“Brightest, smartest and most connected… for how long?”: Cyclists complain of “crazily priced” Garmin computer with shorter battery life; Driver faces prosecution after not giving way to cyclist on bike lane; MS Paint cycling kit? + more on the live blog

Still using an 800 from 2013. I only tend to use it when I need navigation, and the battery life is still just about ok for a 200km audax (though I do top it up at lunchtime to be sure). I track all of my rides, but do that on an entry level Garmin watch now, so most of the time I don't use the head unit. I haven't even troubled the full capabilities of the 800, so the x50 series is well beyond my needs.   

Got an 820 had for about 6 or 7 years, battery is beginning to fade. Might get an 830 when this finally goes. Not interested in spending more than 300 quid on them.

The only people I see with these latest, ones are pros, paid to use them, or influencers doing reviews who get them for free. Everyone else goes, I'll make do thanks Garmin

Got a 520 around 9 years ago, which was then replaced with the 820 as I wanted turn by turn directions as opposed to breadcrumb trail. That got replaced with a 1030 as I needed all day battery when I did a 5 day trip to Portugal to ride the length of the N2. Then followed a 1030 Plus for the increased battery life and faster processor. Next came the 1040 Solar at launch in 2022, which has been superb in terms of features & functions (only criticisms have been a couple of flaky updates and the screen contrast is compromised by the solar panel), and the 1050 arrives in the next couple of days, as while the battery run time has now gone down, I'll compomise that for the responsiveness and brightness of the new display.

None of these ended up stuck in a drawer, they've all been flipped to family & friends as upgrades.

Jakrayan wrote:

Since a scion of the Red Bull family mowed down and killed a policeman in central Bangkok a few years ago whilst allegedly driving his Ferrari at over 100mph in what is supposed to be a 31mph (50kph) area and escaped justice by simply failing to turn up to any of his court hearings, then fled the country (again, allegedly there may have been some brown envelopes involved), I have studiously boycotted all Red Bull products - not difficult to be fair. Since then the offending person has posted several times on social media making it easy to work out where he is, yet an Interpol Red notice has not been asked for, presumably due to payoffs from a certain family that shall remain nameless here (libel laws in Thailand are extremely strict - you can end up in jail for defamation even if what you say is provable).

Sadly this means that I will struggle to support Roglic in the upcoming Tour, or any of his teammates in a breakaway. Though I wouldn't stand at the side of the road and boo them of course.

Feel that way about the teams sponsored by uae and bahrain. 

"UK’s cycling infrastructure"...
Oh, I dunno, I'd call that a serious overstatement!

mitsky wrote:

Not cycling related but...

"A woman who killed two eight-year-old girls when her car crashed into a school in south-west London will not face criminal charges, the Metropolitan Police has said."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4448xx4keo

Epileptic seizure apparently

Indeed.
And it was the first time, so no pre-existing medical diagnosis for it.

mitsky wrote:

Indeed.
And it was the first time, so no pre-existing medical diagnosis for it.

Which could happen to anybody, so one would think that would be a good advertisement for banning cars that are so huge, heavy and reinforced that when such a thing happens they can smash through walls and into school yards.

I remember looking up the location at the time and being shocked that (whatever the circumstances) they could have gained enough speed to plough through the fence https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gx1DvpuzZe6XQCwp9 

EDIT - I'm getting some very poorly-timed Land Rover ads now.

First *reported* incidence.

It's not unknown for drivers to have medical conditions that would be an automatic licence-looser to not report them.

I seem to remember a certain bin man in Glasgow, just before Christmas 2014 killing 6 people and injuring 15 others ... pre-existing condition - he just didn't tell anyone as he knew he'd loose his HGV

But...epilepsy can come on at any age, from a variety of triggers, and everyone has a first seizure; as I said above, sometimes unfortunately it's at the wheel of a car. It's highly unlikely that someone would experience seizures and not seek treatment from their GP and the CPS will have checked if they have, even if they didn't disclose to the DVLA. I am inclined to give the driver the benefit of the doubt on this one; we know the CPS can be lax and occasionally baffling in their approach to motoring offences, particularly when cyclists are involved, but when the case involves such tragic deaths of two little girls (RIP) I'm pretty sure they would have explored every avenue and would not have come to this decision unless it really seemed the only possible and fair one.

The cps chose based on the probability of securing a conviction with a jury, it's that simple.

However the driver should now be subject to the standard epilepsy medical criteria for holding a driving licence that the DVLA imposes. Basically they're banned from driving until they can prove via their doctor & the DVLA agree with them, they're medically fit & safe to drive.

You'd like to think that would be something mentioned, not just as a reminder to the public at large, but also that there were consequences for the driver, even if the CPS deemed there were no criminal charges to be brought.

No.

I find that very very hard to believe.  The CPS should be forced to articulate the details of how they came to their decision.  How much medical evidence was considered.  How many second opinions were sought, and whether the decision was made on any contary evidence of not reaching reasonable doubt, or whether there was a genuine and ongoing medical condition.

Now that the CPS have decided not to prosecute they will pass their findings to the coroner for the inquest and the details will come out then. It's not really that surprising, there are over 600,000 people with epilepsy in the UK and to every one of them their first seizure will have been unexpected and sometimes it will happen when they are at the wheel of a car, sadly. I did always think some form of medical episode was the most likely explanation if the driver's drink and drugs tests came back negative and there was no indication of any mental disorder which made her take the action deliberately.

It is extremely saddening that so many people have been suffered so badly because of this driver and vehicle yet there is no prospect of any justice.  Something really needs to change.

If there really is nothing that the driver can be prosecuted for, and if thousands of people are driving with undiagnosed medical conditions then it shows that safety equipment in vehicles is extremely lacking.   If this were an aircraft incident there would be slew of changes to regulations following an investigation.

A few suggestions for what is needed then:

- monitoring of the driver's vital signs and some kind of dead mans handle that can bring a vehicle to a halt if the driver behaves eratically

- brakes applied if there is any contact with another object in front or behind the vehicle

- black box recorder for post collision analysis

- speed limiters according to applicable limit (sadly a very remote prospect)

I would heartily agree with all of these suggestions, particularly the last one, and also add radar detection of surrounding objects (I believe many cars already have this in terms of parking sensors?) so that emergency braking is applied if it seems the vehicle is going to hit something. In this case, if the driver had a seizure and jammed her foot on the accelerator a system that recognised that she was driving straight at a fence should have cut in and would very likely have saved the girls' lives. Surprised a car of that luxury level doesn't have such a thing already.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I would heartily agree with all of these suggestions, particularly the last one, and also add radar detection of surrounding objects (I believe many cars already have this in terms of parking sensors?) so that emergency braking is applied if it seems the vehicle is going to hit something. In this case, if the driver had a seizure and jammed her foot on the accelerator a system that recognised that she was driving straight at a fence should have cut in and would very likely have saved the girls' lives. Surprised a car of that luxury level doesn't have such a thing already.

Car makers are too busy adding things like telemetry that make it easy to spy on you inside your car than actually making the care safer.

Read a cars' EULA lately? Nobody in their right mind would allow any of that but since people have been conditioned to accept stuff without asking, more and more outrageous demands are being placed on us.

Pub bike wrote:

- speed limiters according to applicable limit (sadly a very remote prospect)

From early July all new vehicles sold must be fitted with a speed limiter. This should flash a warning or intervene by slowing the vehicle down. This can be overridden but resets everytime the vehicle is turned on. It could go against the driver in an insurance claim though. A lot of high end vehicles already have this tech though from what I've heard many motorists disable it every time they get in the vehicle. 

Also all second hand vehicles being sold from a dealership need to be retrofitted with a limiter though I'm not sure what age those vehicles need to be. 

Pub bike wrote:

Brakes applied if there is any contact with another object in front or behind the vehicle

A slight increase in impact sensitivity that triggers the airbags, plus auto brake and engine cut-out for, say 2 mins? That'd stop hit and run drivers in the same fix.
My idea always used to be that airbags should be part pepper spray so you can't drive off if you've been in an accident, but this works better

the driver of the vehicle, expressed her "deepest sorrow" and said she had "no recollection of what took place"

This all looks like an advert to defence lawyers of a handy and 'acceptable' omni-dodge- obviously only to be deployed in extreme circumstances where you might suffer a real penalty (you can get off KSI'ing a cyclist without risking a year's ban for epilepsy just by saying you didn't see him). I first came across such a dodge for getting a motorist off almost anything, when Lancashire Constabulary came up with 'it was only a momentary loss of concentration' to forgive someone for hitting me when driving down the wrong side of the road into Sainsbury's. This dodge can, if you try only a little, be applied to almost any motoring offence, just like claiming to have suffered a fit can always be applied because you don't need any witnesses and are enough of a toff to pay both for shyster lawyers to get the story straight for you and for the monster vehicle which smashed through barriers to kill the victims in the first place

I hope that the driver has now surrendered her driving licence and/or has been banned from driving but there doesn't seem to be any indication of either having taken place.

Although if a driver has been seizure free for 12 months (5 years for bus coach or lorry) they can get their licence back in any case.

https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/living/driving/driving-rules-for-epilepsy

As it has been accepted as the reason for the incident by the CPS the DVLA will definitely have been notified and her licence will be automatically suspended for six months and only reinstated when it's agreed by medical experts that the likelihood of recurrence is low. Far too low a bar, in my opinion, but there we are.

Of course how anyone could even contemplate getting back behind the wheel having killed two little girls with a vehicle, even when legally permitted to drive again, is beyond comprehension, but unfortunately people do.

Pub bike wrote:

I hope that the driver has now surrendered her driving licence and/or has been banned from driving but there doesn't seem to be any indication of either having taken place.

Although if a driver has been seizure free for 12 months (5 years for bus coach or lorry) they can get their licence back in any case.

https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/living/driving/driving-rules-for-epilepsy

I dont drive so i dont know what the law is but if this is the case then killing by car and claiming i did not see them or i had a seizure is going to get abused now. Lawyers have a duty to get their clients off even if they are guilty. As it is now SMIDNSY is a valid "excuse" when drivers kill people and in most cases there is next to no punishment.

I have come to the conclusion over the last year that i need to be more aggressive on the road and not be so passive. This means not riding on the left side in the gutter almost, to give cars the means to pass. All this does, where i live, is invite aggressive and punishing passes for acts that i had nothing to do with. So now i am on the right side of the left tire imprint. I dont care any more. If i get smacked by a car in that position it wont be my fault. My kids will get rich. But i am not moving over unless there is a long line behind me and they can only pass when it is safe for them. I have zero sympathy for car drivers now since most of them display zero regards for my safety. 1 in 20 or more passes me safely. The rest cant wait to get past me even if it means it is a dangerous pass. And this was before i started taking primary.