Motorbike rider hits pensioner, so Twitter blames cyclists; Delivery cyclists jump red lights to avoid losing income, says Deliveroo rider; Jordan Peterson on LTNs; New year, same train bike storage woes; Estonian pro hit by driver + more on the live blog

131 thoughts on “Motorbike rider hits pensioner, so Twitter blames cyclists; Delivery cyclists jump red lights to avoid losing income, says Deliveroo rider; Jordan Peterson on LTNs; New year, same train bike storage woes; Estonian pro hit by driver + more on the live blog”

1. Cyclists and red lights is a

   Cyclists and red lights is a grey area for me, should not be punished by draconian laws. It is a bit weird for me that pedestrians in UK can pass through a red light with no legal consequences and cyclists with the practically the same weight and sometimes no greater speed than a jogger will have to pay fines.

   It is also a gray area because in many cases in other countries crossing red lights is allowed by cyclists and on the contrary there are cases where crossing red lights by pedestrians is fined.

   Moreover a red light for a cyclist will require more effort to regain momentum than any other road user such as pedestrians or motor vehicle users, therefore it is a good reason to be more lenient.

   So not the end of the world when crossing a red light on a 15kg bicycle and not on a 1200 kg vehicle and if we aim to increase commuting by cycling we should really rethink what promotes sustainable transport. Similarly I do believe that many one way roads could accomodate the width of a contraflow cyclist, something that Deliveroo cyclists already do.

   That laws rethinking process though, should include some cycle favouring laws such as the double abreast riding that is allowed in UK but it seems really dangerous for me, is illegal where I ride now and seriously interrupts motor vehicle traffic, whereas it mostly favors recreation MAMILs that may even drive to get to a nice road cycling route and not bicycle commuters.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Cycling 2 abreast is not

     Cycling 2 abreast is not dangerous and does not interrupt traffic flow – see diagram and surrey police https://twitter.com/surreyroadcops/status/1035083543016366080

      

     

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hirsute wrote:

       Cycling 2 abreast is not dangerous and does not interrupt traffic flow – see diagram and surrey police https://twitter.com/surreyroadcops/status

       — hirsute

       Yes I have seen all the nice neat and tidy charts and drawings, but in real life at two way roads a car and cyclist and a contraflow car can most likely squeeze in a two lane road if a car driver error of judgement happens, whereas this is practically impossible with two bicycles abreast. There are videos that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abqysSwOcIQ

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSz1vxO0kc

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k37H_qLLUA

       I know that some will say “it is clearly a car driver error or even malicious intention” but I don’t really care, if you are dead or injured, you don’t care whose fault is and I definitely don’t want to be a martyr to prove a point.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • are you kidding with those

         are you kidding with those videos ? the first one the SUV driver almost looks like theyre deliberately steering into the cyclist they hit, despite having a completely clear lane to use, the second even if I was riding solo theres no goddamn way Id be riding in the gutter like they were, and third and last the driver appears to be on the wrong side of the road or is cutting the corner.

         none of them have got near to remotely proving any valid point about riding two abreast being more dangerous than if they had just “cycled near the edge”.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Awavey wrote:

           are you kidding with those videos ? …

           — Awavey

           No if if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt, I see nothing wrong with that sentence.

           If I was injured in any of these accidents, yes I could be very pissed with driver and I would say to him “Are you kidding??” along with many other not so nice words, but still I would be injured because possibly malicious driving, innatentive/drunk driving and drivers getting on the middle road just happen. I don’t want to say anyone “you see I am the right one” just reach my destination unharmed.

         • It sounds like what you’re

           It sounds like what you’re actually saying is “cyclists shouldn’t be on the road”.  I can actually agree with this BUT – and it is a huge but – only if there is then space for cycling which is:

           actually and perceptably safer

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqaAIkGtpA

           AND more attractive / social

           http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2016/08/mass-cycling-requires-sociable-side-by.html

           AND more convenient (goes everwhere that people want to go and allows for efficient / fast cycling)

           http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2015/10/cycle-paths-providing-efficient-cycling.html

       • I not really sure what those

         I not really sure what those videos are supposed to show or demonstrate. In the second, they were not even on the road but to the left of the lane marking.

         Your first sentence needs an edit as it doesn’t quite make sense with the ‘if a car driver error of judgement happens’ phrase.

          

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hirsute wrote:

           I not really sure what those videos are supposed to show or demonstrate. In the second, they were not even on the road but to the left of the lane marking.

           Your first sentence needs an edit as it doesn’t quite make sense with the ‘if a car driver error of judgement happens’ phrase.

           — hirsute

           As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

           The second accident happened around here according to the link in posts: https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B053'02.2%22S+151%C2%B041'49.4%22E/@-32.8839465,151.6948613,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!1m6!3m5!1s0x6b733f392c1de4f9:0x94a9e08789e2f490!2sShortland+Public+School!8m2!3d-32.8817529!4d151.695461!3m5!1s0x0:0xa6bacbb3d06bd4b4!7e2!8m2!3d-32.8839506!4d151.6970497

           First of all, I would never try to cycle on this road. It is a dual carriage road with grade separated intersections and crash barriers, all seeming like a motorway, so getting overtaken by cars with 100+km/h speed difference would be expected. If for some reason I got stuck in that road, I would just as close as possible to the gutter where the one row of riders in the accidents ride and not next to the traffic.

           Sorry for any stucture mistakes, not a native speaker here, but I guess most undestand what I want to say.

         • I’d just quote BallardOfTruth

           I’d just quote BallardOfTruth to you on this

           “Riding two-abreast removes that small gap and forces drivers to wait for a break in oncoming traffic. You’re way more likely to get hit doing the former than the latter.”

         • cyclisto wrote:

           As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

           — cyclisto

           Yeah, but only as a function of their “luck-of-the-draw” positioning in 3D space, not specifically because they would be riding single-file on the edge of the road. None of them would have been hurt if they had skipped that extra coffee and left a few minutes earlier, or if they were cycling on totally the wrong side of the road.

           And, again – you’re using extremely unlikely freak-scenarios that have nothing to do with cyclist road-positioning to justify doing something that puts you in more danger in “normal”, routine riding. Riding right over to the edge, not only robs you of an escape buffer that you could otherwise have moved into if a car got too close, but it also presents a gap that makes that situation thousands of times more likely to happen in the first place.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

           — cyclisto

           Sorry but the experience of many cyclists says you’re wrong on this. Choosing to cycle in or near the verge / gutter / edge of the road does not help, it actually makes it more dangerous for the cyclist.

           Cycling 2 abreast is legal here and is actually safer than single file. If you think that only MAMILs ride in groups then you are again mistaken (and your comment suggests that you may are prejudiced against people on bikes).

           OTOH I’m inclined to agree that a cyclist riding through a red light poses little risk to anyone else. But I would personally not do it until the law changes and other road users are aware of this (except in specific conditions that may make it safe e.g. a junction with good visibility and low traffic volumes where the cyclist’s presence does not trigger the lights to change).

       • Your evidence is staggering:

         Your evidence is staggering: the first video shows a car deliberately swerving to hit a cyclist when overtaking even though the oncoming traffic line is completely free; the second video shows cyclists being hit even though they are completely within the cycle lane; the third shows a driver coming round the bend on the left-hand side of the road in California (i.e., completely on the wrong side of the road) and hitting cyclists on the correct side of the road. It is simply ridiculous to say “if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would’ve been hurt” – well if the cyclists hadn’t gone out at all that day they wouldn’t have been hurt either. Absolutely ridiculous level of victim blaming I’m afraid.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • @Rendel Harris

           @Rendel Harris

           As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a matter of possibilities, like when in war people tend to get as close to the ground as possible, unless they want a road named after them.

           @BalladOfStruth

           Riding abreast does indeed winds drivers up and most likely the first video we see one of the lunatics you say. We have to accept that lunatics exist, and they will run you over before the police or the hospital arrest them.

           I rode in primary position for around a week, until a motorcyclist overtook me at high speed between me and the curb so I ditched this system as it was arguably the most frightening riding experience involving other drivers and it happened in such little time since I adopted primary position. I don’t like playing with chances.

           I do definitely understand this theory, but in real life, regardless of the law drivers will wind up and quite often will give a punishing close pass on the outside rider that could escalate in a runover like in the first video. I have felt that close pass feeling when I tried riding abreast when touring with a friend. Moreover, intuitively drivers have the must “get in front” feeling when seeing a bicycle, so they will rush to do perform a flawed overtake.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           @Rendel Harris

           As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt.

           — cyclisto

           In the second video the cyclists aren’t even on the road, they are on the hard shoulder inside the solid white line. That is pretty much near the edge of the road, no? If a pedestrian is hit by a driver who mounts the pavement do you blame them for walking too close to the edge of the road?

         • @Rendel Harris It is not a

           @Rendel Harris It is not a road but a motorway, so it is super dangerous to cycle anyway as cyclists aren’t supposed to be there, so you have to get as left as possible. If the one (wisest for me) row of cyclists can cycle on the hard shoulder on narrow road bike tires, then it means it is perfectly cyclable. A pedestrian pavement seperated by curb is exactly for this reason separated by curb, it is not supposed to be run over by cars.

           @BalladOfStruth

           I don’t like primary position for the aforementioned scary incident, but also it impedes motor traffic motor, making overtakes more difficult. I just use it in a certain one way road where overtaking is 100% impossible without 10cm close pass, so I ride primary there.

           @Everybody loving Abreast

           I cannot reply to many other people offended about my dislike to abreast riding (I repeat that I live and ride now in one of many places where it is illegal) this is not the point nor can I spend time answering endless messages. Riding abreast is erroneous for me as it practically means that you have to ride everywhere in primary position, differing that in the safety space that is supposed to exist between the curb, there will be your abreast riding buddy cyclist. Moreover, riding abreast will annoy drivers and make them make errors, sometimes maliciously, will delay cars and only benefit recreational riders who could have just gone running. Many countries have banned it, in others under circumstances it is allowed. We cannot aggree with all and unfortunately I have 3 videos proving that, so please post videos caused by accidents where single file road bike group rides had accidents that might have been prevented by riding abreast and I may reconcider my views.

           My main point is that legislation has to be adjusted to facilitate commuting for all and especially cyclists for having the benefit of being environmentally and financially friendly. So cyclists running red lights not the end of the world, nor going contraflow in some roads. Laws must be fluid and adjusted to modern needs and be proportionate to the risks involved.  See this video to help you understand what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBP2LTQxqZ8 .

         • cyclisto wrote:

           @BalladOfStruth

           I don’t like primary position for the aforementioned scary incident, but also it impedes motor traffic motor, making overtakes more difficult.

           — cyclisto

           Well, yeah – that’s literally the point of it. Primary is supposed to prevent overtakes in situations where an overtake would be extremely dangerous for the cyclist, like a pinch-point or when you’re negotiating a junction. You use it in those situations to keep yourself safe.

           I just use it in a certain one way road where overtaking is 100% impossible without 10cm close pass, so I ride primary there.

           — cyclisto

           Wait, so you do use/like primary?

         • BalladOfStruth wrote:

           Wait, so you do use/like primary?

           — BalladOfStruth

           I use in this particular road, but don’t consider it safe for other roads. I eat hawaiian pizza like once per year when the others have finished but not really like it.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           … I eat hawaiian pizza like once per year when the others have finished but not really like it.

           — cyclisto

           Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter! Pineapple on pizza – yay or nay?

           (I think pineapple and cheese go together well, but I’d skip the ham on a hawaiian, so that wouldn’t work out well. I do remember frequenting a Jamaican pizza take-away/restaurant that did a very fine ackee and salt-fish pizza though)

         • Jamaican pizza?  Is that some

           Jamaican pizza?  Is that some kind of jerk?

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Jamaican pizza?  Is that some kind of jerk?

           — chrisonatrike

           They might have had a jerk chicken one, but I don’t remember and as I follow a pescetarian diet, I would have ignored it. They did also have a good sardine one and one of my favourites was a florentina with loads of spinach and a baked egg in the middle (i.e. raw egg baked as the pizza cooked).

           The door was always open there, but I’ve heard that it’s because they dread locks.

         • As a pastafarian I’ve always

           As a pastafarian I’ve always enjoyed a good Italian-Jamaican crossover.  Even Bob Marley enjoyed the odd (sweet) pizza – wi’ jam in, he said.

         • So you eat left-over pizza

           So you eat left-over pizza and don’t really like it?  Maybe the pizza itself is not the issue?  Hmm… sounds like the UK experience of those not in motorised vehicles – we also get the scraps that the motorists didn’t use and we don’t enjoy that much either.

         • Sounds like you’ve abreast

           Sounds like you’ve abreast fixation there.

           I can understand you not feeling confident with riding primary especially after experiencing bad driving.  I don’t always sit in primary and sometimes feel pressured by drivers to shift over.  Some drivers you can just see (looking behind) are likely to just keep steaming on and not move out round you properly.  The point about being further out is that gives you, the person most affected, the choice and the space to move.  Rather than relying on a driver to get “squeezing through” right.

           … I have 3 videos proving that…

           — cyclisto

           Or not.  As Fermat might have written (in translation): I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which some minds are this forum is too narrow to contain.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           @Rendel Harris It is not a road but a motorway, so it is super dangerous to cycle anyway as cyclists aren’t supposed to be there

           — cyclisto

           New South Wales Roads and Waterways Department: “Cyclists are able to use the 2 to 2.5 metre shoulders on the existing sections of the. Newcastle Inner City Bypass.” Which is the road on which the incident occurred.

         • So now the formerly

           So now the formerly unappealing gutter magically transformed into road shoulder for cyclists 🙂

           It seems like a motorway to me, and in many countries (UK included) cycling is prohibited. And for good reason as it is proved by the video.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           So now the formerly unappealing gutter magically transformed into road shoulder for cyclists 🙂

           It seems like a motorway to me, and in many countries (UK included) cycling is prohibited. And for good reason as it is proved by the video.

           — cyclisto

           What are you talking about? It’s not the gutter, it’s a 2.5M hard shoulder. It’s not a motorway, it’s the Australian equivalent of an A road dual carriageway, on which in the UK cycling is permitted.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

            

           What are you talking about? It’s not the gutter, it’s a 2.5M hard shoulder. It’s not a motorway, it’s the Australian equivalent of an A road dual carriageway, on which in the UK cycling is permitted.

           — Rendel Harris

           https://www.oxondrivingtuitions.com/the-differences-between-motorways-and-dual-carriageways/ If it has 2.5m then it is more similar to a motorway, as in the above link says that only motorways have hard shoulders.

           Of course road classification is not really important, in a dual carriageway road with road barriers and grade seperated intersections that is not in dense urban enviroment with footpaths, cars will develop high speeds that are incompatible with cyclists no matter how you name it. If such roads have the added security of wide hard shoulder, cars will develop even higher speeds.

         • That link appears to be a UK

           That link appears to be from a UK driving instructor firm.  You’re using this in connection with regulations on roads shown in a video (apparently) from Australia?

           At this point you seem to be trying to equate so many different rules and situations in different countries that I think I’d better end there or my head will explode.

           I can’t disagree that wide straight roads encourage drivers to go faster though.  We should be engineering our roads to manage speeds, not just sticking a number up and calling it done.  (Especially when we then ignore it when the majority of drivers are going faster than that anyway).

         • No, I try to do the exact

           No, I try to do the exact opposite, implement common sense, no matter what the letter of the law says, or how things are named.

           If you think it is safe riding at 20km/h when a car is overtaking you at 120km/h safe, just go and ride at motorways. If cycling is allowed at that part of the road with speed limits of 70mph speed limit, it is an accident waiting to happen.

         • Nothing to do with 1 abreast

           Nothing to do with 1 abreast or 2 abreast, simply not safe to cycle on.

           Why did you include that video in your list ?

         • cyclisto wrote:

           No, I try to do the exact opposite, implement common sense, no matter what the letter of the law says, or how things are named.

           If you think it is safe riding at 20km/h when a car is overtaking you at 120km/h safe, just go and ride at motorways. If cycling is allowed at that part of the road with speed limits of 70mph speed limit, it is an accident waiting to happen.

           — cyclisto

           I often ride on dual carriageways in England and whilst they may appear on first sight to be dangerous, they do have some good characteristics. Firstly, they tend to be straight, so drivers can easily see any cyclists up ahead. Secondly, they have at least two lanes going each way, so drivers are able to overtake safely using the other lane. Now, the roads that I use are generally not that long and between roundabouts, so drivers would be going a lot slower than 70mph – I’d estimate an average of 40mph.

         • In the UK to a majority of
           In the UK to a majority of roads have a 60mph speed limit (so 100km/hr), at least in large parts so a potential passing speed of 45mph or more. I can’t cycle more than half a mile from my front door without being on such a stretch of road (no cycle lane or pavement options even discounting the fact that pavement cycling is illegal here). Are you saying I should not be cycling full stop?

         • I feel I’ve been confronted

           I feel I’ve been confronted by the Chewbacca defense!

           You’ve said that some things are illegal where you are now – like not cycling in single-file e.g. more than one abreast.  You seemed to approve of that.  Now you say common sense is more important than the law *?

           EDIT – have seen your summary, thanks.

           So disagree with you on (1) and don’t think you’ve “proved” anything there whatsoever. (2) I’ve no idea why you’ve now introduced that, given no-one has demanded they should ride on a motorway, nor have you shown any examples.  For what it’s worth in general I’d say it’s not a good idea either.  Sadly in the UK sometimes you have to ride on roads with very high motor vehicle speed limits because there is no other route between two points – or it would involve going many times the distance). (3) No idea what relevance that has (4) Jumping a red light is a complex issue but again if people feel they need to that says that there are problems with the system.  Red lights are almost entirely not needed where there are no motorists.  So if pedestrians / cyclists are jumping them the problem is the cars (e.g. waits are too long / should have a separate route).  For motorists doing so that means not enough enforcement.

           You’ve then brought up something about vehicles overtaking you at a much higher speed.  I’ve no idea what relevance that is as it doesn’t seem connected with anything else here.  Including the videos – which are also irrelevant to the initial point you were making.  Although I’m no longer sure what your point is…

           Leaving the topic of cycling side-by-side for a moment in an effort to follow you… I don’t think that cyclists having to share space with much faster vehicles (or those going at upwards of 50 mph) is a good idea.  It isn’t an automatic death sentence, albeit it can be unpleasant.  I sometimes ride recreationally in the UK countryside – where the limit is 60mph.  On long, wide and straight roads I haven’t had problems as long as the cars are infrequent.  The worst experiences come as the roads get busier.  Then drivers following one behind the other can fail to notice the lead car has moved out to overtake you.  Or motorists fail to leave space to safely complete an overtake.

           * Apparently you feel that riding in a position where you have reduced the space you have for manouever, where you’re less visible and where it’s more likely you’ll hit something isn’t common sense.

           Now I can agree that many new cyclists might feel it was “common sense” that it’s safer to be as close to the edge of the road as possible.  Also many people in general don’t feel confident riding further out in the road.  And it’s true that you will sometimes attract horns or even aggression from the occasional driver.  Unfortunately you will get that from a (tiny) minority of drivers in the UK no matter where / how you are riding.

           The reason for cycling in such a position has been spelled out by others but I think you knew that already.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           https://www.oxondrivingtuitions.com/the-differences-between-motorways-and-dual-carriageways/ If it has 2.5m then it is more similar to a motorway, as in the above link says that only motorways have hard shoulders.

           — cyclisto

           Actually the standard width of the UK motorway hard shoulder is 3.3m but in any case stop throwing out red herrings: the video in question which you say shows cyclists shouldn’t have been two abreast is from Australia and they were riding on a road where, contrary to your assertion, cycling is permitted, so I’m not quite sure why you keep banging on about UK regulations.

         • I will try to make it simple

           I will try to make it simple to undestand:

           1) Riding abreast seems not safe to me.

           2) Riding in something that looks like a motorway also doesn’t seem safe to me.

           3) Two unsafe things worse than one unsafe thing.

           4) Jumping a red light can be a very safe process.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           I will try to make it simple to undestand:

           1) Riding abreast seems not safe to me.

           — cyclisto

           Yeah, we all understand what you’re saying, it’s just that none of us agree that it’s in any way true. In situations where an attempted overtake is dangerous for the cyclist, taking the whole lane is objectively safer than presenting a gap that following traffic will be tempted to push through.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           …We cannot aggree with all and unfortunately I have 3 videos proving that

           — cyclisto

           I… don’t think you do. You posted three clips where cyclist road-position did not contribute in any way to the incident (other than in a “wrong time, wrong place” sort of sense).

           so please post videos caused by accidents where single file road bike group rides had accidents that might have been prevented by riding abreast and I may reconcider…

           — cyclisto

           Funny you should mention this. Check out today’s NMOTD featuring cyclists riding in single-file, as far over as possible being rewarded with cars barging through dangerously and nearly hitting them (which they were only able to do because the cyclists were single-file and riding as far over as possible). Two-abreast and primary keep you safe.

         • There are 3 complilation vids

           There are 3 complilation vids in here

           https://twitter.com/n00dles71/status/1607809690548699142

           Plenty of examples of drivers squeezing through.

           I think is very unclear to everyone here why you still insist your 3 videos prove that riding abreast is dangerous.

         • cyclisto wrote:

           Riding abreast does indeed winds drivers up and most likely the first video we see one of the lunatics you say. We have to accept that lunatics exist, and they will run you over before the police or the hospital arrest them.

           — cyclisto

           100%. But the point I’m trying to make is that for every 1 lunatic, there are 500,000 non-malicious, but otherwise inept drivers. If you refuse to take a strong road position to close the gaps around you in situations where an overtake isn’t safe, you WILL be killed by one of the inept drivers before you even meet a lunatic.

           I rode in primary position for around a week, until a motorcyclist overtook me at high speed between me and the curb so I ditched this system as it was arguably the most frightening riding experience involving other drivers and it happened in such little time since I adopted primary position. I don’t like playing with chances.

           — cyclisto

           When I first started riding, I was nervous and didn’t want to put myself in primary. In the first few days, I was run off the road by courier who refused to wait behind a parked car on his side of the road and was constantly being close-passed through pinch-points (and was eventually glanced by a car who tried to pass me through a traffic island outside the church in the village). Riding primary when required immediately put a stop to this. Yes there are still incidents, but they’re way, way, WAY less frequent. Riding primary keeps you safe. 

         • Quote:

           I rode in primary position for around a week, until a motorcyclist overtook me at high speed between me and the curb so I ditched this system as it was arguably the most frightening riding experience involving other drivers and it happened in such little time since I adopted primary position. I don’t like playing with chances.

           As Ballards states, you ride Primary when required. If you felt the section you were in needed primary as it was dangerous for overtakes (or undertakes), then the motorbike would have just blasted past you at high speed (and probably close to) on the other side anyway. However how many other close passes did you not suffer from during that week? 

           No position will stop bad drivers being bad drivers. The other day I was approaching an island in primary position to dissuade anyone in my lane from overtaking close by on approach. Bearing in mind the road had two lanes and both allowed traffic to go straight on, it didn’t dissuade the lady who overtook in the other lane then immedidately pulled in front taking up my planned slowing space and causing me to have to emergency brake. There was no need for her to pull back in at all as we could have both made the island passing in respective lanes but she would have done the same manouvre but close passed in the same lane if I was in secondary / in the gutter.

       • I don’t understand the point

         I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. “In the real world” riding single-file tempts the majority of drivers to try and squeeze past cyclists in the same lane – which is one of the most dangerous things they can do. Riding two-abreast removes that small gap and forces drivers to wait for a break in oncoming traffic. You’re way more likely to get hit doing the former than the latter.

         This is like those cyclists that are against primary position because they think it winds drivers up and they’re worried about meeting some lunatic. What they don’t seem to get is that most drivers are just generally inept and will try to slot their 2m-wide car through the 1.5m gap between you and that traffic island. So if you refuse to take primary because you’re scared of that one encounter with a nutcase, you WILL eventually get hit by some every-day inept driver at a pinch point.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Having watched the videos you
         Having watched the videos you linked, I can only assume what you meant to say was “People wouldn’t be hurt if they didn’t cycle”.

         The first two videos show two vehicles failing to pass a cyclist when there was plenty of room for even the most minimally competent driver to pass safely without even a second’s delay. The two cyclists abreast made absolutely no difference, both appeared to be deliberate punishment passes or possibly just total incompetence on the part of the drivers and I have no doubt that the same result would have happened had it been a single cyclist.

         The final video is a vehicle traveling round a bend on the wrong side of the road. That would still be an issue for a single file cyclist, a fact clearly demonstrated in your video by the fact that the inside cyclists also had to take evasive action in an attempt to avoid the car.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’m not with you at all here

         I’m not with you at all here (or on your general point).  I doubt you’ll care because it seems you’ve a particular viewpoint here:

         where I ride now and seriously interrupts motor vehicle traffic, whereas it mostly favors recreation MAMILs that may even drive to get to a nice road cycling route and not bicycle commuters.

         — cyclisto

         I’ll not bother further with that.  On the broader point that:

         …in real life at two way roads a car and cyclist and a contraflow car can most likely squeeze in a two lane road …

         — cyclisto

         a) If we’re talking “squeeze in” then this is unsafe, for lots of reasons.  First it takes responsibility for safety out of the cyclists’ control and makes that depend on not just one driver’s careful driving but two!  Second the edge of the road is almost everywhere unsafe due to poor road quality / obstructions (rubbish, vegetation and road funiture at the side of the road).  As a consequence the cyclist is more likely to need extra space to manouever – which is exactly what they now have not got!

         b) As others have explained (pictures) it is quicker for drivers to pass a group of cyclists *safely* if they’re in a bunch.  (Of course you could say all of this depends on drivers giving a damn…)

         c) It also makes the cyclists much more visible.  (To drivers who are looking…)  Plus being further out into the lane gives the cyclists the ability to see further round left-hand bends (in the UK) so they may want to be there sometimes.  Which is good practice and legal in the UK at least.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I do not think these videos

           I do not think these videos show what you think they show.  Unless you really want to suggest that cyclists shouldn’t be cycling on roads at all 😉

           If someone is driving very badly, not looking or even just trying to “teach others a lesson” all safety bets are off.  (Without proper separated cycling infrastructure that is AND the principles of prioritising safety and movement of people, not just vehicles.  Which I will keep promoting as a major part of avoiding most of these issues and mitigating the remaining problems).

           Firstly: they don’t appear to be in the UK so care is needed when using them as examples.  Two are from the USA which is never a good place to look for examples of how to do transport infrastructure anyway.

           Vid 1 – USA.  Awful driving and presumably criminal even in the USA!  The cyclists appear to be very visible AND the driver was partly in opposite (left) lane and is moving back inward to their normal (right) side.  AND driver just drives off…

           Vid 2 – is this Australia / South Africa (the car reg that’s visible isn’t a UK one – and it’s dry and sunny?)  The cyclists don’t appear to be on the road at all! Again there are very very clear sight lines, a straight road, another driver manages a safe overtake with no issues at all.

           Vid 3 – California, it says.  The driver appears to be mostly on the wrong side of the road.  Cyclists are going fast round a bend – the cyclists are maybe a little far to the left (again – opposite from UK) but that makes sense for them to be visible to oncoming cars / be able to see themselves.

   • cyclisto wrote:

     Cyclists and red lights is a grey area for me, should not be punished by draconian laws. It is a bit weird for me that pedestrians in UK can pass through a red light with no legal consequences and cyclists with the practically the same weight and sometimes no greater speed than a jogger will have to pay fines.

     It is also a gray area because in many cases in other countries crossing red lights is allowed by cyclists and on the contrary there are cases where crossing red lights by pedestrians is fined.

     Moreover a red light for a cyclist will require more effort to regain momentum than any other road user such as pedestrians or motor vehicle users, therefore it is a good reason to be more lenient.

     So not the end of the world when crossing a red light on a 15kg bicycle and not on a 1200 kg vehicle and if we aim to increase commuting by cycling we should really rethink what promotes sustainable transport. Similarly I do believe that many one way roads could accomodate the width of a contraflow cyclist, something that Deliveroo cyclists already do.

     That laws rethinking process though, should include some cycle favouring laws such as the double abreast riding that is allowed in UK but it seems really dangerous for me, is illegal where I ride now and seriously interrupts motor vehicle traffic, whereas it mostly favors recreation MAMILs that may even drive to get to a nice road cycling route and not bicycle commuters.

     — cyclisto

     I pretty much agree with that (except for the two abreast bit), but I’d add that often traffic lights are only necessary for the motorised traffic (due to their increased size and momentum), so inner city cyclists are suffering due to the motor-focussed road designs.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Pretty much this. 

       Pretty much this. 
        

       the vast majority of traffic lights are only necessary due to the size, speed and comparatively extremely limited visibility from a motor vehicle. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • 15kg bike doesn’t sound much
     15kg bike doesn’t sound much fun.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Ride On wrote:

       15kg bike doesn’t sound much fun.

       — Ride On

       I assure you that my fatbike is still fun. Hell, my lightest bike is probably 12.5 kg and still loads of fun!

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Im not sure how GWR are

   Im not sure how GWR are expected to just “sort it out”, they dont own the trains they operate and these ones are expected to have a lifespan of upto 30 years, its down to the DfT to mandate there is more accessible bicycle space, and then down to the staff on the trains to ensure its kept empty.

   but practically we know theres neither the political will or desire from train companies to enact it.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Awavey wrote:

     Im not sure how GWR are expected to just “sort it out”, they dont own the trains they operate and these ones are expected to have a lifespan of upto 30 years, its down to the DfT to mandate there is more accessible bicycle space, and then down to the staff on the trains to ensure its kept empty.

     but practically we know theres neither the political will or desire from train companies to enact it.

     — Awavey

     Do they not own their trains? They made a big fuss about their modern redesign of their trains a while back, but those were the ones with a small broom cupboard for storing bikes that were only suitable for a small subset of bikes and the owner had to be able to hoist their bike onto the small hook.

     I think it’s about time we recognised that private ownership of the train companies has been an abject failure in terms of transport (probably successful in lining the pockets of a tiny minority of people though).

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       I think it’s about time we recognised that private ownership of the train companies has been an abject failure in terms of transport (probably successful in lining the pockets of a tiny minority of people though).

       — hawkinspeter

       Exactly. I saw some story earlier on Reddit where the Govt. are telling the rail unions that “millions with shun rail travel for years” because of the strikes. Whereas, if the trains were a little better thought out, more reliable, and cheaper, there are millions of people that would either drive a hell of a lot less, or not drive at all.

       I work remotely, but occasionally I need to travel ~170 miles to be onsite and I usually stay in a hotel when doing so. I live within cycling distance of a train station, and the office and hotel are withing cycling distance of a train station. If I could reliably get my bike on the train and not get screwed over on one of the many changes, I literally would not need to own a car.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • BalladOfStruth wrote:

         I work remotely, but occasionally I need to travel ~170 miles to be onsite and I usually stay in a hotel when doing so. I live within cycling distance of a train station, and the office and hotel are withing cycling distance of a train station. If I could reliably get my bike on the train and not get screwed over on one of the many changes, I literally would not need to own a car.

         — BalladOfStruth

         Brompton.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I don’t fancy 7 miles of

           I don’t fancy 7 miles of hilly, NSL Carmarthenshire country lanes on a Brompton. I certainly don’t fancy the roads around the office (that are starting to resemble the surface of the moon) on those little wheels either – it was bad enough on a gravel bike when I lived there.

           There are other reasons the train just isn’t a reliable enough option – like not being able to take a bike on the commuter trains at all, so I need to avoid those. I can’t wait until after the last commuter train to travel in the evening because that means a four-hour layover at midnight somewhere waiting for the trains to start back up in the morning (the first train after work leaves just after 20:30, will stop somewhere like Bristol at midnight and doesn’t get in until nearly 05:00 the next morning). So I need to travel during the work day – this means booking a seat and being able to work on the train. But if one of the connections is delayed (like it almost always is) and I end up standing on a fully-booked subsequent train, I can’t do that. Also, it’s usually a technical meeting of some sort that I’d be going in for, so a delayed train would usually make it a wasted trip anyway.

           Along with all the other minor niggles (like being too tall to fit in the seats on the TFW trains that make up the first leg of the journey), driving really is the only reliable option.

       • BalladOfStruth wrote:

         If I could reliably get my bike on the train and not get screwed over on one of the many changes, I literally would not need to own a car.

         — BalladOfStruth

         If you don’t mind taking the wheels off, bike bag? I know someone who gets a very hit and miss service for bikes being allowed or not in the west country; she carries a very cheap thin bike bag (one of the type really meant just to keep the dust off) folded up in her panniers, if she’s told she can’t bring her bike on the train she goes round the corner, take the wheels off, shoves the bike in the bag and walks back in with it over her shoulder, gets on the train no questions asked.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • No, the new trains they made

       No, the new trains they made a fuss about with the small broom cupboard for bikes were actually spec’d by the DfT and bought by the taxpayer, they are then leased to GWR via a 3rd party who looks after maintenance with Hitachi. The DfTs sole main objective in the design was to increase seating capacity per train,and they added on average around 100 extra seats for roughly the same train length, hence the poor bike & luggage provision.

       But then consequently because of the complicated design/build/ownership of those trains, it means GWR cant just modify them without DfT approval, because it would materially affect the targetted passenger capacity numbers of the trains and that would affect the leasing costs and the payback to the treasury, and so might render them less viable on other routes or with other train companies.

       if anything it shows state involvement actually made things worse, because the government made a huge capital investment on these poorly designed trains, but are now stuck with them for literally decades to come.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Awavey wrote:

         No, the new trains they made a fuss about with the small broom cupboard for bikes were actually spec’d by the DfT and bought by the taxpayer, they are then leased to GWR via a 3rd party who looks after maintenance with Hitachi. The DfTs sole main objective in the design was to increase seating capacity per train,and they added on average around 100 extra seats for roughly the same train length, hence the poor bike & luggage provision.

         But then consequently because of the complicated design/build/ownership of those trains, it means GWR cant just modify them without DfT approval, because it would materially affect the targetted passenger capacity numbers of the trains and that would affect the leasing costs and the payback to the treasury, and so might render them less viable on other routes or with other train companies.

         if anything it shows state involvement actually made things worse, because the government made a huge capital investment on these poorly designed trains, but are now stuck with them for literally decades to come.

         — Awavey

         Thanks for the clarification.

         It sounds to me like the DfT were blinkered in just designing purely for passenger numbers rather than looking at the larger transport picture. It’s peculiar because that’s usually a business decision to optimise for ticket revenue. I suspect they brought in a specialist bicycle storage expert to design those cupboards, but unfortunately they’d never seen a real bicycle before, although they had made lots of pretty crayon drawings of them.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Apparently they look like

           Apparently they look like this, although because you rarely see them about on the roads it’s difficult to say for sure:

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       I think it’s about time we recognised that private ownership of the train companies has been an abject failure in terms of transport (probably successful in lining the pockets of a tiny minority of people though).

       — hawkinspeter

       As I have pointed out to you previously, when it was British Rail it was an utter disaster. Terrible trains, terrible punctuality, awful service, a complete cluster fuck. 

       In addition the staff are now much better compensated according to my B-in-Law train driver who was around under BR too. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Gimpl wrote:

         As I have pointed out to you previously, when it was British Rail it was an utter disaster. Terrible trains, terrible punctuality, awful service, a complete cluster fuck. 

         In addition the staff are now much better compensated according to my B-in-Law train driver who was around under BR too. 

         — Gimpl

         I recall you giving your opinion on that.

         I’d propose that train services can be run poorly by both governments and private companies – neither has the monopoly on incompetence. However, private companies have goals that are not aligned with the public’s, whereas governments should be aligned with serving the public (ignoring our current embarrassment of course).

         According to the ONS, Northern Rail and East Coast train companies have effectively been re-nationalised: https://www.ft.com/content/1baa6b50-47ba-416e-b172-90a77a34c19d

         There’s also this plan on re-nationalisation: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/british-rail-to-be-nationalised-as-part-of-sweeping-tory-reforms-270312/

         I’m not trying to say that the UK had brilliant trains back in the day, but that nationalising the train companies was poorly thought out and just ended up with the tax-payer losing out and the train customers faced with very high fares.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           I’m not trying to say that the UK had brilliant trains back in the day, but that nationalising the train companies was poorly thought out and just ended up with the tax-payer losing out and the train customers faced with very high fares.

           — hawkinspeter

           Fares were high under BR too. Currently we have much better service, it’s more reliable (believe it or not!), staff are remunerated better too and all of the stock is more modern and up to date (at least it is on the West Coast line that I travel on regularly). I fail to see how the tax payer is losing out. 

         • Gimpl wrote:

           I’m not trying to say that the UK had brilliant trains back in the day, but that nationalising the train companies was poorly thought out and just ended up with the tax-payer losing out and the train customers faced with very high fares.

           — Gimpl

           Fares were high under BR too. Currently we have much better service, it’s more reliable (believe it or not!), staff are remunerated better too and all of the stock is more modern and up to date (at least it is on the West Coast line that I travel on regularly). I fail to see how the tax payer is losing out. 

           — hawkinspeter

           I’m too young (humble brag) to remember trains under BR but I struggle to believe they were more reliable. The cancellations have been ludicrous… especially the true rate of cancellations including the ones cancelled before 10pm the previous day.

           Obviously it’s far easier to run trains on time when you make 30% of them disappear

         • Gimpl wrote:

           Fares were high under BR too. Currently we have much better service, it’s more reliable (believe it or not!), staff are remunerated better too and all of the stock is more modern and up to date (at least it is on the West Coast line that I travel on regularly). I fail to see how the tax payer is losing out. 

           — Gimpl

           I don’t object to the staff having better remuneration and conditions which is why I support their strikes. I’m not convinced that the modern trains are designed better (see previous rants about bike spaces), but there have been improvements.

           In terms of fare prices, I found this older (2013) article on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703

           

           Notice that the season tickets have kept more or less in line with inflation due to them being regulated, whereas the unregulated tickets are much more expensive.

   • I thought they do own the

     I thought they do own the trains, just not the track?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Train operating companies don

       Train operating companies don’t own trains, they’re owned by separate rolling stock leasing companies who in turn leases them to the incumbent franchise holder/concession. It’s way more complicated than it needs to be IMO. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Thanks (and Rod and Awavey) I

         Thanks (and Rod and Awavey) I stand corrected. I’m sure though that the train companies must be allowed to make some modifications to the stock in terms of taking seats out to accommodate bikes or luggage if they wish?

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • mark1a wrote:

         Train operating companies don’t own trains, they’re owned by separate rolling stock leasing companies who in turn leases them to the incumbent franchise holder/concession. It’s way more complicated than it needs to be IMO. 

         — mark1a

         I wonder if that’s to do with some sort of tax avoidance scheme…  A borrows money from B, then lends that to C, then C lends money back to A so nobody ever makes a profit and no tax is due.  Or is that me getting up on the cynical side of the bed this morning?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • brooksby wrote:

           I wonder if that’s to do with some sort of tax avoidance scheme…  A borrows money from B, then lends that to C, then C lends money back to A so nobody ever makes a profit and no tax is due.  Or is that me getting up on the cynical side of the bed this morning?

           — brooksby

           I suspect its less about tax avoidance and more about more opportunities to leach money from the public purse….

           (TBF leasing of transport via specialist leasors or similar is common in other transport modes (aircraft for example) – the correct question to ask is whether the actual owner is taking on the same degree of commercial risk they would take on were the railways not a public asset. Its also more common for only a percentage of a fleet to be leased with some handback options)

           Extreme example – I used to work for a major airline – in one dispute with a leasing company they actually flew aircraft out to that big aircraft graveyard in Nevada – and just said “they’re you’re problem now”.

         • Given rail franchises can and

           Given rail franchises can and do swap around, leasing trains from ROSCOs does make sense – you can’t alter the structure of the franchises if they all own their own stock.  
            

           howevrr, ROSCOs make far too much money and arguably are bad value for money. 

     • I believe that they lease the

       I believe that they lease the trains rather than own them. To be fair to GWR, my understanding is that they didn’t have a lot of input to the design, and this was largely down to DfT. So we know who to blame.

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. I hate GWR, so even if they
   I hate GWR, so even if they logically are not responsible for the luggage space issue, I would blame them for the implementation.

   2 a breast is better for everyone needs to hammered into every motorists head, preferably with a mallet.

   Logically, in certain circumstances running a red light as a cyclist is not always dangerous but I still dislike it. It does motivate me to cycle faster though as I will attempt to catch up with an RLJ and tell them how pointless it is. I do agree that the real issue is that the reward system for gig cyclists rewards poor behaviour.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote

     I do agree that the real issue is that the reward system for gig cyclists rewards poor behaviour.

     — JustTryingToGetFromAtoB

     Yeah, I suspect that delivery bikes are the worst-ridden bicycles on the road for much the same reason that pay-by-the-parcel courier vans are by far the worst-driven vehicles on the road.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • BalladOfStruth wrote:

       Yeah, I suspect that delivery bikes are the worst-ridden bicycles on the road for much the same reason that pay-by-the-parcel courier vans are by far the worst-driven vehicles on the road.

       — BalladOfStruth

       I’d vote for school-run parents using their phones as being the worst driven vehicles on the road.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’d vote for some of the

         I’d vote for some of the aggressive, logic-impaired shouty drivers featured on road.cc as owning the worst-driven vehicles on the road (“you were in my way and holding me up for a couple of seconds so now I’m going to stop you for a ten-minute fight!”)

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           I’d vote for some of the aggressive, logic-impaired shouty drivers featured on road.cc as owning the worst-driven vehicles on the road (“you were in my way and holding me up for a couple of seconds so now I’m going to stop you for a ten-minute fight!”)

           — chrisonatrike

           The most incredible one I ever had was the driver who shout abuse at me for forcing him to overtake me when there was oncoming traffic – this was about half a mile down the road, as I passed him when he was queue for the lights (I’d estimate that he was about 4 changes away from the front of the queue, which inturn would put him about 3 further changes away from the front of the next queue – it was pre-covid ‘rush-hour’ traffic)

4. I’m not sure why the Twitter
   I’m not sure why the Twitter post is trying to criticise people for filling up the bike space. It’s for luggage too. The sign is right there in the photo!

   Oh no! The bike and luggage space is being used for *gasps* luggage!! Better complain!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

     I’m not sure why the Twitter post is trying to criticise people for filling up the bike space. It’s for luggage too. The sign is right there in the photo! Oh no! The bike and luggage space is being used for *gasps* luggage!! Better complain!

     — ShutTheFrontDawes

     I think the point the poster was trying to make was not criticising people for (legitimately, as you point out) using the shared space for their luggage; they were criticising the train company for making the space bikes and luggage instead of bikes only. They could easily take out a couple of seats to make enough room for that luggage and leave space for bikes, but that would cut it into the profit margin.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Do you really think that’s
       Do you really think that’s the point they were trying to make? They said “Thanks GWRHelp for allowing other passengers to fill the bike spaces […] with non bikes”.

       Would they have garnered the same reaction if the spaces had been filled by other bikes (i.e. something equally allowed as luggage)? I think not.

       I’ve been pretty pleased by the cycle spaces offered on GWR trains. Much better than elsewhere I’ve experienced, though my experience of putting bikes on the train is pretty limited and mainly down south.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

         Do you really think that’s the point they were trying to make? They said “Thanks GWRHelp for allowing other passengers to fill the bike spaces […] with non bikes”. Would they have garnered the same reaction if the spaces had been filled by other bikes (i.e. something equally allowed as luggage)? I think not. I’ve been pretty pleased by the cycle spaces offered on GWR trains. Much better than elsewhere I’ve experienced, though my experience of putting bikes on the train is pretty limited and mainly down south.

         — ShutTheFrontDawes

         There’s nowhere else that the bikes are allowed to be stored, so if the bike space is filled, then you’d either have to stand with your bike by the doorways (and hope the staff don’t kick you off the train) or get the next train.

         Luggage is allowed to be stored anywhere, even on the seats.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

         Do you really think that’s the point they were trying to make? They said “Thanks GWRHelp for allowing other passengers to fill the bike spaces […] with non bikes”. Would they have garnered the same reaction if the spaces had been filled by other bikes (i.e. something equally allowed as luggage)? I think not.

         — ShutTheFrontDawes

         Yes, I think that’s exactly what they’re complaining about, that the train company allows passengers to put their luggage in the cycle space. I can’t speak for how they would’ve reacted but for me if the spaces were filled with other bikes I’d say that’s the way it goes (provided they hadn’t pinched my reservation), being filled with luggage, and thus preventing the cyclist taking up their reserved parking space, which with a little thought and effort could’ve gone elsewhere is entirely different. I have a friend who is disabled and has a blue badge: if all the available parking spaces at the supermarket are filled with disabled badge cars she doesn’t complain, if they are filled with cars without badges and the supermarket staff aren’t doing anything about it she does. Context.

         NB I’m not saying a cyclist being deprived of their space is as bad as a disabled driver being deprived of theirs, but the analogy does seem apt.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I agree that context is
           I agree that context is important. Did the cyclist reserve the space? They don’t say so I presume not (on the basis that if I wrote a tweet like that, I know I’d consider that important and so mention it). And did they ask for help for the luggage to be moved from that luggage compartment to the ones just inside the doors? Was there even room in those spaces? Those spaces tend to get used first so that people can be closer to and keep an eye on their luggage.

           My experience of GWR trains (and I actually travel on the Plymouth to London train more than any other) is that the staff are helpful where they can and polite even when they can’t help.

           I see these compartments empty more often than not (with the exception of peak times, where you’re packed in tighter than sardines anyway) so I can’t really expect GWR to provide more dedicated storage because it would mean more wasted space. More flexible storage like this wouldn’t hurt though.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           NB I’m not saying a cyclist being deprived of their space is as bad as a disabled driver being deprived of theirs, but the analogy does seem apt.

           — Rendel Harris

           People don’t tend to pay hundreds of pounds for the priviledge of parking their car at the supermarket – but they might for a train ticket. So I would say that the situation for disabled drivers is probably less bad.

   • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

     I’m not sure why the Twitter post is trying to criticise people for filling up the bike space. It’s for luggage too. The sign is right there in the photo! Oh no! The bike and luggage space is being used for *gasps* luggage!! Better complain!

     — ShutTheFrontDawes

     There’s also the issue that luggage can be stored elsewhere on the carriages, but sometimes the train staff will insist that bikes can only be stored in the bike/luggage space.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • You also have to reserve the

     You also have to reserve the space for bikes and this is indicated on the LED sign adjacent.  The train company should ensure it is clear if this is the case, same as reserved seats.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Indeed. I have never found
       Indeed. I have never found that to be the case personally (perhaps I’ve been lucky), but I expect that GWR staff would be helpful and resolve the issue if asked – I find that usually are helpful about other stuff.

       Perhaps the tweeter reserved a space but if they did, I bet they would have said “my reserved bike space” or similar.

       Seems like a complete non-issue to me.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

         Indeed. I have never found that to be the case personally (perhaps I’ve been lucky), but I expect that GWR staff would be helpful and resolve the issue if asked – I find that usually are helpful about other stuff. Perhaps the tweeter reserved a space but if they did, I bet they would have said “my reserved bike space” or similar. Seems like a complete non-issue to me.

         — ShutTheFrontDawes

         It can vary a lot with GWR staff. When they first brought in the booking scheme, some staff were adamant about no bikes being allowed without being booked (even though it was often impossible to book), but GWR’s policy was disputed and most of the staff were more relaxed about it. (NB. Local services did not allow bike spaces to be booked).

         I remember there was one particular ticket inspector who had apparently (according to him) been in trouble with ‘elf and safety for allowing too many bikes on board and thereafter was very strict with bike storage. That was on the older trains that just had a space with folding seats that could be used for bikes, passengers and wheelchair users. With some logistical experience, you could fit in a large number of bikes, but the official capacity was for only two or three. Some very annoyed cyclists had to get the later train when that guard was on duty.

         However, I’d agree that GWR’s staff are generally very polite and helpful.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Indeed. I have never found that to be the case personally (perhaps I’ve been lucky), but I expect that GWR staff would be helpful and resolve the issue if asked – I find that usually are helpful about other stuff. Perhaps the tweeter reserved a space but if they did, I bet they would have said “my reserved bike space” or similar. Seems like a complete non-issue to me.

           — hawkinspeter

           It can vary a lot with GWR staff. When they first brought in the booking scheme, some staff were adamant about no bikes being allowed without being booked (even though it was often impossible to book), but GWR’s policy was disputed and most of the staff were more relaxed about it.

           I remember there was one particular ticket inspector who had apparently (according to him) been in trouble with ‘elf and safety for allowing too many bikes on board and thereafter was very strict with bike storage. That was on the older trains that just had a space with folding seats that could be used for bikes, passengers and wheelchair users. With some logistical experience, you could fit in a large number of bikes, but the official capacity was for only two or three. Some very annoyed cyclists had to get the later train when that guard was on duty.— ShutTheFrontDawes

           My experience of GWR staff is that the newer ones, say recruited in the last 6 years, tend to be far better than the old codgers that seem impossible to sack.

           Some GWR staff are downright appalling, more so than any other company I’ve encountered. And some of those old codgers really REALLY hate bikes and cyclists.

           Best thing by far about the pandemic for me is the reduction in time I spend on GWR trains.

         • JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote

           My experience of GWR staff is that the newer ones, say recruited in the last 6 years, tend to be far better than the old codgers that seem impossible to sack. Some GWR staff are downright appalling, more so than any other company I’ve encountered. And some of those old codgers really REALLY hate bikes and cyclists. Best thing by far about the pandemic for me is the reduction in time I spend on GWR trains.

           — JustTryingToGetFromAtoB

           Some of the nicest staff have been the older ones. I remember being really impressed with how one of them (Vince?) was helping a confused, drunk woman (this was early in the morning) and he treated her with dignity even though she was having a lot of trouble following his instructions.

         • I agree. A 60-odd platform
           I agree. A 60-odd platform attendant showed me how to download an app and pay for station parking because I couldn’t get the machine to work. He was so nice and helpful and could tell I was really stressed because I was nearly late for my train. It was the first time I’d been to London since COVID and was already pretty stressed by the scenario. He was lovely.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           My experience of GWR staff is that the newer ones, say recruited in the last 6 years, tend to be far better than the old codgers that seem impossible to sack. Some GWR staff are downright appalling, more so than any other company I’ve encountered. And some of those old codgers really REALLY hate bikes and cyclists. Best thing by far about the pandemic for me is the reduction in time I spend on GWR trains.

           — hawkinspeter

           Some of the nicest staff have been the older ones. I remember being really impressed with how one of them (Vince?) was helping a confused, drunk woman (this was early in the morning) and he treated her with dignity even though she was having a lot of trouble following his instructions.— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB

           Just because the members of staff are older – it doesn’t mean that they’ve been employed of a long time. He wasn’t generalising based on their age, but rather their length of employment – though I’m not sure how you’d determine that and why it is any better than generalising based on age.

         • jh2727 wrote:

           Just because the members of staff are older – it doesn’t mean that they’ve been employed of a long time. He wasn’t generalising based on their age, but rather their length of employment – though I’m not sure how you’d determine that and why it is any better than generalising based on age.

           — jh2727

           Yes, although there does seem to be some correlation between length of service and age. I’ve got nothing against the younger/newer staff, but it does seem that experience counts for a lot with a tough customer service job.

         • jh2727 wrote:

           My experience of GWR staff is that the newer ones, say recruited in the last 6 years, tend to be far better than the old codgers that seem impossible to sack. Some GWR staff are downright appalling, more so than any other company I’ve encountered. And some of those old codgers really REALLY hate bikes and cyclists. Best thing by far about the pandemic for me is the reduction in time I spend on GWR trains.

           — jh2727

           Some of the nicest staff have been the older ones. I remember being really impressed with how one of them (Vince?) was helping a confused, drunk woman (this was early in the morning) and he treated her with dignity even though she was having a lot of trouble following his instructions.

           — hawkinspeter

           Just because the members of staff are older – it doesn’t mean that they’ve been employed of a long time. He wasn’t generalising based on their age, but rather their length of employment – though I’m not sure how you’d determine that and why it is any better than generalising based on age.

           — JustTryingToGetFromAtoB

           Anecdata on my part. In the before time, I used to commute 5 days a week. You got to know the faces and the arseholes were more memorable… they had been arseholes for years. Then, after a few years it looked like Worst Late Western went on a hiring spree, new faces… and they seemed like normal human beings that could interact with other humans.

           In fairness, I will give a shout out to:
           Assistance team at Pad… when I was on crutches for a long time those guys were legends
           Small old guy who used to mostly worked on customer service desk in Rdg back in the days it was manned – he was lovely. Haven’t seen him in ages so hope he has retired with a big pension

         • I got the train to Nailsea on

           I got the train to Nailsea on an inter city a few years back, on the way back it was a 2 coach train and I was refused passage with my bike. I then had the stress of wondering if I could get home. Cycled to Bristol station and luckily there were spaces on the paddington service and the guard let me on.

   • She’s not criticising “people

     She’s not criticising “people” for putting their luggage there.  She’s criticising GWR for not having enough staff to ensure that, when the cycle spaces have been booked, they are kept clear for said bookings. 

     Having used these trains myself, it’s a pain in the backside getting on them – if you don’t book your cycles, then you don’t get on the train.  But even when you do book the space, and the space is then taken up by luggage, sometimes, the staff still won’t let you on.  I’ve had to chase a ticket refund before now because of not being allowed on a train and then having to buy a new ticket for a later train because the ticket I had was for a booked seat that allowed me to travel on the train I had booked on.  

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Is she? It seems to me that
       Is she? It seems to me that she is criticising people and GWR. She seems to be suggesting that the space is a bike space (it isn’t) and that other people shouldn’t be “allowed” to put their luggage there (they are) and she doesn’t even mention that it was booked, and so I presume it wasn’t.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • So: if you had booked a bike

     So: if you had booked a bike onto that train, and had turned up at the station, and had got on the train to find that area filled with luggage and then a ‘conductor’ (or whatever they call them nowadays) tells you that because your bike can’t go in there then you’ll have to get off and catch the next train… So if all that happened, you’d be fine and dandy with it and go off with a spring in your step, would you?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • brooksby wrote:

       So: if you had booked a bike onto that train, and had turned up at the station, and had got on the train to find that area filled with luggage and then a ‘conductor’ (or whatever they call them nowadays) tells you that because your bike can’t go in there then you’ll have to get off and catch the next train… So if all that happened, you’d be fine and dandy with it and go off with a spring in your step, would you?

       — brooksby

       And because the next train isn’t the one you had your bike booked on, they won’t let you on that one either, and you’re left standing on a rail platform with your bike, 150 miles from home with no idea what to do…

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Had the tweeter made a
       Had the tweeter made a reservation? Were staff unhelpful? Was there no space elsewhere?

       I don’t know the answer to any of those questions, and I make judgements based on facts presented. In the photo luggage was being stored in a location where luggage is allowed to be stored.

       So I don’t understand the outrage.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • If you’d reserved a seat, and
         If you’d reserved a seat, and it was taken up by somebody’s luggage, then you’d expect them to move it, so that you can use the facility that you booked – I don’t see the bike space as being any different, so the reluctance of the train staff to help a cyclist with a reservation is puzzling.

         If it is a space for bikes and luggage, then maybe a reservation should be required for either of those items.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • belugabob wrote:

           If you’d reserved a seat, and it was taken up by somebody’s luggage, then you’d expect them to move it, so that you can use the facility that you booked – I don’t see the bike space as being any different, so the reluctance of the train staff to help a cyclist with a reservation is puzzling. If it is a space for bikes and luggage, then maybe a reservation should be required for either of those items.

           — belugabob

           As I’ve mentioned, luggage can be stored elsewhere on train carriages, so there’s little point in having a reservation system for it, unless you want to further reduce the chances of a cyclist being able to get their bike on a train.

           I’ve never heard of people with luggage being turned away from trains, but it’s not unusual for cyclists to be refused passage.

         • well on these trains…the

           well on these trains…the reason that kind of sized luggage ends up in the broom cupboard, or that the broom cupboard even suggests its a shared luggage bike rack, is because there isnt the space elsewhere for that kind of luggage. They took out the old vestibule luggage space to make more room for extra seats.

           you kind of get enough space under the seat infront to fit an airline carryon style size case, but anything bigger and you are quite literally stuffed if the seat next to you is taken.

         • There is luggage space
           There is luggage space available under seats, in the overhead racks and in racks at each end of each carriage between the seats and the doors. The racks between the seats and the doors (2x per carriage) are pretty big too.

           Disclaimer: this has been true on all the GWR trains from Plymouth to Paddington that I have been on, but may not be true in all cases. I’m no train buff.

         • Im no train buff either, but

           Im no train buff either, but Ive travelled on them enough to know what size bags I can get away with when I need to travel to various parts of the country on them, and those GWR ones are the absolute worst for luggage space, the seats are rock hard too.

           The overhead racks are only big enough for a coat/laptop bag/handbag, the space under the seats as I say is big enough and designed clearly because they havent put a gigantic beam of metal there like on some trains, for airline cabin bag/case size only. The space at the end of the carriage you might fit one large case, but more often its full of overflowed cabin bag/case size stuff instead.

           The chances are with a larger bag or suitcase the on train staff will direct you to the broom cupboard to store it, especially as youd be likely to leave it in the corridor otherwise which then means the catering trolley cant get through.

           as a work colleague described them to me once, theyre high speed commuting trains now, they arent about transporting you and your luggage be that with bike or cases around the country, once you realise that, they make alot more sense.

         • Awavey wrote:

           Im no train buff either, but Ive travelled on them enough to know what size bags I can get away with when I need to travel to various parts of the country on them, and those GWR ones are the absolute worst for luggage space, the seats are rock hard too.

           The overhead racks are only big enough for a coat/laptop bag/handbag, the space under the seats as I say is big enough and designed clearly because they havent put a gigantic beam of metal there like on some trains, for airline cabin bag/case size only. The space at the end of the carriage you might fit one large case, but more often its full of overflowed cabin bag/case size stuff instead.

           The chances are with a larger bag or suitcase the on train staff will direct you to the broom cupboard to store it, especially as youd be likely to leave it in the corridor otherwise which then means the catering trolley cant get through.

           as a work colleague described them to me once, theyre high speed commuting trains now, they arent about transporting you and your luggage be that with bike or cases around the country, once you realise that, they make alot more sense.

           — Awavey

           To my mind, prioritising bike spaces would make perfect sense for high speed commuting trains. However, that does imply that we have logical, joined up transport services in this country rather than individual business fiefdoms

         • Once the revolution is here
           Once the revolution is here we’ll realise commuting is best with bikes not traveling on the train but n+1 used at the destinations. Your own if you’re always going the same place, but a last-miles national integrated rental system at all main stations at least. (In dreams and The Netherlands these exist at even minor stations).

           https://www.ns.nl/en/door-to-door/ov-fiets

           Multi-modal is why these exist:

           https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-open-utrechts-huge-bicycle-parking-garage/

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Once the revolution is here we’ll realise commuting is best with bikes not traveling on the train but n+1 used at the destinations. Your own if you’re always going the same place, but a last-miles national integrated rental system at all main stations at least. (In dreams and The Netherlands these exist at even minor stations). https://www.ns.nl/en/door-to-door/ov-fiets Multi-modal is why these exist: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-open-utrechts-huge-bicycle-parking-garage/

           — chrisonatrike

           I disagree. Firstly, there’s the cost associated with getting another bike. Then there’s the security issue as transport hubs are going to have a big pile of bikes that aren’t accessed overnight which gives thieves lots of time to grab the best ones. There’s also the maintenance issue as you’re not necessarily going to be able to keep the distant bike well repaired and it’s going to be rough to arrive there to discover that a tyre is flat and you’re going to be late for work.

           It’s much easier for people to keep their favourite commuter bike with them and all it requires is for train companies to have storage that can either house bikes or commuters (with or without luggage). Here’s a good design from Denmark:

         • Awavey wrote:

           well on these trains…the reason that kind of sized luggage ends up in the broom cupboard, or that the broom cupboard even suggests its a shared luggage bike rack, is because there isnt the space elsewhere for that kind of luggage. They took out the old vestibule luggage space to make more room for extra seats.

           you kind of get enough space under the seat infront to fit an airline carryon style size case, but anything bigger and you are quite literally stuffed if the seat next to you is taken.

           — Awavey

           On very crowded trains, I’ve seen people with large wheeled suitcases either keep them with them by their seats or stand by the carriage doors with them. Neither of those options would be allowed for bikes if the train’s crowded.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           As I’ve mentioned, luggage can be stored elsewhere on train carriages, so there’s little point in having a reservation system for it, unless you want to further reduce the chances of a cyclist being able to get their bike on a train.

           I’ve never heard of people with luggage being turned away from trains, but it’s not unusual for cyclists to be refused passage.

           — hawkinspeter

           If there is luggage space elsewhere, then there should be no need for it to be in the cupboard with the bikes.

           I see your point about luggage reservations potentially reducing the amount of bookable bike spaces, but that couldn’t be any worse than booking your space then not being allowed to use it (shades of Rhod Gilbert’s Egg and Cress sandwich)
           Your last point illustrates the exact problem – unfair treatment of one type of customer over another (moreso when a space has been reserved)

         • belugabob wrote:

           If you’d reserved a seat, and it was taken up by somebody’s luggage, then you’d expect them to move it, so that you can use the facility that you booked – I don’t see the bike space as being any different, so the reluctance of the train staff to help a cyclist with a reservation is puzzling.

           If it is a space for bikes and luggage, then maybe a reservation should be required for either of those items.

           — belugabob

           It is a space for bikes and luggage. A reservation is not required for either type for it to be used, and the space can (but does not have to be) reserved for bikes but it cannot be reserved for luggage (which I think is a fair priority to cycles given that luggage can be stored elsewhere). It is my understanding (though I can’t say I have an extensive knowledge of GWR policy, so this is based on my experience alone) that the bicycle racks are treated in the same way as seats. If a seat is reserved but is being used by someone other than the reserver, a short conversation usually resolves the issue and GWR Staff resolve the issue if not. I expect that the bike space would be the same, if reserved.

           If the bike space was reserved by the tweeter I would expect GWR staff to be helpful. They usually are, in my experience at least.

           Do you know whether the bike space was reserved? The tweeter didn’t mention, which I find an interesting omission, so I presume they did not.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           It is a space for bikes and luggage. A reservation is not required for either type for it to be used, and the space can (but does not have to be) reserved for bikes

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Reservations are required for those trains: www.gwr.com/travelling-with-us/on-our-trains/bringing-your-bike. Bizarrely, only 4 bike reservations per train are allowed, despite many trains having 8-10 spaces. Often staff don’t seem bothered about this but I have heard conductors threatening to remove unreserved bikes from unoccupied and unreservable spaces…

           Do you know whether the bike space was reserved? The tweeter didn’t mention, which I find an interesting omission, so I presume they did not.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Green/red lights above the compartment indicate whether reserved or not – I agree it would have been useful to know whether this particular space was reserved. If not, then luggage may be stored there – but the system is designed to work badly (even before you consider the nonsense of having to lift bikes vertically onto hooks that don’t fit many tyres…).

         • That’s interesting. I didn’t
           That’s interesting. I didn’t know that reservations are required on those trains. Thank you for sharing.

           In that case, I find it even more interesting that there was no mention of the space being reserved.

           Seems even more like manufactured outrage to me.

         • Given that space for large
           Given that space for large luggage is more limited And is often not near its owners matching the two so you can ask is not so convenient. I guess you could just yell into the carriages either side? (I don’t know GWR but on the East Coast/ Azuma carriages larger space is at either end of the carriage).

5. Peterson says 

   Peterson says 

   “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you’re “allowed” to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea”

   So how do the roads get put their in the first place? Doesn’t that come down to “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats” deciding that this might be a place where people might be allowed to drive (and walk/cycle/wheel etc)? But somehow tweaking that initial decision is now tyranny?

   The man is an idiot.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • the little onion wrote:

     Peterson says 

     “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you’re “allowed” to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea”

     So how do the roads get put their in the first place? Doesn’t that come down to “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats” deciding that this might be a place where people might be allowed to drive (and walk/cycle/wheel etc)? But somehow tweaking that initial decision is now tyranny?

     The man is an idiot.

     — the little onion

     My favourite tweet of his questioned why 90%+ of his followers were male. You’re gonna struggle with your “intellectual” credentials when you can’t work that one out.

     He’s a total bellend

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • BBC had a recent series “The

     BBC had a recent series “The New Gurus” which had an episode on him (also addressing modern controversialists in general).  Essentially “if your business is controversy, you have to feed your audience and they just want… more controversy”.  So essentially it’s “self-polarising clickbait” writ large.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • And I’m afraid a large

       And I’m afraid a large percentage of road.cc’s content is clickbait relayed to us so we can rail against it.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • HarrogateSpa wrote:

         And I’m afraid a large percentage of road.cc’s content is clickbait relayed to us so we can rail against it.

         — HarrogateSpa

         Are you trying to make me angry…??

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Road.cc serve up the daily

         Road.cc serve up the daily dose of anti cycle news and the usual suspects froth into their cornflakes and mash the keyboard but I guess it works for all involved. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Saves a couple of volunteers
           Saves a couple of volunteers doing it…

6. Delivery cyclists breaking

   Delivery cyclists breaking the rules of the road to get their deliveries done quicker is not news.  Delivery van drivers do exactly the same thing.  The problem is not cyclists, and neither really is it the van driver’s fault.  It’s the time pressures put on the staff doing the deliveries that encourages this behaviour. 

   But the management don’t care about that because they’re not the ones who will get it in the neck.  They only care about the bottom line and gig working in any kind of delivery field should be outlawed.  

   The big thing though, is that a deliveroo or ubereats cyclist breaking the rules doesn’t risk too much, whereas a van driver doing so, risks much, much more.  And there are quite a few reports of accidents involving such vehicles including some fatalities.  Whereas if there was less pressure on the drivers (and riders), they would be less likely to break the rules and therefore less likely to be in an accident.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Quote:

   Motorbike rider hits pensioner – so Twitter blames cyclists, naturally

   Ludicrous (but not surprising) that so many people use this as an excuse to have a go at cyclists.

   Did any of them ask about her crossing the road without checking for bicycles/motorbikes/scooters/etc or even looking at all ? (as is clearly shown on the video) (I don’t have twitter, so if I try to scroll down it stops me and prompts me to join Musk’s army)

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Need to bring back Tufty and

     Need to bring back Tufty and the Green Cross Man !

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • That takes me back! I was in

       That takes me back! I was in the Tufty Club!

       Remember the other government adverts? Learn to swim, young man, learn to swim! And Reginald Molehusband?

       Log In or Register to post comments

8. The trial of the 2 robbers of

   The trial of the 2 robbers of Mark Cavendish and family started today.

   Local rag says “The trial, estimated to last around two weeks, continues”

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Is Twatter still a thing then

   Is Twatter still a thing then?

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Ribble deliver their accounts

    Ribble deliver their accounts as promptly as they deliver their bikes…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Didn’t even know that was an

      Didn’t even know that was an issue until I saw the thread on here. Mine was three weeks early…

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • BalladOfStruth wrote:

        Didn’t even know that was an issue until I saw the thread on here. Mine was three weeks early…

        — BalladOfStruth

        I hate you 

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • Ribble are trying to calm the

      Ribble are trying to calm the inevitable flood of cancellations by posting a positive response. They have been losing money since being taken over. In the cycle boom year of 2020, they lost a quarter of a million. And have not posted a profit since. I think, since 2016, they have lost in total about £9.7 million.

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. Just have to stick up for the

    Just have to stick up for the local Just Eat managment although I’m sure they aren’t all as good.

    One of my son’s friends has just swapped a bicycle for a Just Eat supplied electric moped for his deliveries. He was knocked off by a stolen Golf last week (police caught the driver minutes later) and the bike was badly damaged. The police wouldn’t let him ride the bike back to the depot because of the damage and he was worried about his job. The police contacted his boss and the guy told them he wasn’t at all interested in the bike, just how badly hurt he was and was he on his way to the hospital to get checked out.

    Maybe this was a one off but it was better than I had expected.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. ‘make no mistake, it’s part

    ‘make no mistake, it’s part of a well-documented plan’ (J Peterson)

    that is just the sort of language that excites the swivel eyed brexit loon / MAGA moron. Throw in the anonymous ‘bureaucrat’ and they wet themselves. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. “Delivery cyclists jump red

    “Delivery cyclists jump red lights to avoid losing income, says Deliveroo rider”

    You mean to make additional income by lawbreaking. 

    Log In or Register to post comments