“Does anyone at the BBC watch cycling?”: Fans furious after Tadej Pogačar snubbed for World Sport Star of the Year shortlist, claiming cycling has “gone to the bottom, behind darts”; Spotify Wrapped: Giro d’Italia edition + more on the live blog

Hirsute wrote:

Umm...

If you could put the lock a bit lower so it goes around both vertical bits of the stand, then it should be secure. It looks like the wooden bit is designed to slide so that you can use the "Y" section to put through the frame, but then there would have to be a mechanism to stop the wooden bit from sliding.

As it looks, you can slide the block out and walk off with the bike. Then remove the lock at your leisure.

Seems reasonable - who's going equipped with woodworking tools nowadays?

Presumably the other spoiler is that the access cover just lifts up and out? (I guess it was used "because it was there" and easier to install than in the asphalt but it seems a strange place to put a stand.  Presumably someone needs access there occasionally?)

Doesn't seem anything to stop you picking it all up and walking off !

Hirsute wrote:

Doesn't seem anything to stop you picking it all up and walking off !

Exactly!  With the added bonus of the manhole cover as scrap.

That's very weird.

Another one to add to the list of "we're trying to make it aesthetically appealing and sod the functionality!".

Is there any indication that it's actually intended for bike parking, though, as opposed to just some random thing that someone decided to lock a bike to?

Good point - could be something from art, or a computer game?

81%, 1.5m, I find that hard to believe

These campaigns have achieved nothing beyond the driver claiming 'I gave you 1.5m', while plainly passing at less than 50cms. That's exactly what this pillock said, (there are temporary traffic lights just over the crest of the hill) before he shouted he would "fucking flatten" me and "you will get knocked off". All on video, no swearing from me and no mention by the police of prosecuting for a public order offence as the outraged police do when a cyclist swears on a close pass- they're so outraged that 'we can't do anything about the close pass'

I wouldn't object to this being in law but as wtjs regularly reminds us if that happens drivers will likely go right on ignoring it.

And doubtless many police forces would add this to the list of offences they're not looking for and don't have time to police- even when someone else does the investigating for then!

 I'm sure the upcoming causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous cycling will help though

You're right! End the cyclist tyranny, careering round on the roads at over 50 mph, trapping law-abiding motorists in their homes, knocking over countless wheelchair users, causing traffic jams and pollution. This law should solve most of the road traffic problems of the day

Bungle_52 wrote:

81%, 1.5m, I find that hard to believe.

Obviously self-reported observance is going to be higher than reality, because psychological biases inhibit people's recognition of their own failings (plus many just aren't very good at judging distance), but in my experience it's probably not very inflated. The problem is that, even if it were this high, that's not actually a very good result. It means that every fifth driver is passing far too close. And on top of that, the 1.5m is meant to be a minimum, when passing at lower speeds, so even those who are honestly reporting that they give that much may still be passing too close for comfort.

I think the problem with this figure is two-fold.

First - if the question is 'have you heard of ...?' questions mean people who were vaugely aware, or want to be seen to be aware will answer yes. It's quite hard to frame the question in a way that doesn't give away the answer, or at least get people scratching their head to remember that thing on Facebook that got everyone angry. Do they remember when they encounter a cyclist in the wild?

Second - many discussions designed to educate or remind drivers of their responsibility turn into arguments about how it's pointless or dangerous or some other justification for why people who have just read about it won't even be trying to do so. 

And you can add in the people who begrudgingly attempt 1.5m, but aren't sure what that looks like and get it wrong. I'd hope everyone trying for 1.5m would manage at least 1m,

The education on 1.5m needs to explain why it's important, why it's OK for cyclists to filter, and why cyclists 'driving in the middle of the road' need to avoid the door zone, gutters and pot-holes. If the only safe way to overtake is for the car to cross the white line, then they have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and they might as well do it properly.

I guess it doesn't matter whether the figures are accurate or not, the problem is that the department have got the stats to say that the job is done so there is no problem and no further action is needed. NFA, where have I seen that before?

As you say, the highway code should have said "only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" and it should have been backed up in law.

The government's job says no further action is needed to communicate the Highway Code changes, which they must know is incorrect. I will write to my MP about it.

Bungle_52 wrote:

the highway code should have said "only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" and it should have been backed up in law.

Well said. "Only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" would have been much easier for drivers to understand and remember.

The Highway Code doesn't help by requiring drivers to remember two minimum distances (1.5m and 2.0m), depending on whether the car is below or above 30mph. In reality, how many drivers are likely to remember that?

Another_MAMIL wrote:

The government's job says no further action is needed to communicate the Highway Code changes, which they must know is incorrect. I will write to my MP about it.

Bungle_52 wrote:

the highway code should have said "only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" and it should have been backed up in law.

Well said. "Only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" would have been much easier for drivers to understand and remember.

The Highway Code doesn't help by requiring drivers to remember two minimum distances (1.5m and 2.0m), depending on whether the car is below or above 30mph. In reality, how many drivers are likely to remember that?

I doubt that further communication would achieve anything as a lot of drivers would just scoff and complain about cyclists knocking over wheelchairs or some rubbish.

What's needed is enforcement, even if that's just a case of police stopping offenders and educating them initially, but then progressing to issuing fines/points/bans.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Another_MAMIL wrote:

The government's job says no further action is needed to communicate the Highway Code changes, which they must know is incorrect. I will write to my MP about it.

Bungle_52 wrote:

the highway code should have said "only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" and it should have been backed up in law.

Well said. "Only pass cyclists on the other side of the road" would have been much easier for drivers to understand and remember.

The Highway Code doesn't help by requiring drivers to remember two minimum distances (1.5m and 2.0m), depending on whether the car is below or above 30mph. In reality, how many drivers are likely to remember that?

I doubt that further communication would achieve anything as a lot of drivers would just scoff and complain about cyclists knocking over wheelchairs or some rubbish.

What's needed is enforcement, even if that's just a case of police stopping offenders and educating them initially, but then progressing to issuing fines/points/bans.

I’d argue that both education and enforcement are essential. Not every driver wants to cause problems for cyclists—some simply don’t know any better, and education can help them.

Moreover, it’s reasonable and sensible to educate these drivers. I was once involved with educating fleet drivers for a large company, including organising the assessment of driving skills. Virtually everyone with unacceptably low driving skills was keen to take the advanced driving course offered to them. They wanted the education. In general, few people want to cause crashes.

Others, an unpleasant but tiny minority, don’t care about cyclists or vulnerable road users in general. Here, enforcement is key.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

I’d argue that both education and enforcement are essential. Not every driver wants to cause problems for cyclists—some simply don’t know any better, and education can help them.

Moreover, it’s reasonable and sensible to educate these drivers. I was once involved with educating fleet drivers for a large company, including organising the assessment of driving skills. Virtually everyone with unacceptably low driving skills was keen to take the advanced driving course offered to them. They wanted the education. In general, few people want to cause crashes.

Indeed - but with fleet drivers you've effectively got a captive audience (and a motivated one most likely).

For "mass motoring" unless we have formal "refreshers" (continuous development or some kind of retests) it's like putting on a public lecture or bringing out a pamphlet.  Not everyone will attend / read.  Of those that do some won't remember later, and fewer will actually incorporate this into their practice.  In fact it's "practice makes habit".  And for most people that is determined by "what everyone else is doing" and "feedback from authorities" (e.g. getting stopped by the law, or hearing lots of stories of same from those close to you).

Our problem is that because "mass motoring" the strategy of "education by police" hits diminishing returns very quickly (takes a LOT of police work to reach a sufficient number of people - and probably a fairly high level has to be maintained) *.  Things which we have "fixed" (kinda...) like drink driving and seatbelt use lean pretty heavily on "self interest" and social disapproval too.  The former could work here but only when you already have "mass cycling" e.g. you're likely to close-pass your family, friends, bosses...

* There may be tech or lateral solutions but the obvious one - using dashcam / public reporting - seems to be somewhere between "not too much of this please" and "just try to make us" (see Police Scotland).

Another_MAMIL wrote:

I’d argue that both education and enforcement are essential. Not every driver wants to cause problems for cyclists—some simply don’t know any better, and education can help them.

Moreover, it’s reasonable and sensible to educate these drivers. I was once involved with educating fleet drivers for a large company, including organising the assessment of driving skills. Virtually everyone with unacceptably low driving skills was keen to take the advanced driving course offered to them. They wanted the education. In general, few people want to cause crashes.

Others, an unpleasant but tiny minority, don’t care about cyclists or vulnerable road users in general. Here, enforcement is key.

It's not so much that I disagree about education as I'm a big fan of education in general. What I was thinking was that government sponsored education tends to be really awful and there's the problem of a lot of drivers not being receptive to it. I can just imagine any government education somehow circling round to warning cyclists about not being overtaken by buses or something.

I can just imagine any government education somehow circling round to warning cyclists about not being overtaken by buses 

Yes!- despite the clear signs on the bus warning cyclists, they persist in being overtaken like this

NB This is a different overtake by a Stagecoach 42 bus from the one I have posted recently

https://upride.cc/incident/px12dnd_stagecoach42_closepass/

This shows how cyclists persist in this folly, despite the diligence of Stagecoach in applying a variety of posters on 42 buses warning them against it

https://upride.cc/incident/px12dne_stagecoach42bus_closepass/

Completely agree, but I assume "politics" is why it's not law (that takes time and effort - language tweaks especially for "recommendations" are *much* easier to do).

I don't know why it was not in as a recommendation though - IIRC several lobby groups asked for it. (FWIW a few people have blogged about the ins and outs of this but can't find these just now).

As with HP's comment currently it's moot because - like plenty of things which have long been offenses - these are still practiced a) by somewhere from a substantial minority to a majority of drivers and b) attract little to no interest by police.  So speeding, driving and parking in cycle facilities *, crossing solid white lines etc.  Some of these are even against drivers' own interests (overtaking going into blind corners).  Obviously some of these things are still governed by "human nature" factors - must get ahead!

* Due to poor rule-making (deliberate?) in fact this is quite often entirely legal...

panda wrote:

In other news, and a propos of nothing in particular ... I belive James Martin is in pole position to replace Gregg Wallace on Masterchef.  Will the denizens of the road.cc comments section be writing to the BBC to complain that they will be triggered by flashbacks of Tesla-based near misses every time they see him on screen?

Obv the BBC wouldn't care, because cyclists aren't a protected species in their eyes, but could be entertaining nonetheless ...

As I looked it up due to not remembering the incident (not familiar with James Martin either), here's a link: https://road.cc/content/news/8253-james-martin-chokes-under-pressure-and-apologises-cycling-world

Well, he's another bloke who has spent his money on fancy cars. However as he is on ITV he may be on more money than the Beeb can afford? I thought the BBC weren't going to have big star presenters any more, as their salaries look excessive and too many of them end up as complete liabilities.