End of the road for Tour de France Unchained — Netflix confirms no more seasons; "Yes... and long overdue": Cyclists support calls for drivers to be "presumed liable" in collisions; Wax your chain...in a rice cooker?! + more on the live blog

Apparently they're better now...

Like the government and authorities they're trying to "align" with the pressure to avoid mentioning the "C" word - or indeed doing things which particularly align with the needs of cyclists - appears strong.  So it's "Active Travel" - and I'm surprised it's not been renamed the "walking, wheeling and (shh) cycling network".  It's certainly pushed as "recreational" which seems to be what we've ended up with in many places.

That's not taking away from the incredible efforts of volunteers who essentially set up a parallel "department for transport" and built / bought / negotiated a country-wide collection of infra (read more in Laura Laker's book).

I have ridden bits of their routes on my commutes for many years, mainly the 5, Birmingham and Reading. Longer bits for recreation. They get my money every month.

As with all commuting and travel routes, you try, and if it's not right you seek alternatives. And hope that you end up with the best compromise.

Oh, I use them all the time - indeed part of the reason I'm living where I am is it's basically right by an off-road "almost-network".  And almost always "good enough"; if ... you don't mind dog walkers, unhappy pedestrians, the glass, football and rugby crowds on foot.  And the occasional thugs, motorbikes - oh and sexual predators...

If they hadn't built some parts (volunteer / charity effort!  Often it seems in spite of LA / government) which "somehow work" (for this lifetime cycler), I wouldn't bemoan the bits which really look like "national sign-off network" or "national sign network".

There's just enough - in some places - so you do start wondering "hey - why do we need to spend time with maps / talking to people to find usable alternatives, or seeking an acceptable compromise?  I don't do that when I'm driving - and rarely when walking in urban areas..."

Especially when you realise other places have an urban network (just like for pedestrians / drivers) AND "intercity routes" AND also a country-wide "recreational network" like this [1] [2], AND even greener or more "recreational trails" like this [3] [4] [5]...

My point is the counterfactual - what would we have got if Sustrans weren't so eager to sign off any kind of rubbish? The argument of their defenders is that we wouldn't have anything. The counterpoint would be that there might be more pressure on government at all levels to build something that actually  works. 

It's like painted cycle lanes on road - we know from proper scientific studies that they actually increase danger to cyclists, so that they are worse than nothing. And indeed, if the budget/political will had been instead applied to creating proper segregated facilities, then we would end up with a proper cycling network! 

Accepting low standards just allows decision-makers to claim they are doing something, whilst not actually delivering anything.

the little onion wrote:

My point is the counterfactual - what would we have got if Sustrans weren't so eager to sign off any kind of rubbish? The argument of their defenders is that we wouldn't have anything. The counterpoint would be that there might be more pressure on government at all levels to build something that actually  works. 

Well - like most counterfactuals we'll never know.  But I guess you could estimate this by looking at how much "sufficiently good" infra the government and councils built before.  I'd say that would amount to ... not much.

It's not quite "nothing" because the UK does seem to go round in cycles.  So every decade or so (or is it quarter century?) someone sits up and says "this cycling thing?  It seems to have a lot of benefits we'd really like, and it's cheap - do you thing it could ... work?"  And stuff gets funded, trials and studies are done... but because "trial" and "in addition to driving, not instead of some driven trips" modal share for cycling only increases to a percent or so, not e.g. 5 - 10% or more.  And then events come along and/or the politicians have been there for a bit and become unpopular.  And it all gets ditched.

the little onion wrote:

It's like painted cycle lanes on road - we know from proper scientific studies that they actually increase danger to cyclists, so that they are worse than nothing. And indeed, if the budget/political will had been instead applied to creating proper segregated facilities, then we would end up with a proper cycling network! 

That's a massive "if" there... where would this political will have come from and how (and if it could have ... why didn't it)?

the little onion wrote:

Accepting low standards just allows decision-makers to claim they are doing something, whilst not actually delivering anything.

Completely agree ... but the problem with cycling is that the people who need to approve / demand "good enough" * are not the cyclists of today **.  Which is a problem, because a) they don't know what good cycling facilities are b) they likely don't understand how convenient and pleasant it could be c) many don't care about cycling and indeed won't be "enthusiasts" even if they become part of "mass cycling" and do cycle themselves d) they have lives they've already built around driving / walking and providing for cycling may mean some change for them.

I have also been scathing about Sustrans back in the past.  Having seen just how little support for "doing it at all" never mind "doing it right" there is though I am less certain how it could have been different.  (Reading the history in Laura Laker's book was interesting also).  Of course, if the government - or maybe even one council or one city/town - had decided to go in a different direction and been able to change quickly enough AND weather the criticism over time ... [1] [2]

* e.g. a safe and convenient cycling network of continuous cycle routes, separated from motor traffic where needed (by distance it's more about "slowing down and reducing motor traffic volumes" and decreasing "permeability" for it), with good social safety and secure parking, which facilitates social cycling e.g. is wide enough for side-by-side.

** To a first approximation we're outliers; the fit and the brave, "enthusiasts", sportspeople ... and/or have less social status e.g. the really poor, those who can't drive - including banned drivers, the young, those with certain disabilities ...

Also, I'm not sure of the ethics of photographing young women cycling without their knowledge/permission.

I'm more concerned about the lady in the second, also frequently-used photograph, with her handbag apparently dangling from the bars and just asking to get caught in the brakes or spokes.

Mr Anderson wrote:

20 years ago I did not support this, because there are careless/negligent/incompetent cyclists too.

There are, and see the response to your question below. However, note that in cyclists v pedestrians, the cyclist has not brought 2 tonnes to the scene of the crash at up to 70mph (or perhaps even more). Even where the more vulnerable party may be at fault - either partly or wholly - for the cause of the collision, they are not the cause of the scale of the damage or injury caused.

It is entirely reasonable to presume that the person who brings the most kinetic energy with them carries greater responsibility for anticipating the presence and actions of others around them.

Mr Anderson wrote:

The only question I have, will Strict Liability be applied in the incidents of Cyclist v Pedestrian collisions?

According to the wording of the petition, yes.

Mr Anderson wrote:

Today there is no reason not to implement this.

Exactly

Just as long as everyone remembers a) this has no bearing on criminal court matters, only civil ones *. b) This is about recompense after the fact and is not likely to do much if anything for "safety" [1] [2] [3] (again - civil compensation).

It's still a good idea though!  e.g. if people survive it should make it a bit easier to get help to pay for their care.  Of course this relies on not being in Scotland, where - if pushed - the police might assist by asking the driver if they remembered this happening, and going away when the driver said "no".

* In theory I guess it could but that is highly unlikely to happen.  It would be a radical innovation; I'm not aware of that being the case anywhere else.

Sredlums wrote:

"ruin the wax on a molecular level"

Sigh. The wax will melt, and solidify again afterwards. That's all there is to it.
I do my hot waxing in an old electric fondue pan, works just fine.
Melt the wax, turn the temperature down a notch, put in the chain, let it sit for a minute or so, stir it a bit, take it out and turn off the heat. That's it.

 Mmmm, fondue…  I can't get out of my head this image of your wax bubbling away while you dip components into it on a fork… 

Indeed, best not to tell them about the temperatures and pressures involved in refining crude oil to produce the wax...

Sredlums wrote:

"ruin the wax on a molecular level"

When I wax my chain I always get the electron microscope out and examine the wax molecules individually, just to be sure.

No, it's an atomic force microscope you need