Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
“ Boris Johnson's recklessness means we're going to have an NHS summer crisis.
The Johnson Variant is already out of control - and we're heading to 100,000 cases a day”
I've missed your anti-Starmer stuff while you've been away.
Though for the record it was actually Sajid Javid who anticipated 100,000 cases a day, which is where Starmer got it from.
Simply quoting Sir Keir’s own words there, not anti or pro 😊
The fact is though, Javid said there could be 100k of cases, but the vaccines meant it was ok to open up. And he seems to have been proved right. Sir Keir said it was reckless to open and we should keep restrictions
PS What really scared me was a big hardback book of horror stories, which may not have been the Pan ones? The one that really upset me was about the man challenged to sleep overnight in a haunted room - in the morning, one irreparably demented man and nothing else but a trail of chicken feet along the floor, up the wall and back along the ceiling ... no, there was no explanation. And that was the most frightening of the lot.
As a kid I came across a book Russian of folk tales that frightened the life out of me. I remember Baba Yaga, and a tale about a woman on a sled being pursued by wolves, who kept throwing her children to them, one by one, and a man hunted by a bear through a forest.
Among the other best horror shorts I've read are Poe's The Cask of Amontillado and Tell Tale Heart, and George Martin's In The Lost Lands.
In Cambridge pedestrians are at risk from cyclists who habitually break the laws that ban cycling on the pavement and the wrong way up one-way streets. Which is not to mention the morons who cycle at night without lights, or drunk, or who turn right without indicating or even looking behind them. University regs require undergraduates who ride bikes in the city to register them, so it would be easy to make them go on a course in Freshers' Week.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
In addition, Witty's dad was assassinated. It might make you a little more nervous in such situations.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
Is this going to be a cyclists and car drivers in Denmark all get on brilliantly in the same way as Denmark doesn't have a child abuse problem, Nick?
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: lots of attention on ONS Infection Survey today, but some confusion over how it should (and should not) be used to asses whether England’s fall in cases is "real"
Quick thread:
Most attention has gone on ONS “% of people testing positive” metric showing a continued rise
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He got a suspended eight-week prison sentence and a fine of £100.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Seen in isolation it's OTT.
But it's a pour encourager les autres situation. The govt must make it clear that accosting people who are setting very publicly setting public policy must be beyond the pale.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
Is this going to be a cyclists and car drivers in Denmark all get on brilliantly in the same way as Denmark doesn't have a child abuse problem, Nick?
As embarrassing as British Exceptionalism. Similar to when Italian fans on a beach were compared with English louts in Leicester Sq with no mention of the Ultras
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've tried avoiding Murraygate twitter on the same basis I avoid other twitter cesspools, but I've seen 'the other journo were at it' allegations without any supporting evidence. I guess providing that evidence may repeat the original crime?
As far as I can see (apart from whether he's a journalist or not), Murray seems to have been doing a huge wink about the identities of those involved which may suggest intent, eg "I implore you to read this article very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines."
That is the general problem: how can one discuss Mr Murray's case, or indeed Mr Salmond's, rationally under such a prohibition - and also under such an information clampdown in the first place?
This is why you need David Davis.
I suspect the thing that has complicated discussion of it is
1) Roddy Dunlop's not so private views on Alex Salmond
2) Alex Salmond admitting he was no angel
3) A not proven verdict on serious charge. Now you and I know that not proven is not guilty, but for some a not proven is tantamount to saying guilty/no smoke without fire.
Not sure a real SNP whistleblower would have picked Mr Davis - why him?
On other points - all complications indeed. As was the BBC's reportage, even after the trial (AIUI their overall prorgamme about the trial had to be edited pdq after broadcast and before putting on ther internet, but I didn't see its original broadcast which was just after the verdict, I believe).
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
Or, more succinctly, whenever you use a road always assume that every other road user is a criminally dangerous idiot who cares for nobody but themselves.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
To my mind, cycling on country roads with speed limits at 40+ seems a lot scarier than urban/suburban cycling. But I suspect you're right that urban cycling is more dangerous.
Sample size 1:
Hit whilst commuting: 2 Hit whilst touring: 0 Broken bones: 0 Smashed helmets: 1
[Mountain bike crashes would actually top the table, but I don't think that counts]
Segregated infrastructure would help with the commuting, but most cycling infrastructure I see is designed by idiots who don't actually ride at all.
Or by idiots who have to take more than cyclists into account.
Without totally redesigning our cities and knocking down all the buildings, there is limited space with a whole host of different users. The infrastructure needs designing for cars, pedestrians, cyclists, the disabled, the blind, etc. This means there has to be compromises.
A recent post on FB showed a cycle lane with a pavement alongside. The cycle path is wider, but there is a lamppost in the middle. Why not place the cyclelane where there is no lamppost? The answer is obvious: although pedestrians can step around the post, people pushing prams or wheelchairs would have to go into the cycle lane. And the blind might find it difficult. Perhaps the lamp post could be moved? Perhaps (or perhaps not), but you're also significantly increasing the cost.
As an aside, I'd say a serious issue with urban cyclists I know is that most seem to see it as a fundamental right to cycle at 20 MPH along the roads without stopping. I can see why, as it is fun (though my current bike hardly lets me get that fast). But it is also unrealistic and selfish to expect to be able to do so at the expense of other road users.
Worth mentioning on the above that Greater Mancheser is putting in place some very good cycle infrastructure. It's a long process, only just started, and it's for the benefit of children not yet born, rather than my kids. But I'm impressed with the standard of what's there so far. The rule being used is 'of a standard that you would be happy for your 12-year old child to use unsupervised'.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Well, he pleaded guilty to assault by beating, presumably on his lawyer's advice. He could have pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he only 'put his arms round him'. But he didn't.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Well, he pleaded guilty to assault by beating, presumably on his lawyer's advice. He could have pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he only 'put his arms round him'. But he didn't.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
To my mind, cycling on country roads with speed limits at 40+ seems a lot scarier than urban/suburban cycling. But I suspect you're right that urban cycling is more dangerous.
Sample size 1:
Hit whilst commuting: 2 Hit whilst touring: 0 Broken bones: 0 Smashed helmets: 1
[Mountain bike crashes would actually top the table, but I don't think that counts]
Segregated infrastructure would help with the commuting, but most cycling infrastructure I see is designed by idiots who don't actually ride at all.
I'm also 2-0 on being hit while commuting vs touring, includes one bicycle that didn't wheel away from one incident. Thankfully no broken bones.
Ending up in a ditch after approaching a 90deg bend too fast: 1
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
Join the club, I assume these things too, which is a factor in why I've never been injured. My most recent two 'upsets' were:
1) Going down a pot-holed residential road, I had a driver close pass me at speed to get to the junction 30m ahead first. Not really much I could do about that, I'd taken the lane to avoid potential doorings and discourage dangerous overtaking, it didn't stop him.
2) Coming down a hill, there's a side road with give way lines. Driver ignored them and came out anyway, I braked hard to come to a halt without hitting his car because I anticipated it.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Well, he pleaded guilty to assault by beating, presumably on his lawyer's advice. He could have pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he only 'put his arms round him'. But he didn't.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Well, he pleaded guilty to assault by beating, presumably on his lawyer's advice. He could have pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he only 'put his arms round him'. But he didn't.
Quite correct. If you put someone in fear of their personal safety, even if you don't touch them, that's common assault, if you lay hands on them, that's assault by beating.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
I am more pessimistic. China is close to armed superiority in its own neighborhood. It will use its increasing advantages in AI and cyber-warfare absolutely ruthlessly
They are many scenarios but if I had to choose one it would be China seizing Taiwan like Germany seizing the Sudetenland. Not a shot fired. The West will sigh and shrug and pray that it ends there
Taiwan's best chance to defend itself is to get nuclear weapons.
Given its highly educated and scientific population, not impossible
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: lots of attention on ONS Infection Survey today, but some confusion over how it should (and should not) be used to asses whether England’s fall in cases is "real"
Quick thread:
Most attention has gone on ONS “% of people testing positive” metric showing a continued rise
JBM calls peak Third Wave - Sir Keir’s punt on the nation getting hospitalised again seems ill judged. Will he pay? Probably not. I hope Boris reminds him of it constantly, but HofC is shut isn’t it?
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
I am more pessimistic. China is close to armed superiority in its own neighborhood. It will use its increasing advantages in AI and cyber-warfare absolutely ruthlessly
They are many scenarios but if I had to choose one it would be China seizing Taiwan like Germany seizing the Sudetenland. Not a shot fired. The West will sigh and shrug and pray that it ends there
Taiwan's best chance to defend itself is to get nuclear weapons.
Given its highly educated and scientific population, not impossible
Your problem is that you're too happy clappy, all this peace and love stuff, weak.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
Join the club, I assume these things too, which is a factor in why I've never been injured. My most recent two 'upsets' were:
1) Going down a pot-holed residential road, I had a driver close pass me at speed to get to the junction 30m ahead first. Not really much I could do about that, I'd taken the lane to avoid potential doorings and discourage dangerous overtaking, it didn't stop him.
2) Coming down a hill, there's a side road with give way lines. Driver ignored them and came out anyway, I braked hard to come to a halt without hitting his car because I anticipated it.
Problem is, for my worst incident, there was nothing I could do. I was cycling on a relatively straight urban road, driver clipped me when overtaking when he panicked about an oncoming car and pulled across too soon. I didn't even see him. Police "no-crimed" it.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
I am more pessimistic. China is close to armed superiority in its own neighborhood. It will use its increasing advantages in AI and cyber-warfare absolutely ruthlessly
They are many scenarios but if I had to choose one it would be China seizing Taiwan like Germany seizing the Sudetenland. Not a shot fired. The West will sigh and shrug and pray that it ends there
Taiwan's best chance to defend itself is to get nuclear weapons.
Given its highly educated and scientific population, not impossible
Your problem is that you're too happy clappy, all this peace and love stuff, weak.
Sadly, for once, he is right.
Some interesting rumblings in Poland about home grown nuclear power.......
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
I cycle a fair bit but these days I stick almost exclusively to canal towpaths, closed railway lines and other segregated infrastructure. I'm fortunate that where I live is well-served by these options.
I did everything as safely as I could when sharing the roads with cars, but in the end fear overtook righteous indignation, because it will be no comfort to be morally in the right when my luck runs out and I end up in hospital.
So I find it baffling when car drivers object to infrastructure that would give cyclists somewhere separate to cycle.
Agree. The thing required is to separate infrastructure for different modes of travel.
Some of our current stuff is so dangerous that the only safe place to be cycling is in Primary - that is smack bang in the middle of the traffic lane to make sure that vehicles see you and cannot attempt dangerous manoeuvres or try the dreaded "kill-squeeze". I don't do that on higher than 30 limits, though - but if the cycling is at say 18-20mph then delays are minimal.
In the Netherlands, normal segregated cycle paths are specced for 40kph routinely, and have been for many decades. Provide that, and there will be more people on bikes, and not on the roads.
This is a road near me (former A38), where there is no option other than walking pace on a dangerous pavement or "straight down the middle". The sign on the left says pavement shared by bikes and peds, which is loopy. Alternative cycle routes through the estates both sides are blocked by various sorts of barrier.
What it actually needs is take out the central reservation, one vehicle lane each way and a controlled crossing, limit parking to one side (other side have driveways), then a bidirectional 3.5m cycle lane down one side taking the same space as one vehicle lane.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
Join the club, I assume these things too, which is a factor in why I've never been injured. My most recent two 'upsets' were:
1) Going down a pot-holed residential road, I had a driver close pass me at speed to get to the junction 30m ahead first. Not really much I could do about that, I'd taken the lane to avoid potential doorings and discourage dangerous overtaking, it didn't stop him.
2) Coming down a hill, there's a side road with give way lines. Driver ignored them and came out anyway, I braked hard to come to a halt without hitting his car because I anticipated it.
Problem is, for my worst incident, there was nothing I could do. I was cycling on a relatively straight urban road, driver clipped me when overtaking when he panicked about an oncoming car and pulled across too soon. I didn't even see him. Police "no-crimed" it.
That sucks, my (not very clear) point was that however careful you are, there are still plenty of frightening moments, any one of which could result in serious injury.
In Cambridge pedestrians are at risk from cyclists who habitually break the laws that ban cycling on the pavement and the wrong way up one-way streets. Which is not to mention the morons who cycle at night without lights, or drunk, or who turn right without indicating or even looking behind them. University regs require undergraduates who ride bikes in the city to register them, so it would be easy to make them go on a course in Freshers' Week.
Be careful. You'll invoke the demons of the Cambridge Cycling Underworld who will pile on and tell you you are a fascist who wants to see them dead for giving voice to such heresies.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
A couple of things to say about this:
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
iSAGE seem to be spreading the disinformation that ONS shows us that cases are not falling.
Quelle surprise. Next weeks ONS will show a drop and then what will they say?
More screaming about variants, vaccinating teens and Long Covid I'd imagine.
I don't know what it's like where you lot all live, but round here cases are down almost 50% week-on-week, and the Covid patient count in the local hospital is still only 10% of what it was in January.
The vaccines have drawn the sting from the epidemic. This disease is obviously no less nasty for the limited number of individuals made seriously ill by it, but in terms of the national picture the acute phase of the crisis increasingly looks to be over, thank God.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
For properly engineered infrastructure, I think that Denmark is a long way behind the Netherlands.
I think it's fair to say that tabloid newspapers and inexperience / Nimbyism in the local planning process, too. And perhaps police security guidelines trying to prevent permeable estates.
It is routine for there to be concerns about "kids on motorbikes" driving crime, and barriers on bike paths to "prevent" it (which they don't), which cripples cycling infrastructure and forces people on bikes back onto roads. And so "bl**dy cyclists not using cycle paths" and the rest.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
To my mind, cycling on country roads with speed limits at 40+ seems a lot scarier than urban/suburban cycling. But I suspect you're right that urban cycling is more dangerous.
Sample size 1:
Hit whilst commuting: 2 Hit whilst touring: 0 Broken bones: 0 Smashed helmets: 1
[Mountain bike crashes would actually top the table, but I don't think that counts]
Segregated infrastructure would help with the commuting, but most cycling infrastructure I see is designed by idiots who don't actually ride at all.
Or by idiots who have to take more than cyclists into account.
Without totally redesigning our cities and knocking down all the buildings, there is limited space with a whole host of different users. The infrastructure needs designing for cars, pedestrians, cyclists, the disabled, the blind, etc. This means there has to be compromises.
A recent post on FB showed a cycle lane with a pavement alongside. The cycle path is wider, but there is a lamppost in the middle. Why not place the cyclelane where there is no lamppost? The answer is obvious: although pedestrians can step around the post, people pushing prams or wheelchairs would have to go into the cycle lane. And the blind might find it difficult. Perhaps the lamp post could be moved? Perhaps (or perhaps not), but you're also significantly increasing the cost.
As an aside, I'd say a serious issue with urban cyclists I know is that most seem to see it as a fundamental right to cycle at 20 MPH along the roads without stopping. I can see why, as it is fun (though my current bike hardly lets me get that fast). But it is also unrealistic and selfish to expect to be able to do so at the expense of other road users.
Worth mentioning on the above that Greater Mancheser is putting in place some very good cycle infrastructure. It's a long process, only just started, and it's for the benefit of children not yet born, rather than my kids. But I'm impressed with the standard of what's there so far. The rule being used is 'of a standard that you would be happy for your 12-year old child to use unsupervised'.
e-bikes are going to complicate matters by adding speed to the cycling equation, even for the terminally unfit rider; e-scooters much the same but with less experienced riders and added whizzing in and out round pedestrians.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
A couple of things to say about this:
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET.
In my six years cycling to/from Woking station I had one serious near miss where someone was parked facing traffic and pulled out without seeing me. Thankfully I had spotted what they might do so was able to avoid them.
But you’re absolutely right to say that no one is perfect. We’re all capable of making mistakes and doing things we shouldn’t.
iSAGE seem to be spreading the disinformation that ONS shows us that cases are not falling.
To be honest, the main argument for Covid having a significant & profound deleterious effect on IQ is the state of scientific & academic discourse over the last 18 months
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
I cycle a fair bit but these days I stick almost exclusively to canal towpaths, closed railway lines and other segregated infrastructure. I'm fortunate that where I live is well-served by these options.
I did everything as safely as I could when sharing the roads with cars, but in the end fear overtook righteous indignation, because it will be no comfort to be morally in the right when my luck runs out and I end up in hospital.
So I find it baffling when car drivers object to infrastructure that would give cyclists somewhere separate to cycle.
Agree. The thing required is to separate infrastructure for different modes of travel.
Some of our current stuff is so dangerous that the only safe place to be cycling is in Primary - that is smack bang in the middle of the traffic lane to make sure that vehicles see you and cannot attempt dangerous manoeuvres or try the dreaded "kill-squeeze". I don't do that on higher than 30 limits, though - but if the cycling is at say 18-20mph then delays are minimal.
In the Netherlands, normal segregated cycle paths are specced for 40kph routinely, and have been for many decades. Provide that, and there will be more people on bikes, and not on the roads.
This is a road near me (former A38), where there is no option other than walking pace on a dangerous pavement or "straight down the middle". The sign on the left says pavement shared by bikes and peds, which is loopy. Alternative cycle routes through the estates both sides are blocked by various sorts of barrier.
What it actually needs is take out the central reservation, one vehicle lane each way and a controlled crossing, limit parking to one side (other side have driveways), then a bidirectional 3.5m cycle lane down one side taking the same space as one vehicle lane.
One of the issues is that infrastructure is put in piecemeal, with no plan to join it all up. So you might have your bi-directional cycle lane down one side of the road, but a cyclist's journey might require them to cross both lanes of the road to reach it at each end. Is that worth the bother for 100m of cycle lane? So you decide to stick to the road, and then of course the drivers are enraged that you aren't out of their way, completely oblivious to the difficulties.
These days I would go to the trouble of crossing the road twice to reach a relatively short stretch of cycle lane, but I could understand why people wouldn't.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
A couple of things to say about this:
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET.
Yes, but...
For a 6 mile commute, yes. Protection from my own idiocy/incompetence, even if it also encourages my own idiocy/incompetence.
But to paraphrase Chris Boardman (cycling and walking commisioner for GM) we shouldn't be creating barriers to cycling. Cycling should require no special kit. And we shouldn't be creating environments were cyclists need to wear helmets for prtection from motorists. It should be quite unremarkable to hop on your bike and pootle down to town, and you should no more need a helmet for that than for the same journey made on foot. They don't tend towear helmets in the Netherlands.
I quite admire his dogmatism in this (albeit typically mildly expressed) given that his mother was killed while cycling.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
For properly engineered infracstrucure, I think that Denmark is a long way behind the Netherlands.
I think it's fair to say that tabloid newspapers and inexperience / Nimbyism in the local planning process, too. And perhaps police security guidelines trying to prevent permeable estates.
It is routine for there to be concerns about "kids on motorbikes" driving crime, and barriers on bike paths to "prevent" it (which they don't), which cripples cycling infrastructure and forces people on bikes back onto roads. And so "bl**dy cyclists not using cycle paths" and the rest.
Around here, at school leaving time, there are two young @ssh@ts who drive motorised scooters at speed along the pavements and on the road, weaving around. One day there will be an accident.
An anecdote: two years ago, I did first aid on a 6-year old who got hit by a cyclist outside the school gates. The St Johns training kicked in.
The kid had fallen backwards and hit the back of his head on the tarmac. He was out cold. (Send someone to get help, check his breathing (okay), get his name, talk to him, make sure he doesn't move.) He regained consciousness after a couple of minutes. It felt like hours.
The next day my parents (who happened to be visiting) accompanied me to the pick-up, and the kid's dad thanked me profusely in front of them, as did some other parents. Mrs J was in hospital at the time, so I was a bit of a mess Later on my dad praised me. Despite everything I've achieved in life, it's the only time he's done so.
I'm also quite proud of my son, who was about five. He didn't walk or run off; he just stood back, until someone we knew could look after him.
The kid was okay, and I see him most days after school. His dad always gives me a nod.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
A couple of things to say about this:
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET.
Yes, but...
For a 6 mile commute, yes. Protection from my own idiocy/incompetence, even if it also encourages my own idiocy/incompetence.
But to paraphrase Chris Boardman (cycling and walking commisioner for GM) we shouldn't be creating barriers to cycling. Cycling should require no special kit. And we shouldn't be creating environments were cyclists need to wear helmets for prtection from motorists. It should be quite unremarkable to hop on your bike and pootle down to town, and you should no more need a helmet for that than for the same journey made on foot. They don't tend towear helmets in the Netherlands.
I quite admire his dogmatism in this (albeit typically mildly expressed) given that his mother was killed while cycling.
I disagree with both of you. If you're going more than a few miles an hour, you could hurt yourself badly. I was doing just fifteen (according to my GPS log) when I came off last year, and I was lucky that I landed on grass and rolled. It was all my own fault.
Also: a few years back I slipped on a slipway near Cape Wrath and bashed my head and arm. It turned out I had fractured my elbow. Six months later, I got viral meningitis. I don't think the bash on the noggin and the virus getting into my brain were unconnected.
Protect your brain.
Also: would you say the same for working on building sites? No-one should have to wear helmets because it should be safe?
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
A couple of things to say about this:
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET.
Yes, but...
For a 6 mile commute, yes. Protection from my own idiocy/incompetence, even if it also encourages my own idiocy/incompetence.
But to paraphrase Chris Boardman (cycling and walking commisioner for GM) we shouldn't be creating barriers to cycling. Cycling should require no special kit. And we shouldn't be creating environments were cyclists need to wear helmets for prtection from motorists. It should be quite unremarkable to hop on your bike and pootle down to town, and you should no more need a helmet for that than for the same journey made on foot. They don't tend towear helmets in the Netherlands.
I quite admire his dogmatism in this (albeit typically mildly expressed) given that his mother was killed while cycling.
I disagree with both of you. If you're going more than a few miles an hour, you could hurt yourself badly. I was doing just fifteen (according to my GPS log) when I came off last year, and I was lucky that I landed on grass and rolled. It was all my own fault.
Also: a few years back I slipped on a slipway near Cape Wrath and bashed my head and arm. It turned out I had fractured my elbow. Six months later, I got viral meningitis. I don't think the bash on the noggin and the virus getting into my brain were unconnected.
Protect your brain.
Also: would you say the same for working on building sites? No-one should have to wear helmets because it should be safe?
I failed to die due to a riding helmet being jump rated. No cars involved.
You can kill yourself quite adequately falling off a bike. Wear a helmet.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
For properly engineered infrastructure, I think that Denmark is a long way behind the Netherlands.
I think it's fair to say that tabloid newspapers and inexperience / Nimbyism in the local planning process, too. And perhaps police security guidelines trying to prevent permeable estates.
It is routine for there to be concerns about "kids on motorbikes" driving crime, and barriers on bike paths to "prevent" it (which they don't), which cripples cycling infrastructure and forces people on bikes back onto roads. And so "bl**dy cyclists not using cycle paths" and the rest.
I hate those A-barriers. Absolutely hate them. A few years back I was doing part of the Saxon Shore Way, and there is a stretch that has many of these. Unfortunately my backpack wouldn't fit through, so I had to crouch down to get it through. Blooming annoying.
The second-worst stretch of trail I've ever been done for barriers. Second only to a part of the Strathspey Way...
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
I cycle a fair bit but these days I stick almost exclusively to canal towpaths, closed railway lines and other segregated infrastructure. I'm fortunate that where I live is well-served by these options.
I did everything as safely as I could when sharing the roads with cars, but in the end fear overtook righteous indignation, because it will be no comfort to be morally in the right when my luck runs out and I end up in hospital.
So I find it baffling when car drivers object to infrastructure that would give cyclists somewhere separate to cycle.
Agree. The thing required is to separate infrastructure for different modes of travel.
Some of our current stuff is so dangerous that the only safe place to be cycling is in Primary - that is smack bang in the middle of the traffic lane to make sure that vehicles see you and cannot attempt dangerous manoeuvres or try the dreaded "kill-squeeze". I don't do that on higher than 30 limits, though - but if the cycling is at say 18-20mph then delays are minimal.
In the Netherlands, normal segregated cycle paths are specced for 40kph routinely, and have been for many decades. Provide that, and there will be more people on bikes, and not on the roads.
This is a road near me (former A38), where there is no option other than walking pace on a dangerous pavement or "straight down the middle". The sign on the left says pavement shared by bikes and peds, which is loopy. Alternative cycle routes through the estates both sides are blocked by various sorts of barrier.
What it actually needs is take out the central reservation, one vehicle lane each way and a controlled crossing, limit parking to one side (other side have driveways), then a bidirectional 3.5m cycle lane down one side taking the same space as one vehicle lane.
One of the issues is that infrastructure is put in piecemeal, with no plan to join it all up. So you might have your bi-directional cycle lane down one side of the road, but a cyclist's journey might require them to cross both lanes of the road to reach it at each end. Is that worth the bother for 100m of cycle lane? So you decide to stick to the road, and then of course the drivers are enraged that you aren't out of their way, completely oblivious to the difficulties.
These days I would go to the trouble of crossing the road twice to reach a relatively short stretch of cycle lane, but I could understand why people wouldn't.
As it happens one side would work here for various reasons as it is a potential high traffic strategic route. But there's certainly a piecemeal problem. This road leads to 1000 newish houses, McArthur Glen, a mainline station to London, and a large employment area. It would also take cyclists off the 1990s bypass, where they have a barely 1m wide pavement cycle route for a couple of miles or so and cyclists or peds are killed regularly. There was one killed near there on Wednesday, for want of separate infrastructure by the look of it. That on a road built in the last 10 years. https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/cyclist-dies-lorry-crash-derbyshire-5714805
A housing estate I got PP for 8 years ago had a planning condition to widen about 150m of shared pavement from 2->2.4m to improve cycling. The next bit down that received PP last Thursday for a similar development had no such condition, despite there being plenty of reserved highway land left over from when it was the A38.
At present somebody has to do the homework, design it all, lobby Councils and then rub their nose in it when it comes up once every 3 decades for each scheme.
Judging by the responses to my tweets by the few determined to defend the indefensible re drugs deaths figures, we have a real problem in Scotland whereby anything, absolutely anything, boils down to the constitution. 14 years of cuts, inaction + deflection swept under the carpet
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
OTOH, Mr J is very good at the former, but not so much the latter.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
OTOH, Mr J is very good at the former, but not so much the latter.
I think this winter's Ashes maybe as farcical as the Packer players less Ashes in the 70s.
England’s senior cricketers are understood to want the ECB to issue an ultimatum to Australia’s board and effectively take on their government by saying that England will not contest the Ashes this winter if their players cannot take their families.
“Not too much can be said at the moment because things can change so quickly,” said a Professional Cricketers Association spokesperson on behalf of the England players, but it seems certain they will have to change if England are to tour Australia with their first-choice squad.
Cricket Australia are due to update the ECB in the next week about the protocols the Australian government will want in place for the next Ashes. England’s senior players want CA to know in advance their position about refusing to tour without their families, and for the ECB chief executive Tom Harrison to support them.
Otherwise, if this winter’s Ashes tour goes ahead under current protocols, the England players will be expected to turn back the clock more than half a century, to the 1960s, the last time they toured Australia without their wives and families. Even then an exception would usually be made for the England captain.
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
For properly engineered infrastructure, I think that Denmark is a long way behind the Netherlands.
I think it's fair to say that tabloid newspapers and inexperience / Nimbyism in the local planning process, too. And perhaps police security guidelines trying to prevent permeable estates.
It is routine for there to be concerns about "kids on motorbikes" driving crime, and barriers on bike paths to "prevent" it (which they don't), which cripples cycling infrastructure and forces people on bikes back onto roads. And so "bl**dy cyclists not using cycle paths" and the rest.
I hate those A-barriers. Absolutely hate them. A few years back I was doing part of the Saxon Shore Way, and there is a stretch that has many of these. Unfortunately my backpack wouldn't fit through, so I had to crouch down to get it through. Blooming annoying.
The second-worst stretch of trail I've ever been done for barriers. Second only to a part of the Strathspey Way...
My Dad uses a mobility scooter as he can't walk very far.
These barriers are a real pain in the backside, as he has to get off and walk through, whilst I dismantle the scooter, carry it past, and then reassemble it. Usually we don't bother and just go elsewhere. Totally discriminatory.
Meanwhile the ATVs just ride over the horse entrance and the powered scooters go straight through.
I usually have to pick up my bike too as they aren't designed for a 29" MTB with wide handlebars.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
As a matter of grammatical logic, the words 'should' and 'ought' basically don't appear in legislation or case law because they have no objective status. Whereas the words 'shall', 'may', 'must' do.
I note that the bloke who assaulted Chris Whitty in the park has pleaded guilty. I post this because his plea of mitigation included an absolute blinder:
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
He physically accosted someone who has probably received death threats, which may well have put him in fear. There seems no question to me that he was guilty, they key will be what his sentence is, which to be proportionate need not be much at all.
He put his arm round him didn’t he? I agree it was probably unsettling for Prof Whitty, I wouldn’t appreciate it done to me as I were walking down the street, but I wouldn’t consider it a criminal offence
Well he obviously disagrees since he has pled guilty rather than make such an argument at trial. Assault does not have to be particularly vicious, and I would hope the sentence reflects that.
Keating's been trying to embed his version of history into the record for some time. It's the standard line from the EU yellow press. This is a decent example.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
What's wrong with them just saying Boris Johnson or 'the Prime Minister' if they want to disassociate him as much as they can from his brand without associating his name with the officer directly? (though I've been clear I think the attempt is misguided and pathetic in any case).
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
It's not to me. We do a lot of things we shouldn't. The key is if you can be punished for it.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
Although "Johnson" is US vernacular for penis! There is no doubt that he (Johnson/Boris) likes to be known as "Boris" as a brand in the same way as Mrs T probably liked being known as "Maggie" by her supporters and detractors (Maggie Maggie Maggie..etc ). I always think when people refer to him as Boris it always sounds ludicrous, as though they personally know him when they don't. The people that most seem to do it are his fanbois.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
He'll never be a serious statesman with that haircut.
I think this winter's Ashes maybe as farcical as the Packer players less Ashes in the 70s.
England’s senior cricketers are understood to want the ECB to issue an ultimatum to Australia’s board and effectively take on their government by saying that England will not contest the Ashes this winter if their players cannot take their families.
“Not too much can be said at the moment because things can change so quickly,” said a Professional Cricketers Association spokesperson on behalf of the England players, but it seems certain they will have to change if England are to tour Australia with their first-choice squad.
Cricket Australia are due to update the ECB in the next week about the protocols the Australian government will want in place for the next Ashes. England’s senior players want CA to know in advance their position about refusing to tour without their families, and for the ECB chief executive Tom Harrison to support them.
Otherwise, if this winter’s Ashes tour goes ahead under current protocols, the England players will be expected to turn back the clock more than half a century, to the 1960s, the last time they toured Australia without their wives and families. Even then an exception would usually be made for the England captain.
Governments don't like being dictated too, it doesn't look good.
Also, no one got to bring their wife except the captain? That sounds like either pissing off the team for not being able to bring their family and resenting the captain, or the captain annouyed that he cannot be a playboy like the rest of the team.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
It's not to me. We do a lot of things we shouldn't. The key is if you can be punished for it.
Should it not be "two a-chest" now to avoid any oversensitive cyclists?
Separate places for different modes of transport is recommended.
What drivers usually object to, is when roads get closed or subject to calming measures like chicanes, irrespective of the reasons why.
I've been surprised since returning to Britain about the level of cyclist-driver aggro (both ways), but I think it can be traced back to the limited scope for separate paths. Cycle paths were ubiquitous in Denmark and as a driver I don't remember ever having any kind of tricky or angry interaction with a cyclist. Difficult in our cities with streets designed to be narrow, though.
Currently translating a 180000-word annotated translation of the German Highway Code. I'm startled by the effort it puts into stressing the need for pacifist defensive driving - again and again, it says essentially that you should assume that others may be aggressive idiots, but it's your duty to accept that, give way and don't prioritise getting somewhere quickly over the risk of killing someone, however mistaken they may be. Someone is cutting you up? Fine, slow down to let him in. A cyclist is veering across your path? OK, slow down so he can veer safely. Do not hoot or protest. Is that a common theme in British driving lessons?
I cycle to and from the office (about 8 or 9 miles each way) most days. I'd say I feel like a driver puts me at risk of serious injury every other trip on average. OF course there's an element of perception to that, I have yet to actually be injured, but when someone pulls out in front of you, passes you with a foot's distance to spare etc. there's a lot of risk to you. I'm not counting merely obnoxious driving in that by the way, but incidents that leave me going "fucking hell that was close."
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
Without wanting to defend poor driving, my golden rules when cycling are: - Always assume the driver has not seen you. - Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
Or, more succinctly, whenever you use a road always assume that every other road user is a criminally dangerous idiot who cares for nobody but themselves.
It's why I don't enjoy driving, I find the very experience continually anxious at a low level.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
It's not to me. We do a lot of things we shouldn't. The key is if you can be punished for it.
A benefit of cycling 2 abreast is that it may prevent drivers taking a chance with a dangerous overtake.
Looks generally sensible. Cycling starts at section 59 I think.
The proposed wording for 2 abreast seems to be: You should .... ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
I do quite a bit of cycling, by myself, but what, as a motorist, really irritates me about the lycra louts is how they deem it acceptable to form a peloton, thus blocking the entire road, as if they were in the Tour de France. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the roads are closed for professional cycle races so the peloton doesn't enrage drivers who get caught behind it, pootling along at 20mph on a busy A road when it's impossible to get by.
They must be drivers too, the vast bulk of them, I can't understand why they can't appreciate how irritating it is.
It's so they can chat while riding. Plus there is another reason. Imagine a group of 12 cyclists in a club go out for a ride. They have several options of how they could be on the road: - Single line of 12 riders - 2 riders abreast, 6 bikes long - 3 riders abreast, 4 bikes long
It is easier to overtake the last of these rather than the first. The limiting factor being the length of the peloton rather than the width.
This is very true on a wide open A road. On a lot of small country roads, as preferred by cyclists (including me), there's often no safe way to overtake a large group for many miles.
Frustrating drivers leads to accidents. It shouldn't, but it does.
I agree on small country roads that riding in a big peloton must be frustrating to be stuck behind. I don't think you can put the blame on cyclists for accidents because drivers are impatient.
I don't have time to cycle much these days but when I did it was almost entirely solo and mostly on quiet country roads. I have lost count of the number of very dangerous maneuvers car drivers have made in their desperation to not slow down when getting past. The most common one is overtaking on blind corners. I do not know what goes through these drivers' minds when they go around a corner on the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming the other way. I have been witness to quite a few near misses.
I'm not saying this is the cyclist's fault as such. Incidents and near misses are indeed all too frequent, and I too have lost count of dangerous overtakes and close passes. I swear at cars with the best of them.
The problem is that deliberately blocking the road (as groups of cyclists are entirely permitted to) is like going into the wrong bar and saying the wrong thing. The person that punches you is at fault, but that doesn't help you get off the floor.
Having said that, I don't have statistics as to accidents per mile in a group as opposed to solo, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.
Commuting in rush hour traffic is infinitely more dangerous than most leisure rides.
No they’re not. It’s an offence for cyclists to ride more than two abreast on a public road (Rule 66).
Doesn't "you should" at the start mean that it is not an offence?
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
The section in the HC started "you should" ie voluntary and then says "never cycle two abreast" ie compulsory, so it needs a rewrite .
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
It says "you should never ride more than two abreast" which is clear to me.
It's not to me. We do a lot of things we shouldn't. The key is if you can be punished for it.
Should it not be "two a-chest" now to avoid any oversensitive cyclists?
Who the f**** schedules long meetings for 6PM on a Friday?
The perils of working for a multinational ...
People who live in New York?
Not quite, but nearby.
On one project I had to be in work to field calls from Japan, and in the evening from the US. It led to very long days. I much preferred them to send emails, for the obvious reasons.
I could do plenty of pieces and betting threads on 'Could Starmer lose a 28,000 majority seat in a by election?'
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
Always good to see the word comrades being used.
And if you look at the whole quotation, it is surely noteworthy that Sky News has to explain exactly who this "Johnson" is:-
"I would now like to get on with my job of representing my constituents - opposing the negligent COVID decisions made by (Prime Minister Boris) Johnson's reckless Tory government which has caused so many families to lose loved ones who should still be with us today and so much hardship that could have been avoided.
"My comrades and friends, in Poplar and Limehouse, and beyond, have stood by me, I have and will always stand by them."
There is clearly a concerted effort by the Labour Party to refer to 'Johnson', presumably to neutralise the cheery 'Boris' image. Unfortunately, as the Sky news explanation shows, 'Boris' is so ingrained that criticsing 'Johnson' simply makes the only-casually-listening voter think 'who?'
Yes, I noticed Rachel Reeves calling him ‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
Yes, if this is a Labour stratagem to rebrand Boris as Johnson, they might not have thought it through, since it also rebrands amiable fuckwit Boris as serious statesman Johnson.
He'll never be a serious statesman with that haircut.
True, though be wary of those praised as serious statesmen (and women) with a principle reason given of how well they speak/look in a suit/outfit, as compared to the Boris's of the world. By itself it doesn't say anything.
And yet they refuse to change course to get more medals
"Plus: British Rowing confirms it will not reintroduce an authoritarian approach to producing Olympic champions"
All that is fine, of course. If you want a culture where you give all the athletes quails eggs for losing, and teach them about diversity instead of putting them in boats, you go ahead. Knck yourself out - very softly.
Thing is, as that article reveals, rowing gets £25 MILLION of our money, more than any other Olympic sport. I can think of many ways British sport can spend twenty five million quid, which will get a return for the nation which is better than one silver and one bronze every four years in a sport which is already bloody boring.
Take away all of their money. Take it away now. Let them live on their woke wits
"GB Rowing is “evolving from quite a hardcore culture, & trying to transition to something where athletes get more support” @TeamGB chief Andy Anson told me this week, when I asked him why they’d had a poor Tokyo Olympics, despite being UK’s best publicly-funded sport:"
Comments
I was taught in my driving test to be defensive and give cyclists lots of space etc. and it's a philosophy that I follow when I drive, but I had a pretty good instructor. If it's something that's generally taught, it doesn't stick.
Or maybe that's unfair, the vast majority of drivers are decent. The problem is that when the danger from bad driving is so high, 1 in 100 drivers being bad is still enough to ruin things.
No, Tommy, you are not getting away with playing constitutional politics on this.
There are many areas of England/Wales lower down the socioeconomic scale than Scotland, yet our drug death rates are 3.5x their level.
This is not a UK problem. This is a Scottish problem.
@TommySheppard MP
Shocking figures this morning showing drug deaths in Scotland at a new record of 1339. Every one a tragedy and sadly most of them avoidable. Hopeful that new spending by @scotgov will save lives in future but major changes in UK law required to really tackle problem.
https://twitter.com/AndyEMorrison/status/1421083954363387909?s=20
https://twitter.com/TommySheppard/status/1421032543072174080?s=20
I always understood that "you must" indicated things backed up in law (like rules 60 and 64) but "you should" is merely advisory.
He would have done the same thing if he had seen Justin Bieber in the park, the court heard.
Well, that's alright then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-58031419
Though for the record it was actually Sajid Javid who anticipated 100,000 cases a day, which is where Starmer got it from.
The fact is though, Javid said there could be 100k of cases, but the vaccines meant it was ok to open up. And he seems to have been proved right. Sir Keir said it was reckless to open and we should keep restrictions
PS What really scared me was a big hardback book of horror stories, which may not have been the Pan ones? The one that really upset me was about the man challenged to sleep overnight in a haunted room - in the morning, one irreparably demented man and nothing else but a trail of chicken feet along the floor, up the wall and back along the ceiling ... no, there was no explanation. And that was the most frightening of the lot.
As a kid I came across a book Russian of folk tales that frightened the life out of me. I remember Baba Yaga, and a tale about a woman on a sled being pursued by wolves, who kept throwing her children to them, one by one, and a man hunted by a bear through a forest.
Among the other best horror shorts I've read are Poe's The Cask of Amontillado and Tell Tale Heart, and George Martin's In The Lost Lands.
- Always assume the driver has not seen you.
- Don't assume the driver knows its your right of way.
Knowing you were in the right to be taking the line you were isn't really that much of a compensation when you are lying uncomfortably in the street with the skin grazed off your shin.
I've been knocked off twice - once by someone overtaking me then pulling into a petrol station, once by someone pulling out in front of me then braking sharply (technically in the latter case I ran into her, of course, but the point is moot). In neither case, I'm sure, was it a case of arrogant driving - just of not noticing the cyclist as I didn't fit into the driver's mental map of the street.
EDIT: also worth noting when I forget my helmet I am never at risk. Because without my helmet, without consciously adjusting, I am much more aware of my golden rules.
John Burn-Murdoch
@jburnmurdoch
NEW: lots of attention on ONS Infection Survey today, but some confusion over how it should (and should not) be used to asses whether England’s fall in cases is "real"
Quick thread:
Most attention has gone on ONS “% of people testing positive” metric showing a continued rise
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1421117152019554307
But it's a pour encourager les autres situation. The govt must make it clear that accosting people who are setting very publicly setting public policy must be beyond the pale.
https://twitter.com/urban_pictures/status/1409626480968040456?s=21
Fortunately, that's the worst I've had.
1) Going down a pot-holed residential road, I had a driver close pass me at speed to get to the junction 30m ahead first. Not really much I could do about that, I'd taken the lane to avoid potential doorings and discourage dangerous overtaking, it didn't stop him.
2) Coming down a hill, there's a side road with give way lines. Driver ignored them and came out anyway, I braked hard to come to a halt without hitting his car because I anticipated it.
And anyway, I only started this because I was amused by his mitigation that he'd have done exactly the same if he'd seen Justin Bieber in the park.
CON: 39% (+1)
LAB: 34% (-)
GRN: 9% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
REFUK: 3% (-)
via @YouGov, 28 - 29 Jul
Chgs. w/ 21 Jul
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/3ioz6t0mtz/TheTimes_VotingIntention_210729_W.pdf
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/assault-offences-explained/
Given its highly educated and scientific population, not impossible
Some interesting rumblings in Poland about home grown nuclear power.......
Some of our current stuff is so dangerous that the only safe place to be cycling is in Primary - that is smack bang in the middle of the traffic lane to make sure that vehicles see you and cannot attempt dangerous manoeuvres or try the dreaded "kill-squeeze". I don't do that on higher than 30 limits, though - but if the cycling is at say 18-20mph then delays are minimal.
In the Netherlands, normal segregated cycle paths are specced for 40kph routinely, and have been for many decades. Provide that, and there will be more people on bikes, and not on the roads.
This is a road near me (former A38), where there is no option other than walking pace on a dangerous pavement or "straight down the middle". The sign on the left says pavement shared by bikes and peds, which is loopy. Alternative cycle routes through the estates both sides are blocked by various sorts of barrier.
What it actually needs is take out the central reservation, one vehicle lane each way and a controlled crossing, limit parking to one side (other side have driveways), then a bidirectional 3.5m cycle lane down one side taking the same space as one vehicle lane.
Ed Davey's resignation could do wonders for the LDs. Mind you, so might Starmer's for Labour
1) There is a fourth rule to add to your three: "I am not infallible, and I might make a mistake." So many cyclists forget this.
2) I have known a fair few cyclists be hospitalised from crashes. Only ?one? was due to a motorist. In all the others, it was due to a mistake by the cyclist. One, a good cyclist, tried bunny-hopping onto a pavement, forgetting he was on his road bike rather than his off-road bike. A colleague had his front frames split, propelling him under a parked car. when I came off last year, it was because my adhesion was less than my ambition. And there are others.
ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET.
I don't know what it's like where you lot all live, but round here cases are down almost 50% week-on-week, and the Covid patient count in the local hospital is still only 10% of what it was in January.
The vaccines have drawn the sting from the epidemic. This disease is obviously no less nasty for the limited number of individuals made seriously ill by it, but in terms of the national picture the acute phase of the crisis increasingly looks to be over, thank God.
I think it's fair to say that tabloid newspapers and inexperience / Nimbyism in the local planning process, too. And perhaps police security guidelines trying to prevent permeable estates.
It is routine for there to be concerns about "kids on motorbikes" driving crime, and barriers on bike paths to "prevent" it (which they don't), which cripples cycling infrastructure and forces people on bikes back onto roads. And so "bl**dy cyclists not using cycle paths" and the rest.
Here's my video of an bloke on a motorbike breezing through a gate on a cycle path:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL-EHYAT4WQ
But you’re absolutely right to say that no one is perfect. We’re all capable of making mistakes and doing things we shouldn’t.
England 7-Day Average: 25000.71
Exponential Regression 7-Day Average: 24926.7
https://twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1421132008567287808?s=21
The status is that the HC can be considered as evidence in a Court of law, so it is stronger than the COVID Guidance, but not compulsory. "Best Practise"? There is also a problem that a lot of policemen are not familiar with it.
These days I would go to the trouble of crossing the road twice to reach a relatively short stretch of cycle lane, but I could understand why people wouldn't.
For a 6 mile commute, yes. Protection from my own idiocy/incompetence, even if it also encourages my own idiocy/incompetence.
But to paraphrase Chris Boardman (cycling and walking commisioner for GM) we shouldn't be creating barriers to cycling. Cycling should require no special kit. And we shouldn't be creating environments were cyclists need to wear helmets for prtection from motorists. It should be quite unremarkable to hop on your bike and pootle down to town, and you should no more need a helmet for that than for the same journey made on foot. They don't tend towear helmets in the Netherlands.
I quite admire his dogmatism in this (albeit typically mildly expressed) given that his mother was killed while cycling.
An anecdote: two years ago, I did first aid on a 6-year old who got hit by a cyclist outside the school gates. The St Johns training kicked in.
The kid had fallen backwards and hit the back of his head on the tarmac. He was out cold. (Send someone to get help, check his breathing (okay), get his name, talk to him, make sure he doesn't move.) He regained consciousness after a couple of minutes. It felt like hours.
The next day my parents (who happened to be visiting) accompanied me to the pick-up, and the kid's dad thanked me profusely in front of them, as did some other parents. Mrs J was in hospital at the time, so I was a bit of a mess Later on my dad praised me. Despite everything I've achieved in life, it's the only time he's done so.
I'm also quite proud of my son, who was about five. He didn't walk or run off; he just stood back, until someone we knew could look after him.
The kid was okay, and I see him most days after school. His dad always gives me a nod.
Get St John's or Red Cross training, people.
Also: a few years back I slipped on a slipway near Cape Wrath and bashed my head and arm. It turned out I had fractured my elbow. Six months later, I got viral meningitis. I don't think the bash on the noggin and the virus getting into my brain were unconnected.
Protect your brain.
Also: would you say the same for working on building sites? No-one should have to wear helmets because it should be safe?
‘Prime Minister Johnson’ a few weeks ago. It took me a while to clock who she was talking about, and the result was to give Boris an air of statesmanlike authority I’d never really associated with him
You can kill yourself quite adequately falling off a bike. Wear a helmet.
The second-worst stretch of trail I've ever been done for barriers. Second only to a part of the Strathspey Way...
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/cyclist-dies-lorry-crash-derbyshire-5714805
A housing estate I got PP for 8 years ago had a planning condition to widen about 150m of shared pavement from 2->2.4m to improve cycling. The next bit down that received PP last Thursday for a similar development had no such condition, despite there being plenty of reserved highway land left over from when it was the A38.
At present somebody has to do the homework, design it all, lobby Councils and then rub their nose in it when it comes up once every 3 decades for each scheme.
https://twitter.com/DeanLockhartMSP/status/1421111921487532036?s=20
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1421073035591917570?s=20
ECB confirms Stokes out of #EngvInd so he can "prioritise his mental wellbeing and to rest his left index finger"
More to follow...
https://twitter.com/SkyCricket/status/1421147197165420548
England’s senior cricketers are understood to want the ECB to issue an ultimatum to Australia’s board and effectively take on their government by saying that England will not contest the Ashes this winter if their players cannot take their families.
“Not too much can be said at the moment because things can change so quickly,” said a Professional Cricketers Association spokesperson on behalf of the England players, but it seems certain they will have to change if England are to tour Australia with their first-choice squad.
Cricket Australia are due to update the ECB in the next week about the protocols the Australian government will want in place for the next Ashes. England’s senior players want CA to know in advance their position about refusing to tour without their families, and for the ECB chief executive Tom Harrison to support them.
Otherwise, if this winter’s Ashes tour goes ahead under current protocols, the England players will be expected to turn back the clock more than half a century, to the 1960s, the last time they toured Australia without their wives and families. Even then an exception would usually be made for the England captain.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/07/26/england-face-prospect-ashes-tour-withdrawals-covid-protocols/
These barriers are a real pain in the backside, as he has to get off and walk through, whilst I dismantle the scooter, carry it past, and then reassemble it. Usually we don't bother and just go elsewhere. Totally discriminatory.
Meanwhile the ATVs just ride over the horse entrance and the powered scooters go straight through.
I usually have to pick up my bike too as they aren't designed for a 29" MTB with wide handlebars.
Who the f**** schedules long meetings for 6PM on a Friday?
The perils of working for a multinational ...
https://ip-quarterly.com/en/learning-tough-lessons-vaccine-geopolitics
I think the tragedy here is that because the EU does not get sufficient scrutiny, it is incapable of improving / evolving.
Also, no one got to bring their wife except the captain? That sounds like either pissing off the team for not being able to bring their family and resenting the captain, or the captain annouyed that he cannot be a playboy like the rest of the team.
Just had a look, and the updates to the HC process is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders
Looks generally sensible. Cycling starts at section 59 I think.
The proposed wording for 2 abreast seems to be:
You should .... ride in single file when drivers
wish to overtake and it is safe to
let them do so. When riding in
larger groups on narrow lanes, it
is sometimes safer to ride two
abreast
On one project I had to be in work to field calls from Japan, and in the evening from the US. It led to very long days. I much preferred them to send emails, for the obvious reasons.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/07/30/soft-approach-softer-results-steve-redgrave-hits-british-rowing/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
And yet they refuse to change course to get more medals
"Plus: British Rowing confirms it will not reintroduce an authoritarian approach to producing Olympic champions"
All that is fine, of course. If you want a culture where you give all the athletes quails eggs for losing, and teach them about diversity instead of putting them in boats, you go ahead. Knck yourself out - very softly.
Thing is, as that article reveals, rowing gets £25 MILLION of our money, more than any other Olympic sport. I can think of many ways British sport can spend twenty five million quid, which will get a return for the nation which is better than one silver and one bronze every four years in a sport which is already bloody boring.
Take away all of their money. Take it away now. Let them live on their woke wits
Jesus
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1420981073765232642?s=20
MATE YOU HAD FIVE YEARS