Footage of cyclist hit on roundabout leads to 'debate' on social media; Cancellara keeps Paris-Roubaix cobbles in sauna; XR planning pop-up cycle lane smash-and-grab; Manchester bike lanes removed?; Londoners filmed on packed buses + more on the live blog

jollygoodvelo wrote:

Regardless of the fact that there was never a hard limit on exercise in England up to now, I suspect that the change from 'exercise once a day' to 'exercise as much as you like' will mean that most of the public returns to their usual no-exercise-at-all level.

Or:

https://newsthump.com/2020/05/12/britain-horrified-after-all-restriction...

jigr69 wrote:

In the England there wasn't any restriction placed on the amount of exercise you could take, nor duration. It was advised that you should exercise only once up to an hour, but not in the legislation, therefore not enforceable.

Actually, I do wonder. The test was always what is "reasonable", so I guess we are at the mercy of the man on the Clapham omnibus. By colouring this man's understanding of what is "reasonable", through constant propaganda and 'official' advice, I guess they have moved the needle one way and the other.

Sriracha wrote:

jigr69 wrote:

In the England there wasn't any restriction placed on the amount of exercise you could take, nor duration. It was advised that you should exercise only once up to an hour, but not in the legislation, therefore not enforceable.

Actually, I do wonder. The test was always what is "reasonable", so I guess we are at the mercy of the man on the Clapham omnibus. By colouring this man's understanding of what is "reasonable", through constant propaganda and 'official' advice, I guess they have moved the needle one way and the other.

The test is what is reasonable, but it then goes on to define certain things, including exercise, that are explicitly considered reasonable. There could be a test of whether it was 'reasonable' to claim that you were doing exercise (e.g. you weren't just using "going for a walk" as cover for 'getting drunk in the park with your friends'), but as long as you are doing exercise, whether the man on the Clapham omnibus considers the amount of exercise you're doing 'reasonable' is immaterial.

FWIW I dont see that as contradictory advice, we want people to get back to work,but we dont want overcrowding on public transport as a result.

But then I dont really see that it's the governments job to spoon feed me on how I should commute to work,I can kind of work out for myself avoiding busy bus routes and times is probably a good idea at the moment,or that if I can walk or cycle instead, I free up space for those that most need to use public transport

And I can buy a brand new BSO which might not be pretty, or fast,or the latest tech,but it will do the job for less than half the price of the cancelled summer beach holiday week in Europe none of us will be going on now.

Maybe its time actually people need to be better at this stuff rather than rely on goverment diktat all the time.

simply "buying bikes" is not an option for many who use bus services in normal times, let alone when may of these workers would have been put on 80% of their wages for the last 6 weeks or so and ignoring the fact the used bike market is rapidly increasing in price as people reach out for them. 

if the government want some of the lowest paid in our country, to go back to work and put their health at risk to provide services/ goods for people or their boss still working at home, support in doing this safely is the least they can expect. 

if the government is paying an office worker 80% of their salary, rightfully on furlough for 3, they can pay a service worker a grant of £2-400 for a bike if they're expecting them to go back to work. 

buying bikes doesnt have to be the option for the many though, we arent magically going to turn into a nation of cyclists overnight and we shouldnt expect it to happen like that.

We only need to start with the people who HAVE the money to buy a bike to swap modes of transport, and you can pick up BSOs cheap enough & plenty of workplaces are signed up to the bike to work scheme that the government enables, to free up the space on the public transport for the have nots, so they can travel safely, they dont even have to be the people who use public transport to begin with, if they drove cars before and swapped to bikes, there would be more space on the roads for extra buses to run to cater for the extra social distancing requirements.

someone very famous once said "Ask not what your country can do for you,ask what you can do for your country"  so which path are we going to choose ?

"I dont really see that it's the governments job to spoon feed me"

Seriously? I'm all for 'Great British common sense' being the icing on the cake of a set of workable rules. But should common sense to be the whole cake?

This is life and death. There's overcrowding on London buses and tube trains today, and people will die as a result.

What percentage of workers actually commute by public transport?

IIRC it's about 15%.

So it's perfectly possible for the vast majority of workers to return to their previous commutes.

Yet again it's a media red herring.

you're looking at percentage of overall employees taking PT, while not factoring the reduced capacity.

PT capacity at full service is 10% due to social distancing, you would have to have 10% of the workforce active to match that

if 85% of people work in the service industry out of the 100% employed, we can just take the 15% of that demand away and pretend all non service is still shut, we can asses 15% of the 100% is furloughed, let's take them away from demand and pretend none of them are service workers, and lets slice that in half as some might be WFH, lots of businesses will still be closed.

35% of that workforce demand still exists, but you only have 10% of the PT capacity.

Roughly 15% of workers commute by public transport.

If we assume 10% capacity then 1.5% of workers will be able to continue using public transport. Staggering start and end times could increase that further. Say 2.5%.

That leaves 12.5% of workers unable to get to work.

Remove those able to work from home, those whose jobs have not restarted and those who can use alternative modes and you're significantly below 10%, possibly below 5%.

If 90-95% of workers are able to resume commuting then it's really not unreasonable to ask people to return to work.

Rich_cb wrote:

What percentage of workers actually commute by public transport? IIRC it's about 15%. So it's perfectly possible for the vast majority of workers to return to their previous commutes. Yet again it's a media red herring.

Most people live in cities and in the bigger cities (london was mentioned above) public transport makes up the biggest share, certainly in the centre (only in the suburbs does this change).

EddyBerckx wrote:

Most people live in cities and in the bigger cities (london was mentioned above) public transport makes up the biggest share, certainly in the centre (only in the suburbs does this change).

There is a huge difference in modal share between London and England as a whole.

This tweet explains it clearly at the same time as highlighting the deliberate misrepresentation by someone who works for The Mail On Sunday:

https://twitter.com/JamesManuell/status/1259774432689741824

I wonder if he recognises that being ex-public school and the Deputy Political Editor at the Mail means that he himself is one of the "metropolitan liberal elite" that he is deriding so plainly. What a complete tosser.

lesterama wrote:

How about Avon & Somerset Police require a driver awareness course and put points on their licence?

I have to admit I also was rather concerned at their reaction to wilful dangerous driving, the mildest of mild slaps on the wrist; a reminder about the HC in the post.  I would have thought a Notice of Intended Prosecution was far more fitting for an incident which so easily could have been a fatality.

But driver awareness courses are all suspended during the lockdown due to social distancing rules, and a NIP which results in points can goto magistrates court for the case to be heard,which are in backlog due to majority being shutdown & social distancing rules and chances of being held within the 6months prosecution time limit are slim.

Which is why the guidance is currently at best only send a letter

Awavey wrote:

Which is why the guidance is currently at best only send a letter

So quite literally a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card?

I assume the paperwork is too much hassle if it not going to court.
But then again, how many NIPs can there be if everyone is at home and not traveling much ?

Speed awareness courses have gone online during the pandemic and Operation Snaps are still working; traffic police are busier than usual and all the tickets handed out, or footage submitted are being processed as usual. No idea why A&Somerset gave a free pass on that one.

Awavey wrote:

But driver awareness courses are all suspended during the lockdown due to social distancing rules, and a NIP which results in points can goto magistrates court for the case to be heard,which are in backlog due to majority being shutdown & social distancing rules and chances of being held within the 6months prosecution time limit are slim. Which is why the guidance is currently at best only send a letter

OK, so it won't be instant or even quick justice, but that is no reason to continue to allow dangerous driving with no sanction.  The wheels of justice grind slow, but they don't stop.  If that driver isn't taken off the road they are going to kill someone, so society needs to take action, not just say it's too hard.

Where is this guidance that sending a letter is an appropriate response to dangerous driving and who issued it?

the CPS/NPCC issued an updated charging protocol in response to the Covid19 situation end of March, which advised the police to take careful consideration of what new offences were fed into the system. Road traffic offences,outside of fatalities/dangerous driving, were categorised in the lowest level, with a reminder to take into account statutory time limits as a consideration.

now police forces could interpret that how they liked of course, which brings a random element into it, but the Times highlighted only a few days after the guidance was published Essex Police had already started to write letters instead of prosecute for low level traffic offences like speeding https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/speeding-drivers-let-off-by-overstret...

theyve since I believe stated that dont do that for speeding now, but whether that extends to close passing cyclists or examples like the video, i dont know, but examples of NIPS for this kind of stuff have been thin on the ground lately it feels.

and fwiw given how the police always insist you dont post video footage online/share on social media it case it harms a prosecution, theyll have broken their own guidance if they did send a NIP instead.

Awavey wrote:

But driver awareness courses are all suspended during the lockdown due to social distancing rules, and a NIP which results in points can goto magistrates court for the case to be heard,which are in backlog due to majority being shutdown & social distancing rules and chances of being held within the 6months prosecution time limit are slim.

Which is why the guidance is currently at best only send a letter

How about they stick the points on the licence summarily, and if the tosser objects then they can join the back of the triage queue at the magistrates to have it overturned, if indeed.

I actually read the tweet as being sarcastic - they'll be getting a "little reminder" sort of thing.

Morgoth985 wrote:

I actually read the tweet as being sarcastic - they'll be getting a "little reminder" sort of thing.

Me too. The judge emoji and elipsys made me think they were hinting at an NIP.