While you’ve been stuffing your face with Celebrations (and complaining about the new tiny tubs), drinking out-of-date Baileys, and watching the daily deluge of cyclocross on the TV, I’ve been diligently keeping note of all the cycling debates and titbits that popped up over the festive period, to help keep you entertained during the sleepy post-Christmas, pre-New Year period on the live blog.
[Disclaimer – I’ve been doing all of the above too, especially indulging in that sweet, sweet cyclocross, but I’ve also been taking the odd screenshot on my phone of any particularly interesting cycling-related social media posts. The grind never stops, eh?]
Anyway… First up on this leftover turkey sandwich of a live blog is what I’ve been pitching to Channel 4 as a new alternative to the King’s Speech – James Blunt on Cycling.
(He’s got a posh voice, was more popular 20 years ago than he is today, and his links to the military are constantly brought up out-of-context – are we sure Blunt isn’t a royal?)
In any case, the You’re Beautiful hitmaker/self-deprecating social media clapback supremo/Cockney rhyming slang subject decided to join the murky world of bike-themed Twitter arguments – on Christmas Day, of all days – after spotting Jeremy Vine’s latest penny-farthing video.
In the clip, the cycling broadcaster was forced to “bail” and jump off his penny-farthing after an Ocado delivery driver pulled out across the protected bike lane.
“Dear Ocado, Cyclists have priority over your vehicles in cycle lanes. Especially when they are on penny farthings. Thanks so much,” Vine wrote.
> Jeremy Vine rides penny-farthing along cycle lane... gets blocked off by a driver who ignored cyclist priority
After watching Jezza’s latest cycle lane encounter, Blunt – presumably while preparing the garlic mushrooms – decided to interrupt his Christmas lunch to publicly call for some festive goodwill between cyclists and motorists.
“As both cyclist and driver, I don’t think we should pit ourselves against each other,” the 50-year-old tweeted in response.
“Maybe try to share, rather than compete, for the space… and a little patience and tolerance would go a long way – especially to the Ocado guy delivering people’s turkeys. Happy Christmas.”
Well, at least he didn’t just write ‘So long, Jeremy’… What? Nobody a fan of the deep cuts?
And to be fair to Blunt’s “as a cyclist” comment, he did post a photo of himself in March arriving at a gig in Berlin by bike:
Nevertheless, regardless of his intentions, Blunt’s intervention unsurprisingly inspired the classic anti-cycling reaction from the usual suspects on Twitter (though many did note the poor design of the junction in question, while Adam Tranter even weighed in with a questionable pun-based version of Wisemen).
That inevitable pile-on then prompted Vine to reach out to the 1973 singer (sorry, I don’t know any of the post-2007 material) to argue the point that patience and tolerance also need to be supported by safe infrastructure and decisions by drivers.
“‘Sharing the space’ results in 1,700 road deaths every year,” the broadcaster wrote. “We know now that vulnerable road users need segregated lanes to keep them safe.
“I uploaded this post in a good-humoured way (I’m laughing at the end), just because it shows how even segregated space gets encroached on. The more encroachment, the more danger, the fewer people cycle, the more drive, the more danger.
“The pile-on I'm getting as a result of your (totally rational) reply indicates the dangerous levels of anger many road users carry with them, much of it, weirdly, directed at people cycling. Happy Christmas James, I love you man!”
To be honest, I thought ‘Patience’ was a Take That song, anyway... I’ll get my coat.
Add new comment
43 comments
"...most bizarre cycling stories of the year..."?
A late entry is BBC R4 this morning, the Today programme, starting at 6am with Dame Laura Kenny as guest editor. Very heavy on obesity and getting children exercising regularly: no mention of Active Travel. My gob has never been more smacked. I missed some of it, so maybe it was there, but not in anything I heard, which discussed obesity and exercise.
I wonder if Today would have St Chris of Boardman as a guest editor?
Cycling injuries cost $100m annually
I did a quick search for this and found a few articles, link below. Some highlights:
"Taking to two wheels on a road bike or mountain bike is the most risky leisure-time activity for summer holiday-makers.
Latest statistics from ACC compiled for 2023 show 28,059 new claims related to road cycling were lodged, costing $76m – by far the most risky summer leisure activity and more than twice to (sic) cost of the next most injury prone activity, swimming (7751 claims at a cost of $31m).
Other cyclists, mountain bikers, made 4152 claims at a cost of $21m, pushing the cost of cycling in general to close to $100m.
Every year ACC accepts around two million claims, which comes at a cost of $5bn to help people recover. Over one million of those injuries relating to those claims occur during the warmer months of October to March.”
Astonishing that half the claims occur in six months of the year. Of course there is no mention of who is at fault in road cycling incidents, or what the other $4.9bn claims were for.
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-press/20241228/2816596706598...
Seems likely to be something of a base rate fallacy going on there - how much cycling was being done in the first place, relative to swimming and whatever other activities they were looking at?
Indeed - I suspect "people who walk a mile a week doing themselves a nasty on a walk up Snowdon" and the like would be the big one - but presumably fewer claim for that sort of thing.
Having said that I can imagine people who haven't cycled since childhood disproving "it's just like riding a bike" - especially when equipped with their own children to manage and/or holiday drinking.
Hopefully there is a breakdown of the CAUSES of the $100million "cycling injuries".
Be they
- (accidentally) self-inflicted by the cyclist with no one else involved
- injuries suffered by pedestrians or other cyclists when hit by a cyclist
or...
- could it be that the vast majority are due to dangerous DRIVERS hitting cyclists ... ?
RE: drivers across cycle paths and "possible design issues".
This is completely standard in Edinburgh and there are certainly some contributions from certain designs.
1) A local street has (from over a decade ago) completely separate cycle paths (distinct from the pedestrian path) *. BUT at every side road (these only give access to parking behind the flats) the footway and cycle path give up. Result is not just that cyclists need to yield when on a direct "through route" but of course people park as close as they can to the entrances - often directly across the cycle path crossing, double-yellows or no...
* Essentially bi-directional on both sides. This astonishing state of affairs may be due to planning for trams, I don't know the full history.
RE: drivers across cycle paths and "possible design issues".
2) The Roseburn to Haymarket part of the new CCWEL route has what seems to be a pretty-close-to-Dutch-type arrangement. Of course it's not uncommon to see vehicles sat across the cycle path and possibly the pavement also, like this:
(2) In this case I think the design doesn't help. A very brief look about suggests that this isn't quite Dutch. There are two treatments I've seen examples of there:
a) "Continuous footway / cycleway" - for very minor side roads joining larger roads (but not major ones I suspect). Here there is *no* deviation of the cycle path or footway. So the Edinburgh design is not this.
b) Essentially a "T-junction with minor arm" - something like this one (which is a 4-arm cross-roads with two minor arms). Here there is no continous footway - what is happening is the cycle path is crossing a (side) road but it (and a cyclist) has priority. So there is a space for one car to wait completely out of the way of the main road, the cycle path bends away from the main road to give waiting space for a car, there are give way marks on either side of the cycle path.
In the Edinburgh case we have neither fish nor fowl. I think they were going for a "continous footway" case but "because UK drivers" and "motorist priveledge" and "our traffic volumes" they've backed off (what if a car had to slow down - or worse, stop - on the main road and wait for a cyclist or pedestrian?!). They've ended up with something like Robert Weetman's classification of continuous footway designs "D3b – D3 design but with additional minor bending of the cycle track". However because of the additional give way markings for motor traffic (possibly legal requirement in UK?) this becomes more of a "fail" ("D5: Confused visual signals").
There's also a bit too much pedestrian space (holdover from an original "continuous footway" design)?
RE: Sydney sign - isn't it "walk your (oversized) bike backwards"?
I think it's "tame wild bikes in the Crocodile Dundee stylee"
Does whoever in Sydney council (presumably) that created that sign need to go back to primary school to re-learn English?
Dogs walk... as in "I'm going to walk my dog in the park."
Since when do bikes walk?
Shirley it should be "Wheel Your Bike"...
Jeremy Vine- giving cyclists a bad name since 2011
Riding a "penny farthing" isn't that objectionable, surely?
As long as the rider wears tweeds, brogues and a deerstalker, it is perfectly acceptable.
Incidently, when time trialling was introduced in the UK in the 1840s, it led to the decline of the stovepipe hat; sad as it was a splendid look.
Was that why Isambard Kingdom Brunel never designed a bicycle? If so is that an early example of the deleterious effect of cycle helmet propaganda?
(Brunel pictured next to an early bike lock).
A steam-powered road bike is an exciting idea.
Well I certainly produce a considerable steam by-product at this time of the year.
I feel he'd be bigger on e-bikes now (or at least compressed air ones). He was an early adopter of "smokeless propulsion" for rail use. (A bit too early for the technology).
You may be interested in this bit of tinkering: https://hackaday.com/2020/01/08/the-ruscombe-gentlemans-steam-bicycle/
Paging brooksby - that front triangle just needs wrapping in foil and silver tape...
Why should he give us a bad name, any more or less than another Jeremy, Clarkson, gives motorists a bad name?
In fairness Clarkson's name is taken in vain everytime a motorist does something stupid. So maybe not the best example
There's quite a substantial difference in that Clarkson actively encourages stupid and illegal driving, including running over cyclists, so it's natural that his name should be associated with stupid and illegal drivers, whereas as far as I'm aware Vine doesn't encourage, advocate or engage in stupid and illegal cycling.
well I could ask for you to show an example where JC has actually encouraged others to be stupid & drive illegally. But its not like he's filmed himself driving through a red light is it.
however it kind of backs up my point, even if you couldnt find an example, you still firmly believe it to be the case he does & you believe it influences other motorists bad behaviour on the roads. So Clarkson absolutely gives motorists a bad name, because its inexorably linked with him whenever bad motoring is discussed.
and him alone, not May, not Hammond, not any of the other ex Top Gear presenters.
"About 2.5km from the summit, we suddenly heard a car honking, signalling us to move aside."
Is this a road open to the public to use?
If so ... what legal right is there to do this, and if this was a BMW driver on Clapham High Street, there would be several posts castigating the driver [rightly so].
If its a roadway open to the public, training is no excuse for bad manners - especially when it's treating other cyclists like shit.
Similar to the 'slow down do we can get past you' shout I got from a group of club cyclists.
While I have all the sympathy for Jezza and his mad bike, also, that van was in that position for a good long haul up the cycle lane. I encounter this a lot in one of the Glasgow cycle lanes where the give way line is inside the cycle lane and everyone creeps forward for a better launch into the traffic. My preferred choice of action would be to slow down, and probably pass behind the van, while recording plate and indulging in a little "cyclist's Tourrettes". The situation was allowed to develop purely to make a point. Yes it shouldn't have happened, yes the Ocado driver is overwhelmingly at fault, but there's also a little of situation creation going on as well.
Acknowledging JV so always the suspicion of "content creation"... I guess the questions are a) "what is the cost of this behaviour (by drivers)" and b) "how do we make the situation change"?
a) is sometimes "not much - just delay to the cyclist". This is what most people seem to think - "just share the road! It's give and take!". BUT ... it's not give and take by everyone. Overwhelmingly it's "cyclists / other vulnerable road users give, motorists take". Even where as here priority is specifically marked.
An extra cost to cycling is imposed since this is always the case. For some, knowing the extra costs (of slow down, wait, speed back up) may make the difference between deciding to cycle a journey and not (and probably driving it). For many it may be yet another prompt saying "why cycle at all?"
Plus letting the behaviour of "just push on ahead" being a default by drivers can have more serious consequences.
b) You've said what you would do. That is fair and thanks for making the (often significant) extra effort to report people. (Noting again - this work is on the vulnerable road user... and it may be essentially impossible to do in many places e.g. good luck reporting in Scotland via the police).
But ... what does that actually do? Our police forces already have a policy of "very occasional road policing". We know what that does. What does adding an extra handful of actioned * reports per year achieve?
It's a genuine question - it's clear that official "education" is unlikely to make much impact (occasional adverts, a driving test once per lifetime). How to do "practical" education? Of course, via the medium of social meeja may not be the best way either!
* I believe the most common action after "did nothing" is "sent the registered keeper a polite note asking them not to do it again".
Pages