The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
OLB thinks that pedestrians are vermin to fall beneath the wheels of his two-wheeled Juggernaut car? That can't be right, can it?
Pro-Boris Tories criticising the appt play into Labour’s hands as it gives Starmer’s team an excuse to talk about all the sleaze allegations the govt has been plagued by… & there have been many
Your occasional reminder that Sue Gray only did the Partygate inquiry because Simon Case had to pull out because he'd been accused of having one of the bloody parties in his office.
She was appointed to the probe by - that's right folks - Boris Johnson.
Your last point is only notionally true. If it wasn’t Case, it was always going to be her. He had no choice really.
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
I think there’s two problems with it:
1) Political comms. Exactly your point. “We can now ignore her report, she’s just a Labourite”. “Look at Labour now - it’s the establishment. They got us to where we are today - don’t you want to do things differently”?
2) Political substance. If you want radical, don’t hire an ex Permanent Secretary. Blair might have brought in Powell, but he also had Campbell and Mandelson. Too many civil servants (and Starmer was one too) and you risk being ultra cautious and doing nothing in power.
1) PartyGate is history now - not relevant to anything about today's politics.
2) Starmer's whole pitch is sensible, not radical. Johnson and Cummings shows what happens when you value radical/challenging/disrupting over competence.
1) It’s relevant if this helps tip the balance of the committee and keeps Boris in Parliament.
2) See above. Take this road to its conclusion and I think Starmer, if he wins, gets murdered by Boris or a Boris clone next time. Which is bad, because it’s definitely Labour’s turn.
I doubt it will sway the committee one iota.
Let's see how Starmer performs if and when he becomes PM, but I cannot see 'sensible competence' leading to him being metaphorically murdered by Boris or a Boris clone (if any such could exist).
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
Are we watching the same video? Even with the pedestrian walking down the middle of the pavement, the cyclist almost passes her without incident and only veers into the road because the pedestrian unexpectedly gesticulates at her, and because she was cycling so slowly, which made her unsteady. If the pedestrian had been a foot closer to the railings they could have passed easily. FWIW I don't cycle on the pavement generally and do use dedicated cycle lanes mostly, and manage to get from A to B without incident, thanks for your concern which is much appreciated. I am a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian and have sympathy for all three groups but the pedestrian is quite clearly in the wrong here, as has been recognised by the legal system, and so I am somewhat perplexed by people's reaction here.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Eh? I'm not suggesting people cycle on the pavement.
I'm just explaining why people do. Because they are scared of being hit by a two-tonne SUV.
How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists least year?
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Calm down! It's an interesting and complex topic which has become urgent because of the increased use of bikes (a good thing, but it brings its hazards.)
I don't have a problem with bikes on pavements as long as the pavement is wide enough, the bikes travel at reasonable speeds and the cyclists accept that they are there on sufference and give way accordingly.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
When I was a yoof, I spent long periods on crutches. People's attitude towards them was rather interesting.
In one case, I was on a Central line tube train in rush hour, and a woman asked me if I had to use the crutches on the tube. Because, of course, in her mind I was only using them to inconvenience her, the ***** stupid ***** **** ****.
Not all pedestrians are particularly mobile, or able to get out of the way.
Now, I'm a hypocrite, as I sometimes cycle on the pavement. I particularly did this whilst teaching my son to cycle and about road sense (something he has still not fully developed). But when I do cycle on the pavement, I'm aware that I'm in the wrong, and that other users have priority. But I wouldn't - and haven't - cycled on that pavement, for the reasons I say on another post.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Too many cyclists behave as utter bastards - of course they all get assumed to be utter bastards. It's elementary safety. The product of the probability of being wrong about a nice chap such as Eabhal x the consequences is very different from the probability ofd being wrong about a bastard x going to hospital or the crem.
I'm astounded cyclists can't see the asymmetry - they suffer it all the time from motor vehicles, markedly more strongly. On the other hand, pavements are supposed to be refuges and safe areas.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
I think there’s two problems with it:
1) Political comms. Exactly your point. “We can now ignore her report, she’s just a Labourite”. “Look at Labour now - it’s the establishment. They got us to where we are today - don’t you want to do things differently”?
2) Political substance. If you want radical, don’t hire an ex Permanent Secretary. Blair might have brought in Powell, but he also had Campbell and Mandelson. Too many civil servants (and Starmer was one too) and you risk being ultra cautious and doing nothing in power.
1) PartyGate is history now - not relevant to anything about today's politics.
2) Starmer's whole pitch is sensible, not radical. Johnson and Cummings shows what happens when you value radical/challenging/disrupting over competence.
1) It’s relevant if this helps tip the balance of the committee and keeps Boris in Parliament.
2) See above. Take this road to its conclusion and I think Starmer, if he wins, gets murdered by Boris or a Boris clone next time. Which is bad, because it’s definitely Labour’s turn.
I doubt it will sway the committee one iota.
Let's see how Starmer performs if and when he becomes PM, but I cannot see 'sensible competence' leading to him being metaphorically murdered by Boris or a Boris clone (if any such could exist).
“Competence” is not the issue. Doing anything with one’s time in power is. Dull and managerial doesn’t last here. Plus, why bother, unless “stopping the other lot being in power” is enough for you?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
Indeed, and from the evidence we've seen that appears as if it could have been a misdirection.
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
Bercause she was a Civil Servant. Senior one. Politics is switched off. Once you resign, you are free.
Do you seriously believe that? It would be incredibly hard to be impartial if you had serious political leanings, which she must have had then.
Situation reversed. Sitting Labour PM has report written on them by a senior civil servant which was a major contributory factor to them having to resign. Said civil servant 9 months later resigns and becomes chief of staff to the Tory Leader. Labour would be up in arms, and rightly so.
How do you know she has 'serious political leanings'?
She's taken a job of chief of staff to the Labour party leader!
Might just enjoy working with PMs of any flavour.....some sort of political masochism.
Moreover, the job Gray has apparently accepted is likely to be at the very heart of power. For many people being close to power and powerful themselves is the important thing.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
Indeed, and from the evidence we've seen that appears as if it could have been a misdirection.
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
On Topic. Boris has a point while not being 100% truthful here.
The Tories were doing worse than being a "handful" of points behind Labour in summer 2022 but they were probably doing no worse than you'd expect for a government in mid-term.
That's not the case since Boris was removed from office when the Tories went over the edge of the cliff after the Liz and Kwasi debacle.
Rish has improved the Con position slightly but not by enough to prevent Labour forming the next government even accounting for swingback in the next year or so....
Johnson effectively chose his successor knowing she was crap and would self-destruct sooner or later - he was of course hoping for somewhat later! So the poll collapse since he left office is his fault, also!
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
It's not clear in the report why the judge said that it was shared usage given the council and the police have both said it was unclear. (Strange as cycle lanes - when they are exist - are marked. The path looks very narrow to accommodate a cycle lane.)
If the judge has made an error in the summing up I would think this creates a wide open goal for appeal (maybe the judge did this deliberately?).
A "handful" of percentage points is just the kind of meaningless but misleading drivel you'd expect a compulsive liar like Boris Johnson to come out with.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
I don't do anywhere nearly as much cycling as I used to. However, I went out a few times last Summer with a GoPro attached to my handle bars. I had had a number of close calls over the years with drivers overtaking in dangerous places. In one 80 minute ride I had 2 incidents where drivers overtook me within inches. I sent the videos off to the police - both drivers got sent on a safe driving course. I was pleased action was taken.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Calm down! It's an interesting and complex topic which has become urgent because of the increased use of bikes (a good thing, but it brings its hazards.)
I don't have a problem with bikes on pavements as long as the pavement is wide enough, the bikes travel at reasonable speeds and the cyclists accept that they are there on sufference and give way accordingly.
Ooookay, I will calm down. But I find it amazing that cyclists demand that every pedestrian be 100% alert, fully mobile, and willing to cede them space they don't own.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there's was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Because he was crap. And despite partisan Labour supporters' attempts to hint otherwise (which for some incomprehensible reason only started once Mr Corbyn started having his own problems), they've never managed to come up with any actual evidence for it.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
I don't do anywhere nearly as much cycling as I used to. However, I went out a few times last Summer with a GoPro attached to my handle bars. I had had a number of close calls over the years with drivers overtaking in dangerous places. In one 80 minute ride I had 2 incidents where drivers overtook me within inches. I sent the videos off to the police - both drivers got sent on a safe driving course. I was pleased action was taken.
The Met prosecuted 15,000 drivers last year from footage like that. I've FOId Police Scotland...
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then he started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right when I am also turning right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."
stands out. I'd say that, as is not uncommon in the UK, poor road / cycle path design is the main culprit in this instance.
Personally very confused as to why the pedestrian does not have right of way even if it is shared use. At the point they crossed by the lamppost there is not room for both of them. Why does the cyclist have priority?
The pedestrian was rude, aggressive and apparently unremorseful, but from whats been reported manslaughter feels a very big stretch.
I initially thought it seemed very harsh on the pedestrian, changed my mind a little when it turned out to be apparently shared use, although the lack of clarity on that is unclear - I also didn't know about a pinch point at the scene.
I'm always a bit uneasy about sentencing that is based on outcomes of an action rather than the action. Had there not been a car passing, the sentence, if it even got to court, would have been minor. Likewise, there was a report on the BBC website a few days back about a lad who drove a car into the back of a lorry at high speed, after a police chase, where the lorry was bumped off the road and the car rebounded onto the chasing police car getting a suspended sentence. Luck brought no serious injuries in that case, but that looks to me to be the bigger crime.
ETA: Don't think the video was there when I first saw, or I missed it. Ridiculous shared space - an accident waiting to happen.
There must be something missing.
Shouting at someone is not an action that might reasonably thought to carry a risk that they would die.
Is it?
I suspect the decision rests on the idea of forcing the cyclist off the pavement - i.e. that the woman intentionally blocked the path and effectively forced the cyclist into the traffic, even without intent to cause serious harm. I can't make that call from the video provided, but quite possible there was more info or footage for the judge.
I don't see how the cyclist can have been "forced off the pavement" - they could always have stopped. If they went onto the carriageway without looking to see if there was any traffic overtaking them, whose fault is that?
Quite. Also the cyclist has endangered the vehicles on the road.
In the same way the gunshot victim recklessly endangered the bullet.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
Indeed, and from the evidence we've seen that appears as if it could have been a misdirection.
I *know* that area. I linked to where it is below. I have walked, run and cycled past there.
How on Earth can that have been shared usage? Just look at it. (As a side issue, if it is, where's the signage?) If you look at the previous road junction, there is not even a drop curb for cyclists.
I'd be interested to know how the judge came to that view, as if he's correct, it's really important for everyone to know.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then it started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
"Yes, and for some cyclists the mere sight of a pedestrian is like a red rag to a bull."
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
Yep. Just like that. Except there's no pro-motorist lobby trying to convince the world that driving is a Good Thing To Do.
A "handful" of percentage points is just the kind of meaningless but misleading drivel you'd expect a compulsive liar like Boris Johnson to come out with.
Be fair to the man. It might be that he's a compulsive liar, but we have evidence that it might just be that he's essentially innumerate.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
The judge said it was shared usage but I guess you probably know better.
It's not clear in the report why the judge said that it was shared usage given the council and the police have both said it was unclear. (Strange as cycle lanes - when they are exist - are marked. The path looks very narrow to accommodate a cycle lane.)
If the judge has made an error in the summing up I would think this creates a wide open goal for appeal (maybe the judge did this deliberately?).
Shared usage is genuinely unclear in many places, for a variety of reasons (often as simple as the paint having faded).
On topic. Boris shat the bed by imposing absurd restrictions many of which obviously had no upside but considerable economic and social downside, and then cheated on them himself. He cheated on them because he knew they were wrong. We learn this week he knew that not just deep down but fairly openly. In short, he had a shocking team of advisors and didn’t have the intellectual confidence to fire them.
This said, it’s quite something for all his opponents to make hay over his downfall when most of them called him reckless for opening up even when he did. As such I reckon much of the public will be like me and not turn out for any of them.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then he started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right when I am also turning right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
I've had the same a fair few times, and it can shake you up a bit. Though to balance a bit I'd say most road users of all types tend to be considerate and careful, in my experience (both in the saddle and behind the wheel).
On topic. I agree with you Boris can rightly claim it never looked as mid term unrecoverable at any time under him as it does now.
Considering Boris is actually right about that, how did we get here? Because Con MPs thought they had a get out of jail card in the insanely popular Dishy Rishi, brainwashed themselves into believing they would get a bounce back to perhaps a majority defending support under Rishi Sunak, so once foiled by their own membership it wasn’t too long before Con MPs got what they wanted. They bet the next election on this hunch.
The truth here, those who hate Johnson, his bluster, boosterism, bullshit, really hate him, as far as the hate scale on offer will allow. Classic marmite because it’s also true, if Boris became leader now they would go into the next election with more voters than with Rishi.
What evidence proves me right? Here are snips of what Mike Smithson posted last week to prove it. Under Boris the Tories 38% in the Red Wall (Labour heartland) seats they won for the first time time last time, Only 7 behind Labour Mid Term, EVEN after Sue Gray, and AFTER fines, and around time he is ousted. And in contrast how the Sunak bounce never happened.
Why and how does this work psychologically and psephologically? Different types of politician and personality. Boris, populist similar to Trump, playing on how much better it used to be so let’s rebuild better, makes voters look forward and forget about austerity, forget 13 wasted year of income erosion becuase they are given hope of better times - whilst Rishi just resonates everything that reminds voters the Tories have been in 13 years and under him just more of the same. Sunak’s slicker Technocrat platform and style is just so similar to everything voters remember and hate about these years of Tory governments, delivering income erosion and ongoing austerity.
I think it's more basic than that - the Tory party is historically a traditional party of the gentry in the shires, then embraced the middle classes and then aspirational strivers. There is no mandate or demos for Sunak/Hunt's technocratic corporatism - it does not belong in the Tory Party, and has no base within in that is not provided by controlling the levers of power, or saying 'you need us to get into power'. It's parasitical. The same is true in the Labour Party. If these people want to see how popular their brand of politics is, they should form a new party - oh I forgot, they did, Change UK.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then it started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
"Yes, and for some cyclists the mere sight of a pedestrian is like a red rag to a bull."
See what I did there?
You seem to have omitted the personal anecdote to illustrate your point.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
Yep. Just like that. Except there's no pro-motorist lobby trying to convince the world that driving is a Good Thing To Do.
That's a bit like saying there's no 'living in a dwelling' lobby. Driving is just something the vast majority of adults do, to a greater or lesser degree.
The automotive and petro lobbies, on the other hand...
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
I suspect that's part of the mental block- cycling is seen by many as a hobby rather than just a way for people to get from A to B. And why should drivers give up road space for a hobby?
Oh, for George Orwell's old maidens cycling to Holy Communion.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
I cycle a bit but I'm out in the country and have not experienced any problems and I'm never bothered by other cyclists when I'm driving or walking. Maybe this cyclists hate thing is a city phenomenon? Seems a bit silly to me there are plenty of poor car drivers around.
Yes, although many of those changes in wording aren’t really reasonable. Leaving your belongings in the street sounds downright stupid; leaving your car in the street, not so much, since you presume it is locked and secure, and probably alarmed. Similarly risk at work is down to the employer, whereas risk driving is down to yourself. We’re all more prepared to take risks if the responsibility lies with ourselves, since I know it’s you lot who are the bad drivers, whereas I will be able to use my superior experience and skill to escape or avoid many sources of trouble.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
How can I control cyclists' behaviout?
You can't, any more than the cyclist can control the bad drivers that may make the roads unsafe.
I've no idea why you think cyclists are your enemy. Cars kill many many many more pedestrians than do bicycles.
No cyclist really wants to ride on the pavement. It is slow, you have to give way at junctions and you almost always come off worse in a collision.
Campaign to improve the infrastructure. Don't tell people to stop using the most efficient form of transport yet invented just because you might occasionally have to step to one side.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then it started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
"Yes, and for some cyclists the mere sight of a pedestrian is like a red rag to a bull."
See what I did there?
You seem to have omitted the personal anecdote to illustrate your point.
Comparing the Yougov on 6th-7th July last year to the latest Yougov one thing is noticeable, the average Tory voter is much less likely to be a Leaver than they were under Boris.
With Boris 53% of Leavers backed the Conservatives, with Rishi however just 40% of Leavers back the Tories. 15% of 2019 Conservative voters now back RefUK compared to just 6% backing RefUK under Boris. 13% of Remainers back the Tories still however, exactly the same percentage as under Boris.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then it started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
"Yes, and for some cyclists the mere sight of a pedestrian is like a red rag to a bull."
See what I did there?
You seem to have omitted the personal anecdote to illustrate your point.
Fuck off.
I think there are a few wind-up merchants on here this evening JJ.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
Yep. Just like that. Except there's no pro-motorist lobby trying to convince the world that driving is a Good Thing To Do.
1) If the police could not say it was a shared space, then it wasn't. Something is not a *shared space* unless clearly nominated as such. So if the report is accurate the judge has misdirected the jury.
From a brief bit of StreetViewing, Plod do, actually, have a point here. (Even a stopped clock etc. etc.)
There's at least one "shared-use path" sign on this pavement - i.e. blue circle with a bike above a pedestrian.
There are none immediately by the site of the accident. However, there are also no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" signs either side of the shared-use path signs. So where does the shared-use section start or end? Who knows.
For what it's worth I'm not convinced this section was ever designated as a shared-use path by the highway authority. It doesn't meet any design guidance (even the crappy old one, let alone LTN 1/20) and there's no sign of any accommodation having being made for cyclists. But then it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a highway authority just stuck up some signs along unsuitable infrastructure without doing any further physical works. My gut feeling is that they probably just forgot to put up an 'End of Cycle Route' sign, but even as someone who studies this sort of stuff far more than is healthy, I'm not entirely sure.
A "handful" of percentage points is just the kind of meaningless but misleading drivel you'd expect a compulsive liar like Boris Johnson to come out with.
Be fair to the man. It might be that he's a compulsive liar, but we have evidence that it might just be that he's essentially innumerate.
Perhaps he chose to do Classics for a reason? Not least that it’s much easier to get into Oxford, since you don’t face much competition.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
Are we watching the same video? Even with the pedestrian walking down the middle of the pavement, the cyclist almost passes her without incident and only veers into the road because the pedestrian unexpectedly gesticulates at her, and because she was cycling so slowly, which made her unsteady. If the pedestrian had been a foot closer to the railings they could have passed easily. FWIW I don't cycle on the pavement generally and do use dedicated cycle lanes mostly, and manage to get from A to B without incident, thanks for your concern which is much appreciated. I am a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian and have sympathy for all three groups but the pedestrian is quite clearly in the wrong here, as has been recognised by the legal system, and so I am somewhat perplexed by people's reaction here.
It is clearly a pavement rather than dual use, so the cyclist not following the highway code, but that isn't justification for forcing the cyclist into the road causing an accident.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
I cycle a bit but I'm out in the country and have not experienced any problems and I'm never bothered by other cyclists when I'm driving or walking. Maybe this cyclists hate thing is a city phenomenon? Seems a bit silly to me there are plenty of poor car drivers around.
Actually I have a fine time cycling in zone 1 and 2 London too, where cycle infrastructure is good and people are used to bikes (apart from pedestrians, usually with headphones or looking at phones, stepping out in front of you). I suspect the issues arise in the outer suburbs and small towns.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
Yes, and for some drivers the mere sight of a bicycle is like a red rag to a bull.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then it started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
"Yes, and for some cyclists the mere sight of a pedestrian is like a red rag to a bull."
See what I did there?
You seem to have omitted the personal anecdote to illustrate your point.
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
Bercause she was a Civil Servant. Senior one. Politics is switched off. Once you resign, you are free.
Do you seriously believe that? It would be incredibly hard to be impartial if you had serious political leanings, which she must have had then.
Situation reversed. Sitting Labour PM has report written on them by a senior civil servant which was a major contributory factor to them having to resign. Said civil servant 9 months later resigns and becomes chief of staff to the Tory Leader. Labour would be up in arms, and rightly so.
How do you know she has 'serious political leanings'?
She's taken a job of chief of staff to the Labour party leader!
Might just enjoy working with PMs of any flavour.....some sort of political masochism.
Moreover, the job Gray has apparently accepted is likely to be at the very heart of power. For many people being close to power and powerful themselves is the important thing.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
Remember also Gray’s *mysterious* career break running a pub in Northern Ireland, and all the rumours swirling around such an apparently bizarre interlude.
She’s probably a lot more powerful and well connected than many realise?
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
A cyclist is someone on a cycle. That's all. That's the point. That machine is precisely what makes the frequent lapses of their behaviour so dangerous.
But I must say that many people who use cycles do indeed see themselves as a pressure group. And that pressure group evidently felt their rights were superior to a man on a green man crossing.
A "handful" of percentage points is just the kind of meaningless but misleading drivel you'd expect a compulsive liar like Boris Johnson to come out with.
Be fair to the man. It might be that he's a compulsive liar, but we have evidence that it might just be that he's essentially innumerate.
Being unable to keep count of your own lies is no excuse, though?
I would like electrically assisted bicycles to be considered as mopeds, in view of their speed and mass, and regulated the same as IC mopeds, including a licence, helmets, registration plates, and horsepower limits.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
I suspect that's part of the mental block- cycling is seen by many as a hobby rather than just a way for people to get from A to B. And why should drivers give up road space for a hobby?
Oh, for George Orwell's old maidens cycling to Holy Communion.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
Yep. Just like that. Except there's no pro-motorist lobby trying to convince the world that driving is a Good Thing To Do.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
Comparing the Yougov on 6th-7th July last year to the latest Yougov one thing is noticeable, the average Tory voter is much less likely to be a Leaver than they were under Boris.
With Boris 53% of Leavers backed the Conservatives, with Rishi however just 40% of Leavers back the Tories. 15% of 2019 Conservative voters now back RefUK compared to just 6% backing RefUK under Boris. 13% of Remainers back the Tories still however, exactly the same percentage as under Boris.
Just perhaps, the Truss “tax cuts for the richest” interlude made the scales fall from some leavers’ eyes as to why many Tories had been pushing for Brexit in the first place?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Because there is a lamppost in the way, there is not room for them both at the point they cross.
For comparison look at 30 seconds in on the bbc report, where a cyclist goes past the reporter.
Yes, sure, the pedestrian could have stopped and moved aside, but they had right of way as I understood it. The cyclist could also have stopped, and had the duty to do so.
Bizarrely the Police were unable to confirm in court whether the pavement was dual use or not.
It’s a tragic situation. I regularly cycle on dual use pavements but in Durham they are clearly identified. But as a matter of course I always slow down when approaching pedestrians, and this MAMIL rarely exceeds 15MPH except downhill 😂
I cannot see what is gained by jailing this woman but her actions did directly lead to this ladies death and the driver has the burden of this to live with too.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
It's an inhumane attitude.
I think you missed my point.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling if they find the roads are unsafe.
Is it not exactly the same to tell a pedestrian to stop walking if they find it unsafe?
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
If you think, based on the two videos available, that there was plenty of room, I would strongly advise you not to cycle *anywhere* except on dedicated cycle tracks.
And I am being entirely serious.
I think OLB may have paid his £5 for an argument this afternoon, but has been reduced to mere contradiction.
Er, I wasn't trying to have an argument, someone posted the story and asked PB cyclists to comment, so I commented. (I'm not sure I'd call myself a PB cyclist even, I only cycle to work, not for pleasure, I don't even particularly enjoy it).
I suspect that's part of the mental block- cycling is seen by many as a hobby rather than just a way for people to get from A to B. And why should drivers give up road space for a hobby?
Oh, for George Orwell's old maidens cycling to Holy Communion.
Yes, perhaps that's it. I'm not a hobby cyclist (I wouldn't look good in lycra) and I use a bicycle purely to get from A to B as an alternative to the car when the distance is short and I don't have to carry anything. I cycle like I drive: on the road and following all the rules of the road. And most drivers I encounter while cycling are courteous and considerate, but there is still the occasional nutter who apparently can't bear to see a bicycle on the road. They're the ones that scare me, and the reason that I tend to opt for the car more often than the bike these days.
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
I posted this on the previous thread, and I realise it may be unpopular, but:
Speaking as a cyclist, tragic though it must be for the dead person's family, on the facts as reported that's an utterly ridiculous verdict:
1) If the police could not say it was a shared space, then it wasn't. Something is not a *shared space* unless clearly nominated as such. So if the report is accurate the judge has misdirected the jury.
2) Even if it was a shared space, the cyclist had no business cycling towards a pedestrian like that, as they would have right of way and must be given that way. (I would add, if it was a shared space it's totally unsuitable for it given how narrow it is.)
3) Shouting 'get off the fucking path' to somebody who is illegally cycling on the path and presenting a hazard is not actually an unreasonable thing to do.
4) How is it, to take this to its logical end, that an illegal motorcyclist round here riding at high speed on the pavement can get a telling off (literally, that is what Staffordshire Police will do) and somebody shouting at somebody to stop breaking the law, albeit with this horrible result, gets sent to prison?
An example of how the law can make a complete ass of itself.
Having watched the video I am not sure I agree. The close proximity of a busy road was an obvious hazard. Her gestures as well as her language seem to have caused the cyclist to have steered onto the road in front of the oncoming car. It is not obvious where else she could have gone.
I can see merits in your points too, the cyclist was not blameless, but this was a wholly disproportionate response which caused a tragedy. I think the appeal on sentence will be successful but I also think the conviction will stand.
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there's was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Because he was crap. And despite partisan Labour supporters' attempts to hint otherwise (which for some incomprehensible reason only started once Mr Corbyn started having his own problems), they've never managed to come up with any actual evidence for it.
'Crap' is a ludicrous (and since you mention partisan, deeply partisan) description for a serious politician of intelligence and personal integrity who (as becomes increasingly clear) had a strong analysis of what some of this country's biggest problems are (albeit not so strong on the radical policies needed to address them).
No, there was something other than that behind all the piss-taking. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
It's an inhumane attitude.
I think you missed my point.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling on the road because the roads are unsafe due to idiots.
Is that not exactly the same? It isn't my attitude, but it seems to be yours.
No. There is an asymmetry. Cyclists are legal on roads. They are not legal on pavements. One should not have to expect cyclists on pavements.
Comparing the Yougov on 6th-7th July last year to the latest Yougov one thing is noticeable, the average Tory voter is much less likely to be a Leaver than they were under Boris.
With Boris 53% of Leavers backed the Conservatives, with Rishi however just 40% of Leavers back the Tories. 15% of 2019 Conservative voters now back RefUK compared to just 6% backing RefUK under Boris. 13% of Remainers back the Tories still however, exactly the same percentage as under Boris.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
No to this part in particular.
Oh Driver - start your engine! that’s the most easiest con trick to dismantle of all their Agreement arguments and spin. 🥹
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
What a delightful expression. Less delightful story though. Mikhail Abdalkin, a Communist local politician in Samara Region, is in hot water after posting this video of himself watching Putin’s big address earlier this week
For those who don’t speak Russian, the idiom "to hang noodles on someone’s ears" means to tell them lies
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for them to pass each other easily, even with the lamp post, if the pedestrian had moved to the side. She was set on a confrontation because she didn't think the cyclist should have been on the pavement. The cyclist was cycling slowly, at walking pace, and posed no threat to the pedestrian.
Just to reiterate, as you seem to have forgotten (and as the judge allegedly also did not realise) the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. If she chooses to cycle on the pavement then the pedestrian has absolute right of way. There is no question of being 'set on a confrontation.' She did not move out of the way and she did not need to. I also don't think you can make a judgement on the speed of the cyclist from that clip although I agree she doesn't appear to be going too fast.
Cyclists may choose to cycle on pavements for good reasons, but they are there on sufferance. In this case, a series of things went wrong with tragic results but if there is not a great deal more that is not being reported the charge shouldn't have been anything more than a breach of the peace.
We don’t know if the cyclist should or should not have been on the pavement as the police were unable to confirm if it was dual use or not.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
I am entirely happy about cyclists on roads. It is irrational for me to be angry when they try to run me over especially if I am not expecting them, ie on the pavement?
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Comparing the Yougov on 6th-7th July last year to the latest Yougov one thing is noticeable, the average Tory voter is much less likely to be a Leaver than they were under Boris.
With Boris 53% of Leavers backed the Conservatives, with Rishi however just 40% of Leavers back the Tories. 15% of 2019 Conservative voters now back RefUK compared to just 6% backing RefUK under Boris. 13% of Remainers back the Tories still however, exactly the same percentage as under Boris.
TLDR - Rishi has improved the conservative vote in the blue wall, but has gone backwards in the red.
Seems inevitable. After all, he was seen as a remainer even though he never was one, so a more Brexity region probably wouldn't like what he did about things regardless.
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
It's an inhumane attitude.
I think you missed my point.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling on the road because the roads are unsafe due to idiots.
Is that not exactly the same? It isn't my attitude, but it seems to be yours.
No. There is an asymmetry. Cyclists are legal on roads. They are not legal on pavements. One should not have to expect cyclists on pavements.
You said that cyclists should stop cycling if it's too dangerous.
In response to a post about my girlfriend being hit by an inattentive driver.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
I'm not saying the lady was in the right in acting as she did; but the cyclist was also in the wrong for being on the pavement, especially there. A three-year sentence seems an absolute travesty, and will cause dickhead cycling extremists to think they can go on any pavement they like, because, you know, they have the power of BIKE.
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
Bercause she was a Civil Servant. Senior one. Politics is switched off. Once you resign, you are free.
Do you seriously believe that? It would be incredibly hard to be impartial if you had serious political leanings, which she must have had then.
Situation reversed. Sitting Labour PM has report written on them by a senior civil servant which was a major contributory factor to them having to resign. Said civil servant 9 months later resigns and becomes chief of staff to the Tory Leader. Labour would be up in arms, and rightly so.
How do you know she has 'serious political leanings'?
She's taken a job of chief of staff to the Labour party leader!
Might just enjoy working with PMs of any flavour.....some sort of political masochism.
Moreover, the job Gray has apparently accepted is likely to be at the very heart of power. For many people being close to power and powerful themselves is the important thing.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
Remember also Gray’s *mysterious* career break running a pub in Northern Ireland, and all the rumours swirling around such an apparently bizarre interlude.
She’s probably a lot more powerful and well connected than many realise?
My favourite Sue Gray story is that she once faced down IRA paramilitaries who attempted to hijack her car when she was on a career break in the 1980s as a landlady in Newry, an IRA stronghold, at the peak of the Troubles
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
I am entirely happy about cyclists on roads. It is irrational for me to be angry when they try to run me over especially if I am not expecting them, ie on the pavement?
Of course not. But basic physics and the stats would suggest you should be much more wary of drivers going through pedestrian crossings, speeding etc
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
Bercause she was a Civil Servant. Senior one. Politics is switched off. Once you resign, you are free.
Do you seriously believe that? It would be incredibly hard to be impartial if you had serious political leanings, which she must have had then.
Situation reversed. Sitting Labour PM has report written on them by a senior civil servant which was a major contributory factor to them having to resign. Said civil servant 9 months later resigns and becomes chief of staff to the Tory Leader. Labour would be up in arms, and rightly so.
How do you know she has 'serious political leanings'?
She's taken a job of chief of staff to the Labour party leader!
Might just enjoy working with PMs of any flavour.....some sort of political masochism.
Moreover, the job Gray has apparently accepted is likely to be at the very heart of power. For many people being close to power and powerful themselves is the important thing.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
Remember also Gray’s *mysterious* career break running a pub in Northern Ireland, and all the rumours swirling around such an apparently bizarre interlude.
She’s probably a lot more powerful and well connected than many realise?
My favourite Sue Gray story is that she once faced down IRA paramilitaries who attempted to hijack her car when she was on a career break in the 1980s as a landlady in Newry, an IRA stronghold, at the peak of the Troubles
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
Boris Johnson says Brexit deal won’t take back control
It takes back control from him and his headbanger chums...
Is it really about that Scotty? Is it really about party political factionalism and personal hatred’s of people? Or is it about putting what best for the country going forwards, above all that?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Why does the cyclist have right of way?
There was space for both of them, why was the pedestrian taking up the whole pavement?
Wasn't. Video: slim - NB slim - journo and cyclist squewezing past, wheels just on pavement.
Looked like plenty of space to me. It may mystify people but cyclists generally try to avoid hitting pedestrians, if only on self interest grounds. Personally, when cycling, I've never hit a pedestrian except when they've stepped out into the road or cycle lane directly in front of me without looking. Which happens almost every time I get on my bike, and even then I generally manage to avoid them. If it was me I would have been cycling on the road not the pavement, but then I'm not an old lady and the road doesn't look that safe, no cycle lane, fast traffic and the motorists are probably not very friendly. So I'm not surprised she opted for the pavement.
The antipathy that some people have towards anyone on a bicycle - even 77 year old ladies - is extraordinary. This poor woman basically fell into the road while trying to avoid an accident and was hit and killed by a car, and there are people here blaming her for endangering vehicles!
Anti-cyclist derangement is real, widespread and utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the good cyclists. Sadly, the 90% give them a bad name.
Same as the 90% of drivers who give the rest a bad name.
I don't do anywhere nearly as much cycling as I used to. However, I went out a few times last Summer with a GoPro attached to my handle bars. I had had a number of close calls over the years with drivers overtaking in dangerous places. In one 80 minute ride I had 2 incidents where drivers overtook me within inches. I sent the videos off to the police - both drivers got sent on a safe driving course. I was pleased action was taken.
The Met prosecuted 15,000 drivers last year from footage like that. I've FOId Police Scotland...
Others are ahead of you on that one I think. Police Scotland have real institutional problems because of the required involvement of the Procurator Fiscal, and it causes difficulties in setting up an online portal to make things more efficient.
Each camera witnessed prosecution takes a couple of hours for the witness submitting footage, and up to a couple of days for the staff processing the case afaics.
See this excellent thread from Deacon Thurston:
In the course of reporting six drivers I filmed using their phones in late January, I've learned a number of things that I believe are behind @PoliceScotland's inability to get online reporting in place. A bit of a 🧵 ... 1/14 First, and perhaps most importantly, in Scotland the police only have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices to drivers caught on camera running red lights or speeding. All other motoring offences have to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. 2/14 This is in stark contrast to England & Wales, where the police send a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the registered owner, get the driver's details then proceed with a FPN if appropriate (if the driver has points already it may not be). 3/14 https://twitter.com/DeaconThurston/status/1628747451023630338
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
It's an inhumane attitude.
I think you missed my point.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling on the road because the roads are unsafe due to idiots.
Is that not exactly the same? It isn't my attitude, but it seems to be yours.
No. There is an asymmetry. Cyclists are legal on roads. They are not legal on pavements. One should not have to expect cyclists on pavements.
You said that cyclists should stop cycling if it's too dangerous.
In response to a post about my girlfriend being hit by an inattentive driver.
FYI gf got a significant settlement out of court.
My apologies for the discourtesy and unpleasantness - unintended, but unfortunate in context.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
I'm annoyed with this case. It seems a travesty, and the people defending it don't seem to have facts on their side - although I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.
As I said below, all road users can be bad, and I bet, hands on heart none of us can say we've always followed every rule, whether on foot, bike or car.
But the attitude of the more militant members of the cyclist lobby is hilariously poor and one-eyed, as we see on here.
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there's was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Because he was crap. And despite partisan Labour supporters' attempts to hint otherwise (which for some incomprehensible reason only started once Mr Corbyn started having his own problems), they've never managed to come up with any actual evidence for it.
'Crap' is a ludicrous (and since you mention partisan, deeply partisan) description for a serious politician of intelligence and personal integrity who (as becomes increasingly clear) had a strong analysis of what some of this country's biggest problems are (albeit not so strong on the radical policies needed to address them).
No, there was something other than that behind all the piss-taking. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Milliband was a fairly odd looking thing - not his fault obviously, and he looked especially odd trying to get his chops around that bacon sarnie.
The edstone was ridiculous in its physicality, but it was still more ridiculous when its vast, immutable, stony presence was contrasted with the nothing 'promises' that were graven upon it. How do you hold someone accountable for 'an NHS with time to care'? How stupid is it then to carve that promise in stone?
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
I am entirely happy about cyclists on roads. It is irrational for me to be angry when they try to run me over especially if I am not expecting them, ie on the pavement?
Of course not. But basic physics and the stats would suggest you should be much more wary of drivers going through pedestrian crossings, speeding etc
Sure, and I am. But those are places where I *expect* to have to be careful. I really don't expect to have to be careful when stepping out of a shop, or suddenly moving to one side because I've forgotten something.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
If you aren't safe on the pavement, perhaps you should stop walking...
And I'd like to se you go up to some blind person or deaf person or OAP and tell them to fuck off home because they aren't safe because cyclists demand to be able to use the pavement and are too ****ing selfish and stupid to think that people may not know that they are there or mvoe out of their way.
It's an inhumane attitude.
I think you missed my point.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling on the road because the roads are unsafe due to idiots.
Is that not exactly the same? It isn't my attitude, but it seems to be yours.
No. There is an asymmetry. Cyclists are legal on roads. They are not legal on pavements. One should not have to expect cyclists on pavements.
You said that cyclists should stop cycling if it's too dangerous.
In response to a post about my girlfriend being hit by an inattentive driver.
FYI gf got a significant settlement out of court.
My apologies for the discourtesy and unpleasantness - unintended, but unfortunate in context.
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
I note Mogg has effectively been libelling her, saying that the Partygate enquiry was clearly a "left wing stitchup".
Given the copious evidence, she could probably sue successfully if she really wanted to.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
You see. Cyclists assume a moral superiroity they do not possess.
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
'Cyclist' is not a class of person though. I ride my bike, I use buses, trains, planes and drive a car. I walk. When I'm on my bike, I'm a cyclist. Am I still a cyclist when I'm on foot, or in a car? Am I still a pedestrian when I'm cycling?
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
It is bizarre, and notable in that whilst some people still might argue there is no such anti-cycling reaction - anti in a seemingly angry and moralistic way - it actually breaks out into the open fairly quickly as, yes, this is a real thing.
I don't even have a car! And I don't have problems with cars. It is cycles or rather the twats sometimes riding them that are the problem for me. Especially the organized twats in that demo. They nearly killed me. And they laughed as they did it.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
Some cyclists are arseholes. What sane person would argue with that? That doesn't explain the myriad examples of intense anger about cyclists even from peopel with no examples of issues personally.
I am entirely happy about cyclists on roads. It is irrational for me to be angry when they try to run me over especially if I am not expecting them, ie on the pavement?
Of course not. But basic physics and the stats would suggest you should be much more wary of drivers going through pedestrian crossings, speeding etc
Sure, and I am. But those are places where I *expect* to have to be careful. I really don't expect to have to be careful when stepping out of a shop, or suddenly moving to one side because I've forgotten something.
This is all moot of course.
The main reason cyclists should stick to the road and wait at reds is it increases the number of drivers you hold up
Despite genuinely being impressed by Starmer more recently, I am a bit perplexed by his Sue Gray move.
I'm not a fan of Boris but this just stinks to high heaven. How can someone clearly close enough in sympathies to the Labour party to join them now as the Leader's Chief of Staff have possibly written a completely impartial report into a Conservative PM less than a year ago?
Bercause she was a Civil Servant. Senior one. Politics is switched off. Once you resign, you are free.
Do you seriously believe that? It would be incredibly hard to be impartial if you had serious political leanings, which she must have had then.
Situation reversed. Sitting Labour PM has report written on them by a senior civil servant which was a major contributory factor to them having to resign. Said civil servant 9 months later resigns and becomes chief of staff to the Tory Leader. Labour would be up in arms, and rightly so.
How do you know she has 'serious political leanings'?
She's taken a job of chief of staff to the Labour party leader!
Might just enjoy working with PMs of any flavour.....some sort of political masochism.
Moreover, the job Gray has apparently accepted is likely to be at the very heart of power. For many people being close to power and powerful themselves is the important thing.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
Remember also Gray’s *mysterious* career break running a pub in Northern Ireland, and all the rumours swirling around such an apparently bizarre interlude.
She’s probably a lot more powerful and well connected than many realise?
My favourite Sue Gray story is that she once faced down IRA paramilitaries who attempted to hijack her car when she was on a career break in the 1980s as a landlady in Newry, an IRA stronghold, at the peak of the Troubles
Comments
Let's see how Starmer performs if and when he becomes PM, but I cannot see 'sensible competence' leading to him being metaphorically murdered by Boris or a Boris clone (if any such could exist).
FWIW I don't cycle on the pavement generally and do use dedicated cycle lanes mostly, and manage to get from A to B without incident, thanks for your concern which is much appreciated.
I am a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian and have sympathy for all three groups but the pedestrian is quite clearly in the wrong here, as has been recognised by the legal system, and so I am somewhat perplexed by people's reaction here.
I'm just explaining why people do. Because they are scared of being hit by a two-tonne SUV.
How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists least year?
How many by drivers?
I don't have a problem with bikes on pavements as long as the pavement is wide enough, the bikes travel at reasonable speeds and the cyclists accept that they are there on sufference and give way accordingly.
In one case, I was on a Central line tube train in rush hour, and a woman asked me if I had to use the crutches on the tube. Because, of course, in her mind I was only using them to inconvenience her, the ***** stupid ***** **** ****.
Not all pedestrians are particularly mobile, or able to get out of the way.
Now, I'm a hypocrite, as I sometimes cycle on the pavement. I particularly did this whilst teaching my son to cycle and about road sense (something he has still not fully developed). But when I do cycle on the pavement, I'm aware that I'm in the wrong, and that other users have priority. But I wouldn't - and haven't - cycled on that pavement, for the reasons I say on another post.
I'm astounded cyclists can't see the asymmetry - they suffer it all the time from motor vehicles, markedly more strongly. On the other hand, pavements are supposed to be refuges and safe areas.
But we shall see.
And I suspect those who pursue a career in top-flight civil service are particularly triggered by such feelings, since they know they will be working for governments of both hues during their careers.
If the judge has made an error in the summing up I would think this creates a wide open goal for appeal (maybe the judge did this deliberately?).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/17/motonormativity-britons-more-accepting-driving-related-risk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I don't do anywhere nearly as much cycling as I used to. However, I went out a few times last Summer with a GoPro attached to my handle bars. I had had a number of close calls over the years with drivers overtaking in dangerous places. In one 80 minute ride I had 2 incidents where drivers overtook me within inches. I sent the videos off to the police - both drivers got sent on a safe driving course. I was pleased action was taken.
A couple of months ago, I was sat on my bike behind a car, both of us waiting to turn right from a side road onto a busy road. The car in front was a bit hesitant to pull out, and the driver behind me started honking his horn. I assumed that he was impatient with the hesitant driver in front of me, but then he started yelling at me, "Get out of the way, you fucking prick!". I gestured back that I couldn't since there was a car in front of me, so he yells back, "Go round him, moron." How am I supposed to "go round" a car that is waiting to turn right when I am also turning right? Anyway, eventually the car in front pulled out, I followed him, and the driver behind shot off to the left with a final shout of, "Prick!"
There are some complete lunatics out there, and I admit that this incident rather shook me up.
It's an inhumane attitude.
How on Earth can that have been shared usage? Just look at it. (As a side issue, if it is, where's the signage?) If you look at the previous road junction, there is not even a drop curb for cyclists.
I'd be interested to know how the judge came to that view, as if he's correct, it's really important for everyone to know.
See what I did there?
This said, it’s quite something for all his opponents to make hay over his downfall when most of them called him reckless for opening up even when he did. As such I reckon much of the public will be like me and not turn out for any of them.
Yours,
Disengaged
One of my closest calls ever on the roads was when I was in the middle of crossing a main road in Edinburgh on the green man, exactly as required, and a large squad of 2-3 dozen cyclists demonstrating for the freedom of the road for cyclists just kept going as if I was not there.
I have never believed in the moral rights or superiority of cyclists since then, which is a shame as there is a lot of good sense being talked by Eabhal et al about the need for infrastrucxture.
The automotive and petro lobbies, on the other hand...
Oh, for George Orwell's old maidens cycling to Holy Communion.
I've no idea why you think cyclists are your enemy. Cars kill many many many more pedestrians than do bicycles.
No cyclist really wants to ride on the pavement. It is slow, you have to give way at junctions and you almost always come off worse in a collision.
Campaign to improve the infrastructure. Don't tell people to stop using the most efficient form of transport yet invented just because you might occasionally have to step to one side.
With Boris 53% of Leavers backed the Conservatives, with Rishi however just 40% of Leavers back the Tories. 15% of 2019 Conservative voters now back RefUK compared to just 6% backing RefUK under Boris. 13% of Remainers back the Tories still however, exactly the same percentage as under Boris.
14% of 2019 Conservative voters now back Labour too compared to just 11% under Boris. However Rishi has reduced leakage to the LDs, only 4% of 2019 Conservative voters now support the LDs, compared to 8% of 2019 Tories backing the Liberals under Boris.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/fs088jpfhf/TheTimes_VI_230222_W.pdf
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/k63qqhpgaw/Times_VI_AdHocCabinet_Resignation_220707_w.pdf
None of this aggression makes sense. Take a step back and really think about it.
There's at least one "shared-use path" sign on this pavement - i.e. blue circle with a bike above a pedestrian.
There are none immediately by the site of the accident. However, there are also no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" signs either side of the shared-use path signs. So where does the shared-use section start or end? Who knows.
For what it's worth I'm not convinced this section was ever designated as a shared-use path by the highway authority. It doesn't meet any design guidance (even the crappy old one, let alone LTN 1/20) and there's no sign of any accommodation having being made for cyclists. But then it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a highway authority just stuck up some signs along unsuitable infrastructure without doing any further physical works. My gut feeling is that they probably just forgot to put up an 'End of Cycle Route' sign, but even as someone who studies this sort of stuff far more than is healthy, I'm not entirely sure.
She’s probably a lot more powerful and well connected than many realise?
But I must say that many people who use cycles do indeed see themselves as a pressure group. And that pressure group evidently felt their rights were superior to a man on a green man crossing.
https://road.cc/content/news/motorist-jailed-slamming-brakes-causing-crash-297567
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nursery+Rd,+Huntingdon/@52.3327934,-0.1854704,857m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x4877dd3b106de80b:0x9880f136b522e00b!8m2!3d52.3312111!4d-0.1778552!16s/g/1tdpfpwx
It’s a tragic situation. I regularly cycle on dual use pavements but in Durham they are clearly identified. But as a matter of course I always slow down when approaching pedestrians, and this MAMIL rarely exceeds 15MPH except downhill 😂
I cannot see what is gained by jailing this woman but her actions did directly lead to this ladies death and the driver has the burden of this to live with too.
You are telling cyclists to stop cycling if they find the roads are unsafe.
Is it not exactly the same to tell a pedestrian to stop walking if they find it unsafe?
I don't actually hold that view, obviously.
It makes excellent sense for ne to think:
p(someone on cycle being a dangerous twat) is significantly higher than zero, and a lot likely to be closer to unity if they are riding around on the pavement in the first place.
I can see merits in your points too, the cyclist was not blameless, but this was a wholly disproportionate response which caused a tragedy. I think the appeal on sentence will be successful but I also think the conviction will stand.
No, there was something other than that behind all the piss-taking. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
Mikhail Abdalkin, a Communist local politician in Samara Region, is in hot water after posting this video of himself watching Putin’s big address earlier this week
For those who don’t speak Russian, the idiom "to hang noodles on someone’s ears" means to tell them lies
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1629024596539191296
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
In response to a post about my girlfriend being hit by an inattentive driver.
FYI gf got a significant settlement out of court.
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
I'm not saying the lady was in the right in acting as she did; but the cyclist was also in the wrong for being on the pavement, especially there. A three-year sentence seems an absolute travesty, and will cause dickhead cycling extremists to think they can go on any pavement they like, because, you know, they have the power of BIKE.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1631319308658700289?s=20
"I could have got the same deal - I just didn't want it'.
The expected selfishness and mendacity.
A copper bottomed shit.
Each camera witnessed prosecution takes a couple of hours for the witness submitting footage, and up to a couple of days for the staff processing the case afaics.
See this excellent thread from Deacon Thurston:
In the course of reporting six drivers I filmed using their phones in late January, I've learned a number of things that I believe are behind @PoliceScotland's inability to get online reporting in place. A bit of a 🧵 ... 1/14
First, and perhaps most importantly, in Scotland the police only have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices to drivers caught on camera running red lights or speeding. All other motoring offences have to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. 2/14
This is in stark contrast to England & Wales, where the police send a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the registered owner, get the driver's details then proceed with a FPN if appropriate (if the driver has points already it may not be). 3/14
https://twitter.com/DeaconThurston/status/1628747451023630338
As I said below, all road users can be bad, and I bet, hands on heart none of us can say we've always followed every rule, whether on foot, bike or car.
But the attitude of the more militant members of the cyclist lobby is hilariously poor and one-eyed, as we see on here.
The edstone was ridiculous in its physicality, but it was still more ridiculous when its vast, immutable, stony presence was contrasted with the nothing 'promises' that were graven upon it. How do you hold someone accountable for 'an NHS with time to care'? How stupid is it then to carve that promise in stone?
By Rishi Sunak
Given the copious evidence, she could probably sue successfully if she really wanted to.
The main reason cyclists should stick to the road and wait at reds is it increases the number of drivers you hold up