'Annoyance tax' suggested as anti-cyclist bingo + two abreast rants roll on; Canyon unveils Grizl gravel bikes with new RockShox suspension; Ned Boulting talks bike paths; Ever been stuck behind a cyclist for an hour?; Zwift with G + more on the live blog

Just for fun...

Each mile "stuck" behind a cyclist travelling at 14 MPH takes 4:17 (and never happens.) If you would otherwise be traveling at 30 MPH, it would have taken you 2:00, so you'd only add 2:17 to your journey per mile. At 40 MPH, that's 2:47/mile, and 50 MPH, 3:05/mile.

So for a 50 MPH motorist suddenly stuck behind a 14 MPH cyclist, they would have to be stuck for 19.45 miles to add a single hour to their journey. The time spent behind the cyclist would be 1:23:20.

Captain Badger wrote:

Please please get this formulated as a maths question at GCSE

John is riding his bicycle at 14mph and is saving the planet and making himself slim and healthy.  Jean is driving behind him in a gas-guzzling SUV and wants to pass John because she left late because she's badly organised and incompetent, but is unable to do so because she chose to use a country lane instead of the motorway, and is adding to climate change while endangering other people with her huge vehicle.

How long will it take Jean to wise up?

eburtthebike wrote:

...

How long will it take Jean to wise up?

Ooo - sir!  Sir!  Is the answer, "Never"?

Rick_Rude wrote:

Sometimes I don't use a cycle path because it's full of slower cyclists. If I'm cracking on and the lane is busy there's not much point being in it and constantly moving out of it. 

I do the same if there's an e-scooter in one of those pop-up lanes as there's not really space for overtaking.

eburtthebike wrote:

The JV story has been picked up by some of the media, including this rather misleading Mirror headline "Jeremy Vine's video of bunching cyclists sparks so much outrage police get involved"

The usual comments are all there https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jeremy-vines-video-bunching-...

but crucially, the give prominance to the police response of "nothing to see here, good drivers can overtake easily and safely"

In fact I quite approve of the bait and switch headline leading petrol addicts to click to see the police berating those inconsiderate cyclists, only to find the law is on the side of cyclists.

IanMK wrote:

It might just be me but I find it ironic that, on the day that the IPCC release a report that says that if we don't do something now the planet is going to go shit, so many people should choose that moment to get exercised about cyclists.

The report says we need to do something NOW. I know we are all hypocrits when it comes to the climate crisis but the msm seem obsessed by what will happen at the cop26 in Glasgow. They don't seem to understand that there's stuff we can all do today - cycle more, walk instead of driving to the local shops, eat less beef and lamb, buy less shit that you don't need etc. Railing against cyclists seems to me to be using energy on the wrong issues.

That's because the msm know that they'll get more people reacting to cyclist related articles than those on the climate crisis, probably not by much in many articles, but they know the discussion will be more heated (pardon the pun).

It's also a sad state of affairs and far too many people will conveniently dismiss the issue or place the responsibility solely onto the government to sort out, to absolve themselves of having to make personal lifestyle changes in order to significantly reduce their own carbon footprint.

The two issues obviously are inextricably linked and is summarised by the people who feel under threat (motorists) with having their privileges/rights reduced or taken away.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint RIGHT NOW, otherwise it will simply be too late. The pandemic should be the catalyst for everyone to reduce their carbon footprint but unfortunately many will rush to return to their pre-pandemic privileges. I am a pessimist by nature and have seen nothing to suggest otherwise in the face of a global catastrophe, I hope I'm proven wrong!

On that subject, I've been looking at carbon offsetting. If anybody has any good tips on this I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I was just thinking of giving to a rewilding charity. BBCs countryfile on Sunday was quite interesting.

IanMK wrote:

On that subject, I've been looking at carbon offsetting. If anybody has any good tips on this I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I was just thinking of giving to a rewilding charity. BBCs countryfile on Sunday was quite interesting.

I'm not sure how good carbon offsetting is when the trees planted for it go up in flames.

you buy another carbon bike. It's carbon offsetting, honest

Pyro Tim wrote:

you buy another carbon bike. It's carbon offsetting, honest

crap, my last bike was not carbon. I didn't consider the benefits of using carbon for a bike, rather than for fuel.

naughty step for me.

I think it's generally nonsense, a salve to the conscience maybe.

Sometimes worthwhile causes, but as a way to reduce say a jet flight to carbon zero, nah.

We need to fly less, drive less, eat less red meat and stop buying huge amounts of stuff.  Just because it's made in the far east doesn't mean there is no carbon footprint.  We need to repair more and keep stuff going longer.

I'm no longer cycling on the road but if I was I'd be pretty pissed off at Jeremy Vine. It just incites hatred and whilst the more extreme accounts are quite satisfying to report to Twitter for application of the banhammer (they're actually very good at this in my experience) the likely outcome is cyclists becoming a KSI statistic. It's also exhausting trying engage with the debate and inaccuracies posted - that Windsor Tri incident is everywhere for example at the moment. As a road rage victim when I saw him post it I was genuinely anxious for people still riding on the road. And the responses just confirm my reasons for switching to MTB.

kil0ran wrote:

I'm no longer cycling on the road but if I was I'd be pretty pissed off at Jeremy Vine. It just incites hatred and whilst the more extreme accounts are quite satisfying to report to Twitter for application of the banhammer (they're actually very good at this in my experience) the likely outcome is cyclists becoming a KSI statistic. It's also exhausting trying engage with the debate and inaccuracies posted - that Windsor Tri incident is everywhere for example at the moment. As a road rage victim when I saw him post it I was genuinely anxious for people still riding on the road. And the responses just confirm my reasons for switching to MTB.

It's not JV who incites hatred, it's the act of jumping on a bike and riding on the road that does that. We're all to blame as it happens by that metric.

These mouth breathers aren't normal until they come across JVs tweets, they were always w@nkers. They've just been triggered into expressing it.

Captain Badger wrote:

These mouth breathers aren't normal until they come across JVs tweets, they were always w@nkers. They've just been triggered into expressing it.

Thats naive and doesnt agree with the wealth of evidence that social media amplifies and encourages extreme behaviours and opinions.  As does most advertising led media tbf.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

 

Thats naive and doesnt agree with the wealth of evidence that social media amplifies and encourages extreme behaviours and opinions.  As does most advertising led media tbf.

Oops, sorry. I meant to say these mouth breathers are actually skilled drivers until they see one of JVs tweets, when they become psychotic cyclist killing loons

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Thats naive and doesnt agree with the wealth of evidence that social media amplifies and encourages extreme behaviours and opinions.  As does most advertising led media tbf.

Yes, easily led people are easily led.

However, to suggest that we shouldn't post pro-cycling information because of a minority of idiots is just risible. It'd be like suggesting that people shouldn't post positive ethnic minority stories to avoid antagonising the KKK.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yes, easily led people are easily led.

However, to suggest that we shouldn't post pro-cycling information because of a minority of idiots is just risible. It'd be like suggesting that people shouldn't post positive ethnic minority stories to avoid antagonising the KKK.

I agree and would never suggest otherwise.  However if we actually want a majority positive response from posts they need a lot of thought put into both content and tone - just as you would an ethnic minority story.

My opinion of Vine is that he sometimes chooses to publish something to get a reaction rather than usefully progress a debate, his tweet that started this being a case in point.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I agree and would never suggest otherwise.  However if we actually want a majority positive response from posts they need a lot of thought put into both content and tone - just as you would an ethnic minority story.

My opinion of Vine is that he sometimes chooses to publish something to get a reaction rather than usefully progress a debate, his tweet that started this being a case in point.

I suspect you're right about Vine wanting to drum up a bit of controversy.

My opinion is that the time for debate is over and the myth of private, personal motor vehicles for mass transport has clearly outlived its usefulness. Following on from the IPCC report yesterday, it's obvious that developed countries need to make a major shift in attitudes and behaviours (and I don't mean just move manufacturing to another country so that we can then blame them) and one small part of that is to get people out of cars and onto scooters/bikes/feet.

Whether Vine chooses to antagonise or supplicate makes no practical difference. What we need is a major political rethink.