqenBgAbfT
— PRiDE OUT (@PrideOutUK) November 24, 2022
"Absolutely unacceptable": HGV driver blocks protected cycle lane... at dangerous junction where urgent safety works followed cyclist's death
A reminder of this week’s news, for context…
> Improvements to notorious roundabout will benefit both cyclists and motorists, campaigners say
Those works are underway at The Plain roundabout in Oxford, where cyclist Dr Ling Felce was killed by a lorry driver in March, and are scheduled to be completed this week.
Which brings us to this morning’s latest…
This one may take the cake
Crews have been working overnight this week to install measures to improve safety at the Plain roundabout. Well here’s a lorry INSIDE the protected cycle lane, forcing bikes back into traffic during the morning commute.
Absolutely unacceptable pic.twitter.com/R2SMbQmG21
— Badly Parked Oxford (@BadlyParkedOx) November 25, 2022
An image which has unsurprisingly not gone down well…
@dhlexpressuk @DHLParcelUK #tradeteam
This is wholly unacceptable.
Have a word with your drivers.@tvprp @OxfordshireCC double red lines required all around this junction, or at least proposed enforcement of parking restrictions.— Just wear a mask. #3.5% (@anthonyinoxford) November 25, 2022
25 November 2022, 07:56
25 November 2022, 07:56
25 November 2022, 07:56
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.
96 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I'll counter that by saying the Bryton 750se I have drives me nuts at times. Inconsistantly picks up on routes created on Komoot and the app re-syncs every few seconds when trying to set up the device and sends me back to the home screen. The most infuriating one is that I turned live track on. Once. It now won't turn off and repeatedly flags up the live track is starting, and then disconnecting every few seconds whilst riding. I haven't timed it but it wouldn't suprise me if 10-20% of the time the the screen is covered with an error message. That's been about 6 weeks now. Other than that it's great :/
RE: Police launch road safety operation... by clamping down on cyclists using footbridge Meanwhile in Glasgow, Police Scotland are riding their motorbikes over the pedestrian and cyclists only bridge. https://x.com/FietserGlasgow/status/2065106152917012523?s=20
@Paul J Van Schip certainly seems a bit of a dick, but he's a European and multiple World Champion on the track, pretty sure you don't get there without having some talent in your legs.
Poor Vincent cannot get over the simple fact that given the choice people prefer dedicated cycling spaces, rather than pretending to be cars like vehicular cyclists.
What is the point of the fancy air sensor if it can't account for changing weather conditions?? If all you care about is a delayed approximation of aerodynamic watts in steady conditions, you don't need any special sensors for that. Just your speed on a decently flat course is enough to approximate rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. And the rest must be aero. If you assume a less aero body position at the same watts, your speed will drop while rolling resistance also drops, which means approximated aero watts goes up. And that's enough to demonstrate what you've shown in your testing protocol ("I sat upright and the number went up a little while later").
Your correction is accurate - it's almost always been "the (lack of) thought that (doesn't) count". "Massive" - less than a billion a year spent on active travel (trying to catch up / building a network across the entire country) Not massive - 6 billion every year (2026-2030) spent on road *maintenance* of existing "already built, goes everywhere, very convenient" road network for inactive travel Ultimately the reason "cycle infra" is *needed* is those unbelievably colossal amounts spent every year (and for more than a century now) on making mass motoring not just viable but apparently the "best choice" for most journeys. As the Dutch and others have shown, the majority of people *are* prepared to cycle and even mix with very light, slow local motor traffic *if* cycling is also made safe and convenient for the whole of their journey (including secure parking at both ends). (The history of the financial drivers of the current situation are a complex topic but note that while people complain about "crumbling roads" and underfunded motor infra - with some reason - by us continuing the fuel duty escalator freeze (for example) we're actually helping motorists pay *even less* for that activity / subsidising more of the cost of driving than ever.)
yes, but people will still object - which was my point.
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.
96 thoughts on ““Absolutely unacceptable”: HGV driver blocks protected cycle lane… at dangerous junction where urgent safety works followed cyclist’s death; £1 donation to charity for every photo of bike lane parking; Cancellara sells a PS5 + more on the live blog”
https://metro.co.uk/2022/11
With dashcam footage – I hope the following driver asked permission first! 😉
I trust that the Commoners’
I trust that the Commoners’ Defence Association is going to call for a ban on motor vehicles because of the threat they pose to animals.
I thought not…
I know. It’s almost as if
I know. It’s almost as if they’re not being consistent and even have some sort of axe to grind…
Thank goodness Hannah didn’t
Thank goodness Hannah didn’t offer to donate £1 for every photo or video of a cyclist running a red light – even Elon Musk couldn’t afford that one!
FOT
FOT
https://www.google.com/url?sa
Truth.
S13SFC wrote:
Love it!
Imagine poor Hannah having to
Imagine poor Hannah having to do that in other countries that actually allow this https://www.lifegate.com/cyclists-red-lights , maybe because they have opened their calendar and it doesn’t say it is 1957.
If you actually care in the
If you actually care in the slightest about it, nobody is stopping you from running your own offer.
But you don’t, so you won’t.
Largely because you are well aware that cyclists jumping red lights, whilst anti-social and illegal, poses negligible risk of harm to anyone – whereas the regular blocking of cycle lanes puts cyclists – particularly less experienced ones – at risk of harm, and contributes significantly to dissuading people who would otherwise consider cycling from doing so.
Hence why cyclists who care about cyclist safety are willing to raise money for charity while highlighting this issue – whereas you only care about RLJ to the extent that you can deploy it as a deflection of any criticism of risks posed by drivers.
Velo-drone wrote:
Haha, what a load of untruthful drivel.
I’ll tell you what, let’s do an experiment:
Then come back to me and tell me which one is dangerous and which one “poses negligible risk of harm to anyone”. Deal?
I think the analogy works
I think the analogy works better if those rugby players are all driving HGVs in the main carriageway while you ride up to that parked car in the cycle lane and try to get past it…
As a bonus you could use
As a bonus you could use those rugby players as a cast-iron defence against accusations that because you’d parked the car in the cycle lane you’d broken the law by driving it there…
Hey that’s sounds like fun!!!
Hey that’s sounds like fun!!!!! Could I come along and try it with you, maybe C U Next Tuesday?!
Rakia: Ive just pissed myself
Rakia: I’ve just pissed myself from laughing, nothing to do with your “hilarious” post though.
Hannah’s one of the funniest
Hannah’s one of the funniest commenters on Twitter and also the founder of the Evil Cycling Lobby, certain people on here will hate her, I think she’s marvellous.
She really bloody is!!!
She really bloody is!!!
RE: Inspirational donations –
RE: Inspirational donations – Come on folks! Snide sniping for charity – really? When there’s a cost of living crisis and it’s nearly Christmas, is this the best use of the internet – to get at people?
Can we not all get together and make a real positive contribution?
In Edinburgh (if I’ve counted the bike spaces right) just 432 pounds a year* will pay to rent a cycle storage hanger – which we can then remove to make way for a much-needed car parking space!
Just 10000 pounds will pay for grey paint to paint over the white paint, removing a bonkers cycle lane and restoring safety and peace-of-mind to customers of our small businesses, our elderly parents, wives, children and pets! (And much-loved occasional temporary parking and storage.)
100000 pounds ** will help make an entire district safer by removing a pedestrian crossing preventing dozens of casualties per year who were being lured into a road (where they shouldn’t be) by giving them a false sense of security.
* 6 bikes, the key deposit for all 6 would be 150 pounds but that’s a one off.
** I’ve totally made this up.
I genuinely thought
I genuinely thought Cancellara selling a PS5 was a Cervelo time trial bike until I saw the photo.
My mathematical pedantry
My mathematical pedantry objects to ’rounding up £100 to £150′.
Steve K wrote:
She said she got “about 100 submissions”, so if she got 101 and she was working on multiples of 50 she could accurately say that she rounded down to £100 or up to £150, no?
Rendel Harris wrote:
In reality, yes, but mathematically, I don’t think so.
I’m with Steve, mainly
I’m with Steve, mainly because rounding normally to the closest number – and rounding to half hundreds is not round! That being said, we should forgive casual usage where the intent is clear, “topping it up” might have been a better phrase.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Thanks, Ian. To be clear, I think Hannah’s done a really good thing. I just can’t resist a bit of pedantry; even more so when maths is involved.
https://www.bloomberg.com
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-24/mercedes-to-charge-a-1-200-fee-to-make-its-cars-go-faster
Just what what we need…
Monito wrote:
Often it feels like end-stage capitalism is making fun of itself
Other than “The gammons would
Other than “The gammons would have a seizure” is there a reason it is still legal to sell a car that can go over 70mph? All modern cars have speed limiters that the user can choose to activate, why not mandate that it can’t be turned off?
The arguments against it surely boil down to “I like doing crimes, don’t stop me.”
But but “safety”? We all
But but “safety”? We all know (because homicidal attack, falling chimneys, tidal waves, Godzilla etc.) that sometimes you need to accellerate for safety reasons. Example: if you’re legally at 70 on a motorway and you see a car suddenly pulling across the lanes towards you then if there was a limiter you wouldn’t be able to safely accellerate to avoid them.
Have I got this right? I seem to be having a day…
chrisonatrike wrote:
You’d be surprised how often drivers need to escape from falling chimneys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jL29m3lW-k
Obviously chimneys hate VWs
Obviously chimneys hate VWs particularly because of how green and environmentally benevolent those cars are.
I bet Fred Dibnah could
I bet Fred Dibnah could maintain a bike.
levestane wrote:
I’d take that bet, although he most likely could when he was alive.
It would have had to have
It would have had to have cotter pins.
I think the consensus amongst
I think the consensus amongst is that the scenarios where accelerating above the speed limit to avoid an incident are vanishingly rare and normally braking is far more effective and safe. For example, cruising on the motorway in 6th gear will not give you much acceleration, and if acceleration is needed, changing to the correct gear and accelerating will take far more time than instinctively braking, and auto boxes are often sluggish at changing when you’ve been cruising as adaptive software tends to prioritise economy and avoid gear changing at first.
I’ve driven with a speed limiter on most of the time and the only time I’ve overridden it in about 10 years was where I misjudged the distance to the end of a dual carriageway (didn’t see signage over the brow of a hill) and I chose to accelerate a bit to avoid cutting in or driving over the white line as I was about passed the other car – but even then braking would have been a perfectly safe option. That’s not to say I haven’t exceeded the speed limit on occasion in the last 10 years, usually when cars I’ve been passing have changed speed and I’ve ended up sitting in their blind spot so a couple of mph for a few moments will resolve that, but if they accelerate again I’ll drop back and wait till they drop off to sleep or get back on with their next phone call. I genuinely can’t think of a situation where only acceleration could have avoided an incident. After all if something does go wrong, which is safer – a high speed collision or a low speed one.
That being said, it does seem to be the case that dangerous amber lights require heavy acceleration to deal with judging by normal road usage
Correct. It would be
Correct. It would be dangerous to brake when the lights turn red because other cars right behind you won’t be expecting it so the only safe thing to do is put the pedal down on red.
Wait – or … you could take one for the team because you and the impatient idiot too close behind are both safely in protective metal cages. Whereas you don’t know who’ll be relying on you to follow the rules that you were taught (once in your lifetime).
If cars were limited to 70
If cars were limited to 70 then drivers would be taught not to drive over 65 for sustained periods.
It would simply become a fact of life and people who drove up to the limit would be seen as poor drivers.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
There is a valid argument to say that for safety reasons cars need a little speed in hand to get out of trouble in very specific scenarios, e.g. if you’re in the right hand lane of a motorway travelling at 70 mph and two cars collide in the inside lanes and start to spin towards your lane, it may be safer to accelerate away from the potential crash than to brake. However, that really only requires a maximum 10 mph over the maximum limit capacity, the fact that even the dullest family saloon can do 120 mph is ridiculous and it should definitely be limited.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I am not disagreeing with you but I would be super interested to read a study if one exists into those types of incidents:
1 – How often do they actually occur?
2 – How much less often would they happen if everyone was doing 70 and there was no speed differential involved? (If everyone on the motorway was doing 70 or less then lane changes would be far safer.)
3 – When they do happen, how often would accelerating and therefore increasing the potential energy of an impact if it does occur actually be safer than braking to avoid the collision and reducing the energy if it does happen?
Most cars can slow down far more effectively than they can accelerate, so I would expect the change in speed to avoid the collision would be accomplished far more effectively by braking in the majority of cases.
I completely agree, they are
I completely agree, they are definitely edge cases that probably only occur a few times a year. I’m not aware of any data on them though.
What will be an interesting option in the future will be drivers being limited to the speed of the road they are driving. The technology is already in place with all EU cars from this year having speed limiters that restrict the driver to the posted speed limit; at present it’s possible to override these but presumably it would not be difficult to remove that option.
99% of the time you are
99% of the time you are better off braking to get out of danger, in the other 1% of situations unless you have the skill and reactions of someone like lewis Hamilton then you are more likely to make the situation worse than better.
That was my take. People are
That was my take. People are never going to be able to react to accelerate and there is also a lag unless you have some ridiculous performance car. Whereas brakes start working immediately.
I’ve never thought it made
Yep – also what accelleration do you get at 70mph?
I’ve never thought it made much sense. I think it’s at best “my pal said his friend once needed to so we can’t fairly limit that”. That’s if it’s not “enemy action” like how the motor lobby invented “jaywalking” to make the death toll on the roads the fault of those being killed.
Like the “parked in a bike lane” story I’d probably make some Christmas donation (in a very small denomination…) for the number of times this was used in some spurious defence in court though. (I recall an Isle of Wight? one here some time back).
But hey, I mostly ride a bike rather than driving, not IAMS etc.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
— Patrick9-32That neatly encapsulates the mentality of at least 90% of drivers.
Arguably on the motorway this
Arguably on the motorway this is least required, and in many places covered by speed cameras and variable speed limits. The bigger issue is on roads with limit under the national and motorway limit. I question the benefit of putting the car or its software in control of limiting on these roads, it gets it wrong and the driver is assuming it is fine. Could even give another excuse for speeding, blaming the car.
This report gives interesting
This report gives interesting statistics for deaths and injuries by road type on page 21 from 2019
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
I wonder how many of those “Rural Road” deaths were caused by speeds over 70mph?
Cyclist fined for part in
Cyclist fined for part in fatal RTC
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/23148799.family-tributes-motorcyclist-killed-crash-cyclist/
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-guilty-riding-carelessly-killing-motorcyclist-297631
While I have absolute
While I have absolute sympathy for the family, why does the comment ‘Cyclists need to be held accountable’ need to be added by one of them when the story is reporting on exactly that having happened? Christ.
Does it strike anyone else as
Does it strike anyone else as odd that the fact that the motorcyclist was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone appears to have been written off as of no importance? If the cyclist had been killed and the motorcyclist survived, one assumes the motorcyclist would’ve been up on a charge of death by careless or dangerous driving because he was exceeding the speed limit by 30%.
That’s sort of what I was
That’s sort of what I was thinking, I know that junction very well, and without wishing to victim blame the motorcyclist for their excessive speed, it would have been difficult for the cyclist to judge whether the oncoming motorcycle rider was doing 30 or 40mph.
That’s what I thought too.
That’s what I thought too. How can the fact that the motorcyclist was breaking the law just be ignored when it comes to deciding culpability – it should have at least some bearing
I seem to remember a similar case around here where a driver was cleared even though he had no insurance (he did nothing wrong, a motorcyclist swerved into his lane head-on – but somehow the fact that he should not have been driving that car at all was not deemed important)
Surely for a criminal charge,
Surely for a criminal charge, the speed of the other vehicle would only have any bearing on whether or not the cyclist was acting carelessly if the speed of the motorist was so great that any cyclist taking proper observations would have reasonably concluded they had enough time to safely clear the junction without affecting the passage of the other vehicle had that vehicle been travelling at the speed limit. If it was likely even with a vehicle traveling at 30mph that the manoeuvre would have resulted in a collision or very near miss then that’s still what the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus would define as a careless act so the excess speed is irrelevant.
If could be different in a civil suit for damages where any damage award may be reduced due to contributory negligence if it is decided that excess speed played a part in the seriousness of the outcome.
I am happy to let the law take its course here as a judge / jury have decided the case on the evidence before them. If I want motorists to be held to account for careless / dangerous acts then I have to support cyclists be held to account for any similar acts.
Glad you are still here.
Glad you are still here. Thought you might have left in disgust !
No, I am still about. Trying
No, I am still about. Trying to get a little more work done and not allow myself to get wound up by certain individuals.
Is it the fire service?
Is it the fire service?
Always handy to have an emergency services person commenting.
Yes. For my sins I have done
Yes. For my sins I have done twenty odd years in the fire service as an on call firefighter, worked my way up to be in charge of my local station for the last few. As with all on call firefighters, you have to have another business / job as well as the fire service bit is a piece rate pay system paying only when they actually need you so I also work as a software developer. Strange combination, long total hours.
LeadenSkies wrote:
Given that, as per Awavey’s accurate calculations from the prosecution’s own figures (150m in 7 secs), the motorcyclist was travelling at an average speed of 47mph in the 150m before the collision their speed clearly “was so great that any cyclist taking proper observations would have reasonably concluded they had enough time to safely clear the junction without affecting the passage of the other vehicle had that vehicle been travelling at the speed limit.”
I can’t quite go with this
I can’t quite go with this one, I’m afraid. I agree it’s sad if the prosecution’s come up with something untrue and that may be ground for appeal. Humanly “I wasn’t expecting someone doing 50 in a 30” is understandable also.
However the task here as a responsible road user crossing the path of another is to observe if there is oncoming traffic and ensure you can clear the junction safely. So if in doubt don’t proceed. That includes (to me) the requirement to assess the time it will take the oncoming vehicle to arrive – no matter what their speed. (Obviously if it was at light speed they’d get a pass…).
Unless you’ve something to show that the cyclist’s ability to assess speed was impaired I think they have been careless. That’s hard as in they made a mistake and to their own cost. (And if it had been a car not a motorcycle the motorist would be unhurt and the cyclist wouldn’t have needed a trial most likely). However the mistake was “voluntary” e.g. it didn’t affect their own safety not to move. It’s foreseeable that getting this wrong could have serious consequences – as it did for them. I would not include as “impairment” the results of their choices e.g. by “just following the truck” (not really looking) or being too close to the truck to give them time to look and react.
It all hinges not on the speed itself but the ability to assess it (e.g. sufficient time when motorcylist was visible and clarity of view). So on evidence presented – and if they really had 7 seconds to assess – I think “careless” is a fair call.
Where I think it’s fair to raise questions are a) the time available to assess speed and the visibility of the motorcyclist and b) the penalty phase. Especially given that we sometimes see motorists punished with “knowing what they did”, never mind suffering “life-changing injuries” as the cyclist did here.
Would this even have come to court if the motorcyclist were not speeding – as in would they have hit? Who knows but with less speed there is usually more time to react for all parties. And better control. With less speed would the outcomes for both parties have been inproved even if they still collided? Pretty happy with “yes” there.
I don’t dispute Wavey’s
I don’t dispute Wavey’s figures. You make what I would consider to be an arguable point and one that I would want to explore if I had been on the jury. I won’t comment on this specific case as I haven’t seen all the evidence. That is why I am content to leave that decision to those who sat through the evidence. I can only assume they saw evidence that convinced them the cyclist was careless and the excess speed was irrelevant in this case.
LeadenSkies wrote:
it wasn’t actually a jury trial, it was at the Magistrate’s Court, albeit with a district judge presiding; the defendant doesn’t appear to have engaged counsel, which seems highly inadvisable. So the outcome is ultimately one man’s opinion on the evidence as presented by a professional prosecutor.
I miss d the fact it was a
I missed the fact it was a magistrates court. Thanks for correcting me politely. I agree that the fact the defendant doesn’t see to have engaged counsel is inadvisable. Representing yourself and entering a not guilty plea is risky. I wonder whether it points to poor advice or possibly over confidence and an acceptance of more risk than you or I? I am slightly surprised the judge didn’t issue strong advice that he get professional representation, or maybe they did?
The newspaper report stated
The newspaper report stated the motorcycle was doing 40mph at the point of impact. So it’s possible the speed prior to the collision was higher.
Speed is usually taken into account, such as with this case: https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/haverhill/news/dashcam-footage-showing-moments-before-fatal-crash-released-9252652/
The cyclist was lucky to survive and sustained life changing injuries.
well the prosecution stated
well the prosecution stated it was 150metres in 7 seconds, thats 47.9mph average speed to cover that distance in that time.
Awavey wrote:
Bloody hell, you’re right aren’t you (had to get out the calculator and check as I couldn’t quite believe it)? Given that there must have been some slowing or braking as he approached the lorry at the junction the biker must have been going well over fifty in a thirty zone to start with. The cyclist would surely be well-advised to appeal this.
The difference there is that
The difference there is that the person charged with the driving offence was also the person speeding. In that case, the speeding is possibly in itself proof of careless or dangerous driving and if not believed to be enough on its own, it is certainly an aggrovating factor that will be brought as part of an overall evidence package.
E&W courts don’t see speed
E&W courts don’t see speed alone as careless/dangerous, there has to be another factor as well (or instead of) speeding.
scotkand is different. They regularly charge dangerous for doing a ton plus on motorways.
Ok, I wasn’t aware of that.
Ok, I wasn’t aware of that. Speeding is given as an example of a possible behaviour that can constitute the offence of dangerous driving where “it falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver” according to the Met Police website. I have also had some minor involvement in an incident many years ago where the driver was charged with death by dangerous driving based purely on extreme speed they were doing in the run up to the incident. Admittedly the case was eventually dropped before it reached court as not in the public interest but that was down to the severity of the injuries sustained by the driver meaning they would never drive again, would never work again and weren’t ever going to be imprisoned so there was no real punishment that could be imposed.
There’s nothing “protected”
There’s nothing “protected” about that cycle lane if you can park a HGV in it!
But they are delivering beer,
But they are delivering beer, don’t you know there’s a World Cup on?!
Even the esteemed BBC are encouraging us to be accomodating to selfish gits during this difficult period.
The Dutch have mastered the
The Dutch have mastered the art of pragmatic beer delivery – the UK again demonstrating we are at cargo cult or bandit level.
Hey guys and gals.. late to
Hey guys and gals.. late to the party today… diving into the comments.. err WTF is happening today…
I think it’s all quite self
I think it’s all quite self explanatory, just the usual usual y’know…
On the bike servicing story,
On the bike servicing story, could it be reframed that Shimano are mildly irritated that UK cyclists are competent to maintain their own bike and don’t pay for a bike shop to fit a full new set of over-priced Shimano cables every year?
Just a thought.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Speak for yourself.
Steve K wrote:
I remember speaking to the bloke in my LBS recently. I’d booked Bike A in for a new cassette and chainraings, said I’d been recommended to just do it myself and said I didn’t feel competent to do it, said all I really do myself is brakes/brake-pads and changing tyres/fixingflats. He said “Well, that probably puts you up in the top xx% of bike owners. Many people wouldn’t even do that.”
(Yes, it was possible it was flattery in case I backed out of the work, but even so…).
brooksby wrote:
Someone on Twitter recently posted something like “I wish cyclists would stop looking at me in horror when I say I never carry a tube or pump and don’t know how to fix a puncture, if it happens I go to the bike shop,” she got an avalanche of support from folks saying yes, I’m just the same. Each to their own and I guess we should all be grateful that their custom helps keep the bike shops open.
When I got back into cycling7
When I got back into cycling7 years ago, my first bike was a boardman sport hybrid. I signed up for the maintenance cover with Halfords at the same time. Used to get them to change the puncture as they were just 200 yards away, I would have to pay for the tube anyway and they did it in 5 mins where I would take 20-30.
I’m now fine with doing several minor repairs up to chain replacement and minor gear indexing, however the bike shop still gets several visits for servicing the bikes.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I can do most things, I’m not good with bottom brackets or re-mineralising disc brakes, the shop gets those jobs, so as I said, from a selfish point of view I’m very happy that others are keeping the shops open with minor jobs so they are there when I need them! (I do try and show my gratitude by buying as many bits as I can from the LBS rather than the Internet when possible)
It’s straight forward on a
It’s straight forward on a shimano set up to do the BB. Even I can do it !
My ebike with a self extracting crank at some daft Nm is another matter…
hirsute wrote:
Maybe I’ll give it a go, I think I was traumatised by trying to do one when I was sixteen, totally arsing it and having to do the walk of shame into the LBS…perhaps they’ve got easier in the last nearly forty (God help me!) years?
I’m no wrench but I’ve had a
I’m no wrench but I’ve had a go at many bits of bike maintenance. However I take this as a positive sign. That’s because I think this is what tends to happen where there is mass cycling. And I’m not an elitist – I think more people cycling will also benefit me (even if I remain a “cyclist”).
My logic is: where there is mass cycling bikes are treated like people treat their cars in the UK. Most people don’t spend their weekends e.g. changing the car’s oil filter (is that still a thing?)
I encourage / support friends to be able to do the basics but if they just want stuff fixed for them that’s fine. And even with the small number of folks cycling today if I’m stopped it doesn’t take long before someone comes by and asks if I need any kit.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Though I am surprised by the number of people who don’t know how to change a wheel on their car, something I knew by the time I was 12 I think. Maybe cars get fewer flats these days? A number of times friends or acquaintances have complained about how long they had to wait for the AA or RAC to come out and then looked at me as if I’m mad when I said surely you could’ve changed it yourself? IIRC (long time since I’ve done it) with a good jack and socket changing a car wheel is actually easier than fitting a really stiff bike tyre.
I had to drive round to a
I had to drive round to a strong armed friend for him to loosen the bolts, so calling out the rac seems quite plausible.
hirsute wrote:
Yep, I’ve been defeated by bolts before, even in my rugby days when I had more upper body strength than I have now – might as well give it a go first though!
I know how to change a wheel
I know how to change a wheel bit I don’t think I could do it on the roadside with the crappy wrench they give you and the torque they put on the bolts with pneumatic spanners in the garage
but what are her regular
but what are her regular rides like, if she only cycles from home to the shops and the bike shop is within walking distance. why would you take spares?, when you’re riding 30+miles away from the nearest bike shop, assuming its even open, then youve got to be prepared to fix a puncture, because it will happen eventually.
actually Ive got to buy some spare inner tubes tomorrow as Ive run out, and I wouldnt risk ever going on a ride without one and getting stuck. I carry spare quick links as well now ever since I had a chain snap in the middle of nowhere.
Ive replaced chains, cassettes and a rear derailluer at home, cant setup rim brakes for toffee, but I like to think Im reasonably self sufficient to handle most work on my bike without resorting to a LBS, and only use them really for servicing every so often which is more to with wheel hub & bottom bracket bearings work.
Awavey wrote:
She was an American, IIRC she had a three mile commute, if she punctured she locked her bike up, got a cab, bus home then went and got the bike in her car and took it to the LBS! Seemed a lot of hassle and expense for not learning to mend a flat but every tinker has their own way of walking, as Behan used to say.
When I was a mobile bike
When I was a mobile bike mechanic, I was very grateful that so many people didn’t even know how to fix a puncture, if somewhat surprised.
FACT. Majority of UK bike
FACT. Majority of UK bike owners are a danger to themselves when it comes to bike maintenance.
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1596141655685582850?t=OSLgGHffXxnryazkgPRbKw&s=19
If only life was always like this….
hutchdaddy wrote:
That’s quite an old one, but excellent roadcraft from the rider and driver (not so much the pedestrian for crossing in front of a big vehicle).
I’m trying to figure out
I’m trying to figure out which Bristol roundabout is featured on https://twitter.com/beardedjourno/status/1596094912461684737
I reckon it’s the M32/St Pauls junction due to the cyclist/pedestrian barrier although the Lawrence Hill roundabout is notorious for flooding (well, one of the walkways anyway).
There’s also the baptism roundabout in Hartcliffe: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/council-finally-start-fix-bristols-6785527
Edit: yes it’s the M32 one. That roundabout is particularly badly designed for pedestrians as there’s lots of blind corners and I’ve heard of several muggings there due to the poor visibility.
Talking about Bristol
Talking about Bristol roundabouts, Autoshenigans covered the M49 and your favourite one down that way.
It’s only a cyclist – onward
It’s only a cyclist – onward !
Unfortunately my ‘do not pass’ signal did not work ! Although they did slow down.
Maybe they confused it with a
Maybe they confused it with a cycle-nazi salute?
HexLox have a 25% Black
HexLox have a 25% Black Friday discount at the moment. A code is given the moment you go to the website. Those tiny little security magnets are shockingly expensive, so any savings are appreciated.
I have purchased enough to finally fully do my disk brakes.
And now have a few spares, those tiny expensive magnets are easy to drop.
This is a powerful statement
“This is a powerful statement from @familybycycle in response to a school’s “road safety week/wear bright clothing day” We have to challenge the absurdity we’ve normalized in this space. “
https://twitter.com/tomflood1/status/1596496012075757569