Ban cyclists and e-scooter riders using phones, Tory peer urges (BBC)

This x1000.

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Totally justified in my opinion. We are all in charge of a vehicle when riding/driving and we cannot rebuke others when doing the same. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

There's a hell of a difference between two tonnes of fast moving metal and someone on a bike.

I don't see the point really as using your phone when cycling tends to be self-controlled. Cycling one-handed tends to make you slow down (especially given the pothole-strewn roads) and most cyclists will take some care to avoid losing control or hitting someone/something as that tends to hurt and possibly break bits off of your bike.

There's many things that can be done to improve road safety and this is way down the list.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cycling one-handed tends to make you slow down

For some of us this may be true, but I've seen some impressive selfie skills from moving cyclists

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cycling one-handed tends to make you slow down

For some of us this may be true, but I've seen some impressive selfie skills from moving cyclists

Everyone's gangsta until they hit the potholes

Totally justified - so you believe 100 kg at 10 kph is the same as 2500 kg at 60 kph and that existing cycle laws are insufficient.

Why do you think that they are insufficient ?

Don't bother asking for more. He takes after PBU on deciding to mainly post on an "against cycling" angle including going back multiple months just to have ago against the cyclists in certain NMOTD. And like PBU's favourite follower, if asked simple questions to expand the point they are "agreeing" with, doesn't bother replying. 

I am definitely not against cycling but get fed up with the car drivers are always at fault angle from a lot on here. When I am out on my bike I am just as much responsible for my safety as others on the road. If we all took that view things would be so much better for all. I have recently had 2 instances where I have had to swerve accross the road due to idiot cyclists with me nearly going into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Cyclists can be just as bigger idiots as everyone else but you wouldn't think that from some comments on here. I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

Rockhopper229 wrote:

I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

No, it is pro-cycling.  Surprised?

Rockhopper229 wrote:

I am definitely not against cycling but get fed up with the car drivers are always at fault angle from a lot on here. When I am out on my bike I am just as much responsible for my safety as others on the road. If we all took that view things would be so much better for all. I have recently had 2 instances where I have had to swerve accross the road due to idiot cyclists with me nearly going into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Cyclists can be just as bigger idiots as everyone else but you wouldn't think that from some comments on here. I am starting to think this a an anti car site.

18 anti-cyclist posts and counting...

Oh no. Some one has a different point of view to me. Can't have that can we!!!

None because their other bike is also a car - and motorists don't kill people, they're throwing themselves into the road. (Sorry, I just love that clip).

Why would you swerve across the road into oncoming traffic? How is that being responsible?

With a name like Rockhopper, I suspect your "out on your bike" is on trails* and well away from roads so you don't experience them apart from as a car driver. Hence you having to swerve across the road into the paths of oncoming vehicles because you were just approaching acyclist without thinking about giving room etc. 

I'm also judging this because one of your "against cycling" was on a NMOTD claiming the cyclist moved out deliberately into the path of the vehicle over taking without you even noticing the van parked on the road the cyclist needed to move out to overtake. 

Assuming the two instances you quoted were real, it sounded like a similar manouvre linked in the comments on yesterdays blog. Pretty much all apportioned the lions share of the blame to the cyclist, however for a driver bragging about seeing the cyclist ahead, and being ready, he didn't seem to have planned to slow down so he could pass the cyclist safely and with room if the swerve didn't happen. 

* And I'm not having ago at MTB here, just that daily commuting gives a greater understanding of road dangers just as I would be quite crap on understanding the best and safest way around trails.

Indeed, but Rockhoppers are very entry level, so wouldn't assume that he has the skills round trails either

Pyro Tim wrote:

Indeed, but Rockhoppers are very entry level, so wouldn't assume that he has the skills round trails either

Hey, I've got an old Rockhopper!

**sad lack of trails skills noises**

The stumpjumper always had more class.

I was envisaging them riding something more like this.

(Not sure who the friend in the background is, though.)

Never heard of Nibali?

Apparently it's a catfish.

So presumably Antonio?

one of your "against cycling" was on a NMOTD claiming the cyclist moved out deliberately into the path of the vehicle over taking without you even noticing the van parked on the road the cyclist needed to move out to overtake

Standard nutter members of the public are not the only ones to try this 'cyclist deliberately moved into the path of the motorised vehicle' dodge as a method of victim blaming. Lancashire Constabulary does this regularly, despite knowing that the footage is from a headcam. In that case, when you glance right because you hear and see a vehicle coming far too close the very stupid police officer claims you have swerved in the space of a couple of seconds deliberately into the path of the vehicle. You wonder how the police manage to find people this thick to recruit.

There was a bit in the graun yesterday on the new electric hummer, four and a half tons.

Are us tons different to our tons?

Google says lighter by 240 lb.
( Not that I use imperial or us nonsense).

ktache wrote:

There was a bit in the graun yesterday on the new electric hummer, four and a half tons.

Are us tons different to our tons?

That's nothing, is short and long tons and indeed tonnes.  Some places get far more creative.  Wikipedia Afghan units of measurement (seems to be focussing on drug-related ATM for some reason) - you've got your Kabuli Ser, then there's you Mazar Ser ... (For a great read if you get on with the tone Eric Newby's classic "A short walk in the Hindu Kush" has some wonderful 1950s Afghan culture notes.)

But yeah, heavy cars.  David Hembrow is as usual good on this.  Can't imagine electrickery is going to make them lighter in the near term either.  Although as costs are shooting up currently you never know!

Um...
https://www.ship-technology.com/analysis/crewless-cargo-the-worlds-first...

And you can buy electric planes at Screwfix 😉

Sriracha wrote:

Um... https://www.ship-technology.com/analysis/crewless-cargo-the-worlds-first... And you can buy electric planes at Screwfix 😉

I was reading about electric cargo ships the other day - the writer was making the point that disruptive technologies should be more than just swapping an ICE motor for an electric motor. With electric cargo ships, it's a major advantage in being able to reduce the size of them which then allows them to dock at more locations (i.e. smaller ports). There's also the advantage that after travelling, the ship isn't lighter due to the fuel being burnt and thus doesn't need to take on ballast.

Similarly, we should be moving away from just swapping ICE cars with electic cars - there's a major opportunity to reduce size and improve road congestion. Maybe something like a bicycle powered by electricity could be invented?

Small, light and more efficient cars are just not wanted anymore, or so it seems.

Because of "range anxiety" car owners seem to want 2-300 mile range, or that is what the car company seem to sell them.  That means transporting huge weight of batteries meaning more weight which then needs more batteries.  When most journeys are only a few miles, and even 50 miles would be a huge amount to drive on a daily basis.  Perhaps removable battery packs for that very rare occasion that the really need the range would work.

I think it might be in Singapore, they did an emoped scheme that you never charged the battery, when getting flat you'd visit a hub remove the old battery and pick up a fully charged one, shove it in and away you went.  Negating the problems of charging in apartment complexes.