Delicious irony of bike lane blocked by...traffic warden; No Oscars here: Mathieu van der Poel stars in cringeworthy window shopping video; Josh Quigley to complete round the world cycle; Lefevere learns diplomacy; New e-cargo hire + more on the live blog

brooksby wrote:

Bristol City Council has removed the footway widening and pop-up cycle lane on the Triangle (just what we need as we go into Xmas and Omicron...).

The pop-up lane on Park Row so far remains in place (well, a single lonely wand does, which doesn't really stop the cars and vans parked along there).

That's a shame.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Triangle section as there were a couple of potholes/cracks along it IIRC. I often avoided using it if there were e-scooters ahead of me too (MGIF FTW!).

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's a shame.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Triangle section as there were a couple of potholes/cracks along it IIRC. I often avoided using it if there were e-scooters ahead of me too (MGIF FTW!).

I enjoyed having to slalom around the sunken manhole covers too

You'll be delighted to know that DfT is funding e-cargo bike schemes, administered by the Energy Saving Trust, for the purpose of increasing the number of cargo bikes on the road and encouraging modal shift from motor delivery vehicles.

Just like the roads that motorists drive on for free, that is funded by the taxpayer.

The DfT scheme means the roads will be less congested and the air quality improved, so when you're out on your bicycle, you can hear yourself more easily going "vroom-vroom" and wishing you were all grown up and in a car.

Don't know if this reported scheme is part of that funding, or whether it is a separate initiative.

From one taxpayer to another, you're welcome.

I think I had better pay that grant back for the solar panels.

Can't have public bodies sudsidising individuals ! Or businesses.

Garage at Large wrote:

Who is paying for that harebrained e-cargobike hire scheme in Manchester? Hope it's not taxpayers.

Assuming you're a tax payer I would imagine the answer is yes - and thank you for your contribution! I'd love to know I could rent a cargo bike when needed - even more so at this price. Indirectly this is likely funded by us tax-paying cyclists and pedestrians, just the same as you and me pay for roads, traffic lights, motorways, traffic wardens, traffic police, fund the NHS to deal with the fallout from crashes, chronic health conditions exacerbated by lack of exercise, people suffering from breathing in particulates...

Also it looks like this is designed for "journeys" with "a practical purpose" rather than just the selfish pleasure of a ride-about. What's not to like?

Since Manchester are doing quite a lot to make it more attractive for people to choose bikes as a general transport option I'd expect the pool of cyclists to increase - and these people might want to carry more than on their usual bike. I doubt the market is quite ready to provide these en mass so having a bit of "pump-priming" by the authorities is a good idea.

Don't forget the subsidies that went into the first cars, vans, buses, lorries (and they still do). Bikes are comparitively cheap!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Also it looks like this is designed for "journeys" with "a practical purpose" rather than just the selfish pleasure of a ride-about. What's not to like?

Ah, but the Twitter reviewer says bikes must be returned to the same place they were collected which, if I remember correctly, means it's #notajourney.

quiff wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Also it looks like this is designed for "journeys" with "a practical purpose" rather than just the selfish pleasure of a ride-about. What's not to like?

Ah, but the Twitter reviewer says bikes must be returned to the same place they were collected which, if I remember correctly, means it's #notajourney.

I stand corrected. Although I think it's OK if you have a different - practical - aim for each "leg" (unsure of terminology now...). Drive to work. Sit in front of screen. Drive home. Sit in front of screen...

I think that's right. I believe the textbook example originally given was driving to visit a national trust house  #isajourney

It looks like the future I've been wishing for for decades is starting to arrive!  Next step is to revive that scheme to send illegally parked cars in London to a pound in Yorkshire (Doncaster perhaps?).  Yes, a rosy future is still a long way away.  I bet that scheme in Manchester costs me less than throwing F35s into the Mediterranean Sea.

janusz0 wrote:

It looks like the future I've been wishing for for decades is starting to arrive!  Next step is to revive that scheme to send illegally parked cars in London to a pound in Yorkshire (Doncaster perhaps?).  Yes, a rosy future is still a long way away.  I bet that scheme in Manchester costs me less than throwing F35s into the Mediterranean Sea.

Ooh, cheeky Clarkson reference!

Kendalred wrote:

Well this is pretty depressing for the first day of Christmas month:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59477788 

That link's broken - try this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59477788

Thanks for the link. 

Lets hope for an adspot from the trio that will blow LTN out the water! 

with emphasis like the THINK BIKE! of yesteryear. Less of the "oi vunerables where's your fluro?"

Not one mention that the increase may have been due to the quite roads and drivers just "putting their foot down" for a bit of fun.

agreed! simple fix really!

In 2020, 89 people lost their lives on countryside roads To incompetent careless drivers - up by almost 50% from 60 fatalities in 2019.

Every death is avoidable and it should be avoided. This sort of article is however unhelpful.

Cycling was up by 100% on weekdays and 200% on weekends in 2020 compared to 2019:

Cycling has increased by 200% since lockdown, government reports | Cyclist

As such the relative number of casualties actually dropped significantly: somewhere between 25% and 50% reduction.

The news article should mention that, including the obvious cause of the relative drop: Less cars on the road due to the lockdowns.

Now we're getting somewhere.

MrWinterkorn wrote:

Every death is avoidable and it should be avoided. This sort of article is however unhelpful.

Cycling was up by 100% on weekdays and 200% on weekends in 2020 compared to 2019:

Cycling has increased by 200% since lockdown, government reports | Cyclist

As such the relative number of casualties actually dropped significantly: somewhere between 25% and 50% reduction.

The news article should mention that, including the obvious cause of the relative drop: Less cars on the road due to the lockdowns.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Looks like the BBC conveniently forgot to mention the relevant stats and yet again paints cycling as a dangerous activity.

That does rather feel like the intent of the article linked with this NFU Mutual backed by DfT/British Cyclings, Rural Road safety campaign.

As the latest cycling stats published by the DfT were on September 30th and dont match those numbers quoted in the article.

hawkinspeter wrote:

MrWinterkorn wrote:

Every death is avoidable and it should be avoided. This sort of article is however unhelpful.

Cycling was up by 100% on weekdays and 200% on weekends in 2020 compared to 2019:

Cycling has increased by 200% since lockdown, government reports | Cyclist

As such the relative number of casualties actually dropped significantly: somewhere between 25% and 50% reduction.

The news article should mention that, including the obvious cause of the relative drop: Less cars on the road due to the lockdowns.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Looks like the BBC conveniently forgot to mention the relevant stats and yet again paints cycling as a dangerous activity.

There's nothing accidental about it; the BBC is institutionally anti-cycling.

MrWinterkorn wrote:

Every death is avoidable and it should be avoided. This sort of article is however unhelpful.

Cycling was up by 100% on weekdays and 200% on weekends in 2020 compared to 2019:

Cycling has increased by 200% since lockdown, government reports | Cyclist

As such the relative number of casualties actually dropped significantly: somewhere between 25% and 50% reduction.

The news article should mention that, including the obvious cause of the relative drop: Less cars on the road due to the lockdowns.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Spot on. The BBC reporting is a travesty. It pretty much says that despite fewer drivers on the road, nevertheless more cyclists are managing to kill themselves.

Through sleight of statistics, the report gives the impression that the more we cycle the more we die; cycling is dangerous. Whereas the truth, as you show, is that the less people drive the fewer cyclists die, drivers are dangerous.

I wouldn't claim it was a travesty as such, it's simply repeating the claims that NFU Mutual have made for this Rural Roads campaign that launched today,hence their article.

Awavey wrote:

I wouldn't claim it was a travesty as such, it's simply repeating the claims that NFU Mutual have made for this Rural Roads campaign that launched today,hence their article.

I think the BBC has a duty to do better than simply act as a news aggregator.

I dont believe BBC News Online has been anything other than predominantly a news aggregator, and or promoter of beeb content, for sometime.

Sriracha wrote:

I think the BBC has a duty to do better than simply act as a news aggregator.

Reality Check is their brand for fact based journalism.

As if anything else was appropriate for Public Service Broadcasting..

Sriracha wrote:

MrWinterkorn wrote:

Every death is avoidable and it should be avoided. This sort of article is however unhelpful.

Cycling was up by 100% on weekdays and 200% on weekends in 2020 compared to 2019:

Cycling has increased by 200% since lockdown, government reports | Cyclist

As such the relative number of casualties actually dropped significantly: somewhere between 25% and 50% reduction.

The news article should mention that, including the obvious cause of the relative drop: Less cars on the road due to the lockdowns.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Spot on. The BBC reporting is a travesty. It pretty much says that despite fewer drivers on the road, nevertheless more cyclists are managing to kill themselves. Through sleight of statistics, the report gives the impression that the more we cycle the more we die; cycling is dangerous. Whereas the truth, as you show, is that the less people drive the fewer cyclists die, drivers are dangerous.

Wutt?? get outa here, with your fffacts, and , and , and, ....logic

The very idea....

I might suggest More or Less look at the report.

quiff wrote:

I might suggest More or Less look at the report.

  That would be the same More or Less which looked at cycle helmets would it?  The one time in the programme's history when they didn't look at any data, and only interviewed helmet proponents or neutrals, and the presenter made his views very clear, against the BBC's Editorial Guidelines.  Every time I hear their slogan on R4, something like "debunking the myths by using data" I have a quiet snigger, then a sob.

I complained to the BBC because of the helmet prog's blatant bias, to receive the usual brush off, and I took it as far as I could, but the response was always the same, just a bigger brush.  Definitely time the BBC's complaints process was retired and it was taken over by Ofcom. 

The BBC is institutionally anti-cyclist.

I must have missed that episode. Usually I enjoy MoL. Generally, I think BBC reporters should run any statistical copy by people who understand statistics. It seems cavalier to expect your average (is that the mean, median or mode?) hack with a soft degree in nonsense to understand statistics. When you think about the Professor Roy Meadows affair, it is shocking to what extent the establishment's confidence in their own ignorance is allowed to prevail.

eburtthebike wrote:

The BBC is institutionally anti-cyclist.

Aside from the logic of fair and balanced reporting, this is so bizarre as BBC HQ has been the consistent winner of the annual cycle to work competition due to more employees doing more cycling miles to work than other major corporations in London, e.g. GSK, Sky TV....

lonpfrb wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

The BBC is institutionally anti-cyclist.

Aside from the logic of fair and balanced reporting, this is so bizarre as BBC HQ has been the consistent winner of the annual cycle to work competition due to more employees doing more cycling miles to work than other major corporations in London, e.g. GSK, Sky TV....

That'll have been all the Top Gear production staff cycling in. I'm sure that's why they're relocating production to Bristol, the cycling capital of the south of England.