"Isn't 8.5w/kg novice level on Zwift?": Reaction to THAT virtual cheating story; Is this the safest cycling route in the UK?; British Cycling CEO merry-go-round continues; FDJ join the dark side; Vine goes Partridge + more on the live blog

my 25 year CTC badge

A worthy and undoubtedly warranted honour!

I know some on here will be defending the drivers actions because the cyclist had the temerity to:-

• Not move out the way.
• Tap the side of the vehicle.

However the second act just shows how close the massive 4x4 was to the cyclist. Surely that shows to Sussex the pass was too close.

the second act just shows how close the massive 4x4 was to the cyclist
I won't display them yet again, but the closeness of the massive Sainsbury's 44 tonner and the multiple Stagecoach double-deckers was such it was impossible to get closer without hitting me. I am always desperately concentrating on not allowing the bars to twist me under the bus- police response nil. As far as the police expletive - deleteds are concerned, if the whingeing cyclist hasn't even been seriously injured then he should think himself lucky and stop complaining. They think a close pass does not exist.

hirsute wrote:

This driver is clearly a danger to everyone using the roads, using their vehicle like a weapon."

Would the driver of R22GKR have reconsidered his aggression if he emerged from his vehicle to discover that the the cyclist owned a lethal weapon?

Though one can imagine that Sussex police would use it as an opportunity to ransack the cyclist's house within the hour.

I just wish he had a rear camerma; I'm just imagining someone like that other famous youtube video chasing after him, throwing a kick then going head over heals  

On a more serious note whilst I wouldn't have tapped on the truck my self (I probably wouln't have had the skill to and remain upright), it shouldn't have mattered it was still an aggressive/dangerous overtake by a driver who shouln't be on the road

Perfect storm there: Ford Ranger with nothing on the flatbed and suspiciously clean - most likely bought as a tax dodge (scandalous that it's allowed); personalised prat plate; Sussex driver. Each one a red flag, in combo a veritable Communist Party rally of 'em.

Pick-up truck close passes are about to become more regular . . . . . . . .

"This close pass @OpCrackdown decided wasn't close enough to be prosecuted or even a warning letter? This driver is clearly a danger to everyone using the roads, using their vehicle like a weapon."

I couldn't view this yesterday, but I've seen it now! Sussex Police must have been in training at a secret base somewhere in Lancashire. Extreme psycho driver in classic nutter vehicle, but no action. Even Lancashire Constabulary claimed to 'have had a word' with nutter BMW driver who threatened to 'fucking flatten' me and 'you will be knocked off!'

Totally agree. Justin cam is still funny no matter how many times you see it and the pair of them seem to be having a great time.

My non-cycling other half also enjoys it.

I've been enjoying Francis's channel for a couple of years now, and this is a great series. I'd have loved to join them for a day, but the closest their route passes to me is about 700 miles away.

Ha ! Watching the full vid and it's an E-bike .

Nice to see that the average is still similar to a pushbike.

eBikes (legal ones) are limited so they are not that fast. 26kph max with assist and then the motor cuts out. Their advantage is they carry more and can accelerate faster (depending on the motor) and they are 'easier' or less strenuous to cycle. 

Average was 18-19kph.

Chap runs an e-Cargo-Bike delivery company.

With this experience, personally I don't think the 'build it and they will use it' statement is true

Neither do I- you have to force people out of cars

wtjs wrote:

you have to force people out of cars

This is correct - but largely unsayable for officials and politicians.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

wtjs wrote:

you have to force people out of cars

This is correct - but largely unsayable for officials and politicians.

Does that not need to be framed as "making sure that travelling by cycle is *more* convenient"?

Some believe that the "C word" is off-limits as it turns people off and shuts down many conversations.  In general anything framing a change as a loss or restriction is out as well.

So we have the paradox where you're needing to advertise something which improves cycling and reduces space, speed or convenience for motor traffic without mentioning either bikes or cars!

So it's "find an angle involving kids".  Or "isn't it nice to go somewhere you can hear the birds and don't feel rushed".  Or "safer for old folks".  Something that most people will have some emotional connection to which is a positive.

This is the "difficult UK reality".  Although cycling is just beginning to come out from under cover - albeit often to disapproval.

It's a good "test case".

You've presented the "surface view" correctly.  The details are worth digging into though e.g. [1] and also Stevenage [2] [3].

A brief summary would be "they built it - but they built it easier and more pleasant for driving and advertised it as a place for drivers at a time when driving was a very aspirational thing...  And the drivers came.

Or as Carlton Reid has it - where driving is easy, Brits drive.

Luckily, cycles are not cars.  They have disadvantages but also advantages when compared to cars (quiet, space-efficient, as human-friendly as walking given good infra, quicker to get going...) If you pay attention to making it easy for people to benefit from these positive qualities of cycling and don't put everything second to driving, people cycle.  There are even examples of places successfully starting to reverse a very car-centric policy (like the UK's).

chrisonatrike wrote:

You've presented the "surface view" correctly.  The details are worth digging into though e.g. [1] and also Stevenage [2] [3].

A brief summary would be "they built it - but they built it easier and more pleasant for driving and advertised it as a place for drivers at a time when driving was a very aspirational thing...  And the drivers came.

Or as Carlton Reid has it - where driving is easy, Brits drive.

I haven't read all of your paper 1 because it's rubbish as well as being over 10 years old and out of date. 

Most Redways are in fact well away from the road network and give a completely different view of the city - his point seems to revolve around the fact that they are side by side with busy dual carriageways when they're really not. Some are certainly but not in the main. In addition, traffic has increased massively since 2010, it is significantly more pleasant to cycle around MK than to sit in a traffic jam, better scenery, no cars etc etc. At rush hour it is also much faster too. 

Outside of rush hour it is indeed easier to drive and the road network is very good. What we also need, as has been pointed out before, is a city wide educational programme to encourage use. We are getting there, Lime bikes and scooters make it a doddle to nip around, need more though. To my shame, both my daughter and step daughter refuse to even consider another mode of transport. My step-daughter used to get in her car to drive less than a mile to work - she has grown up watching me go out on the bike and commute in, I encourage her to think about alternatives but it's like talking to a wall. How can that behaviour be influenced?

That appraisal of MK Redways [1] is spot on in my opinion and still holds true today.

The key tenet, that it's so easy to drive in MK that nobody bothers cycling, despite segregated infrastructure (of debatable quality), is something I agree with.

Yes, you can cycle around MK largely on completely segregated infrastructure, but even at rush hour, you would still be quicker in a car. Add that to the redway network sometimes feeling a bit of a 'muggers alley', with many broken glass strewn underpasses and paths that are secluded. It's not a great proposition for many people.

The multiple level changes, give-ways at road crossings, sharp 90 degree unsighted bends and cycle paths that disappear as soon as you reach the shopping centre, don't make it a brilliant cycling experience - even when you know where you are going, which can be difficult as it's not well signposted.

HoarseMann wrote:

Yes, you can cycle around MK largely on completely segregated infrastructure, but even at rush hour, you would still be quicker in a car. Add that to the redway network sometimes feeling a bit of a 'muggers alley', with many broken glass strewn underpasses and paths that are secluded. It's not a great proposition for many people.

The multiple level changes, give-ways at road crossings, sharp 90 degree unsighted bends and cycle paths that disappear as soon as you reach the shopping centre, don't make it a brilliant cycling experience - even when you know where you are going, which can be difficult as it's not well signposted.

At rush hour that statement isn't true - In my case it was quicker to cycle from the station 2.5 miles home. In my step daughter's example it would have taken her longer to get out of the car park. 

I agree that some of the intersections with roads are extremly annoying and that overall they are poorly maintained. I'm certainly not saying it's perfect but it's a whole lot better than most and it's already built and available. 

Maybe - if more people were encouraged to use it the local council would improve things. 

Hmm... "encourage" how though?  All we've heard from government / local authorities for decades (when they mention it) is that they're all for "encouraging" cycling.  Edinburgh regularly puts up notice boards and adverts "encouraging" people all over the place.  I think we can surmise that kind of "encouragement" is minimally effective.  Or at least "not sufficient" without something else.

Putting in a fairly small amount of fairly minimal / tame "protection" for both cycling and walking during the Covid period though?  That didn't create "bike boom" but it very definitely got people's attention.  Unfortunately often negative - but it meant that a conversation started.  Notice was served if you like - "we cannot go on as before - we will be changing the roads and this time some of them will get smaller".

Stick is needed as well as carrot (but the carrot should be bigger!)

A thought experiment: if the redways were a bit wider (so you could fit tiny cars on them) and the roads were much narrower (but still wide enough to easily cycle two-abreast in either direction) AND there were cycle parking all over the place (if there isn't already) AND the cars had to give way to cyclists in most places ... would the same number of people drive into the centre of MK?  If they had to use the redways in their cars?  This ignores the "needing to go up and down" factor the cyclists experience of course so it's still better for the cars in that respect!  I'm sure some clearly would because they're going further by car.  But my bet is "lots more people would cycle".  What's yours?

Yes, that was more of a general statement, that overall, the traffic volumes in MK mean that driving at rush hour is still quicker than cycling. In your specific cases, obviously not!

The grid network generally allows for excellent dispersal of motorised traffic jams, but there are a few 'pinch points' where a barrier has to be traversed and traffic is funnelled into a few crossing points - particularly trying to cross the M1 to the north or the A5 to the south.

The disused railway line to the north of the town city, that links Newport Pagnall to Wolverton is particularly good for cycling, as can be the route following the canal.

As for new infrastructure - the snazzy new bridge at Campbell Wharf is quite nice (still shared use though!)... https://www.knightarchitects.co.uk/bridges/campbell-wharf-bridge